Huge developments regarding abortion, the case before the Supreme Court that just was heard yesterday.
I'm going to give you my own take.
I'm going to be joined by Danielle D'Souza-Gill.
We're going to go through the prospects for not just upholding the Mississippi law, but also of overturning Roe v.
Wade. Fauci says that we should listen to the science and that he's the apostle of science.
I want to talk a little bit in the COVID context of what science really tells us.
Twitter has a strange new policy, and I'm going to examine whether it's aimed at promoting left-wing extremism.
And Andy Ngo is going to join me to talk about his ongoing battles with Antifa and why he continues to do such thankless work.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The full horror of abortion was before the Supreme Court yesterday.
And interestingly faced with it, the leftists standing before the court, I'm talking about Elizabeth Prolegard, the Solicitor General speaking for the Biden administration.
Also, the woman, Julie Reicherman, I believe her name is, representing the abortion clinics.
They flinched. They didn't want to talk about abortion.
And I can see why, because it's really not a pretty thing to want to kill your kid.
And this is really what abortion is all about in the simplest terms.
This is a horror that's been recognized for centuries throughout the West.
I've talked on the podcast about Macbeth.
Let me read a line that Shakespeare put into the mouth of Lady Macbeth, really to show the villainy of her mind.
Now, she's trying to talk to Macbeth to bully him into murdering King Duncan.
And she says this, I have suckled a baby, and I know how sweet it is to love the baby at my breast.
But even as the baby was smiling up at me, I would have plucked my nipple out of its mouth and smashed its brains out against the wall if I had sworn to do that the same way you have sworn to do this.
So she's like, I am more resolute than you are to the point that I would kill my own kid.
And for Shakespeare, there's really no crime worse than this.
And this is abortion.
In some ways, I would concede abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution.
If you're going to have a sexual revolution, you're going to have unwanted pregnancies.
And so, from the left's point of view, this is a price worth paying.
If you have unwanted pregnancies, you should be able to get rid of the kids that you made.
Now, I was kind of, you know, way chuckling, but also poignantly watching these women standing in front of the court and they were like popping abortion pills left and right.
And I guess their point is, you know, we don't want to reproduce.
Yeah. Looking at them, I was like, yeah, I don't want you to reproduce either.
But nevertheless, this was a grim and disgusting sight.
This would almost be like the gas chamber lobby out there.
We gotta have gas chambers.
We gotta have gas chambers.
There's a social value in gas chambers.
Now... Clarence Thomas got to the heart of the matter very succinctly with this customary clarity where he said, hey, where is this abortion right in the Constitution?
I'm quoting Clarence Thomas.
If we're talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about.
If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we're talking about because it's written.
It's there. Where specifically is the right here that we're talking about?
And of course, the pro-choicers were like, you know, emitting this squid-like cloud of obfuscation.
Well, it's the right to liberty!
And Thomas's point is that there is no enumerated, specified right to abortion in the Constitution.
End of story. Now, the left knows that they've got a problem here.
They're defending a fictional right.
At one point, Sotomayor tried to save the day by jumping in and saying something like, well, there are lots of rights that aren't in the Constitution.
And the point is, maybe there are, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to enforce them.
The Supreme Court's job is to enforce the Constitution as the highest law, not to make up rights that aren't in the Constitution, kind of read them into the Constitution.
I mean, this would be interpretive malpractice.
Now, the pro-choice side, kind of recognizing the problem that they have, decided to defend abortion not really by defending the act, not by defending its necessity, but rather by defending the idea of precedent.
Precedent in Latin is stare decisis, the idea that we should sort of leave things as they are.
And the argument for precedent, I have to say, is kind of a conservative one.
Many years ago, I heard a conservative kind of vehemently defend the idea that institutions, even if you don't know their underlying rationale, should not be questioned.
And his argument was that if an institution has survived for a long time, in his case, he meant hundreds of years, there must be some underlying rationale for it, even if that rationale is not apparent, and therefore an institution purely on the view of its durability deserves a measure of respect.
And I was standing there in the company of a professor of mine, and the professor destroyed this argument in one sentence by saying, what about anti-Semitism?
Anti-Semitism is a tradition.
It's been around for a long time.
Does it deserve presumptive respect?
So the point being here that there are good and bad traditions.
And so precedent never becomes an argument that stands all by itself.
This was a point, by the way, that justice existed.
Kavanaugh made is he basically said, let me recite to you a series of precedents, the most famous.
He mentioned, you know, Baker versus Carr, which has set the stage for one man, one vote.
He mentioned Miranda versus Arizona, which overturned the previous Supreme Court decision, basically said, listen, you have to give a Miranda warning.
You have to let people know they have a right to remain silent.
they have a right to have an attorney present when it's a criminal case. And most famously, he mentioned Plessy versus Ferguson. This was the precedent that upheld segregation for, what, 70 years, 60 years before it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.
And Kavanaugh quite simply said, well, listen, if a precedent is wrong, as we recognize Plessy to be wrong, why would you keep it intact? And this was really a problem for the pro-choice side of it.
They basically tried to say that precedents deserve a kind of automatic deference that needs to be, quote, new information to overturn a precedent.
And of course, in the Plessy case, there was no new information.
Now, interestingly, in the abortion case, which we're talking about here...
There is new information.
First of all, the point of viability has moved forward.
Second of all, there are massive advances in technology that allow us to observe the fetus inside the womb to recognize that even though it is by a cord attached to the mother, it is nevertheless a distinct human being.
If it's part of the mother, then what are you saying?
You've got a mother that has basically, what, 20 toes and four eyes and four ears?
No, the fetus has its own ears and has its own eyes, its own organs, its own brain, its own heartbeat.
So, this is, in fact, if not new information, at least information that is now present with a sort of clarity that wasn't there before.
Even the issue of viability has completely changed.
Well, that's not changed whether it's before or after viability.
If the woman finds the kid to be an inconvenience, I don't want to have it, I want nothing to do with it, then you want nothing to do with it when it's two months in the womb and you want nothing to do with it when it's eight months in the womb.
Viability makes no difference at all.
This was actually a fascinating exercise.
In watching how the center of gravity in the Supreme Court has shifted.
In fact, Roberts is no longer the swing vote.
Roberts appears to be in the position where he wants to uphold the Mississippi law but at the same time maybe preserve Roe intact.
But what's interesting is that the other five conservatives seem to have no interest in this, quote, compromise.
This, quote, compromise position, I think, may not end up being where the court goes with this.
And what I hope the court does, I'm going to have my daughter, Danielle D'Souza-Gilda, talk about this in the next segment to kind of analyze what happened in this hearing further.
But what I hope the court decides to do is not merely to uphold the Mississippi law, but simultaneously to terminate Roe v.
Wade. Guys, if you haven't yet read Mike Lindell's Supreme Court complaint, you gotta do it.
Go to his website, frankspeech.com.
This is a guy who has been canceled all over the place for speaking out about the 2020 election.
As a result, he's lost his box stores, he's lost his shopping channels, all part of this vicious cancel culture.
Well, Mike Lindell has a solution to that.
He's gonna take the savings that would normally go to the box stores, go to the channels, And pass it directly on 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 wonderful pillows 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. The queen size pillows regularly $79.98, now $24.98.
King size normally $89.98, now $29.98.
And MyPillow isn't just pillows.
Mike Lindell has over 150 products, from sleepwear to robes to my new beds.
So go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh to take advantage of these special offers, both on the pillows and on 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.
Guys, I've been giving you my take on this Supreme Court hearing on abortion, but now I want to bring on a real expert, a real authority on the subject, my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, author of, I think, the most important book on abortion published in recent years.
It's called The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America.
By the way, she's also the host of Counterculture with Danielle D'Souza Gill.
This is on Epoch TV. Danielle, great to have you on the show.
Oh my gosh, you spent a good bit of yesterday watching and listening to this hearing from start to finish.
Let me just start by getting your immediate sort of take or impression of what you saw and heard.
I thought that it was a really interesting hearing.
I think it was really interesting hearing the questions asked of both sides, asked of Stewart and the pro-choice woman as well.
So I think that we really got kind of just a see into what the justices were thinking in their questions.
Now, if I'm looking at the articles about the hearing and the aftermath, the consensus, there's a kind of a consistent message.
Supreme Court appears open to upholding Mississippi abortion restriction, but at the same time, the articles go...
We're not sure what the Supreme Court is going to decide about Roe versus Wade itself.
What do you think, just given what you heard, if you had to sort of make a bet, do you think the Supreme Court is going to uphold Mississippi but at the same time sustain Roe, or do you think that Mississippi is going to go up and Roe is going to go down?
Well, what I think I heard from some of the justices and what they were saying is there was kind of one school of thought, which is what Kavanaugh talked about, which was overturning Roe, sending it back to the states.
He talked about how we should not make this a decision that is up to the Supreme Court, but make it up to people since this is such a fraught issue and a divided issue.
And we had others, I think Roberts, who indicated that 15 weeks is not that different from viability.
So perhaps his line of thinking is something like, well, maybe 15 weeks would be kind of the new marker compared to viability since they're so similar in his mind.
So I think there might be some who want to have a new point at which abortion is limited, whereas someone like Kavanaugh might want to send it back to the States.
I think, you know, Kagan and Sotomayor and perhaps Breyer, of course, will be on the pro-choice side of this decision, but I'm not sure that all of the conservative justices will be in agreement.
I mean, let's start with the, quote, compromise position, which is the Roberts position.
I mean, that alone would be a huge win because essentially it would mean, even if you don't formally overturn Roe, that Roe is effectively dead.
Why? Because after all, Roe set viability, which is what, 22, 23 weeks?
And by and large, Roe in practice has meant no meaningful restrictions on abortion in the full nine months.
So that at the very least, if the Roberts position prevails, that compromise position, so to speak, would still mean that Roe, as it has been interpreted for 50 years, is gone, and that states would now be free to impose abortion restrictions 15 weeks and going forward,
right? Well, I think that another justice would have to join them, because if we count Kagan, Sotomayor Breyer, and then Roberts, let's say, He is on the side of not overturning Roe, then we still need one more.
And I don't think Alito or Kavanaugh seemed like that in any way.
I think Alito referred to the Plessy versus Ferguson case, which was overturned in the past without new information as he talked about.
And so sometimes there's a decision that has to be thrown in the ash heap of history and we have to overturn it because it was initially wrong.
And he kind of compared this to that.
And so I think then if we look at the newer conservative justices like Amy Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, they all seem to be very much on the side that was against Roe v.
Wade, at least it seemed from their questions.
So I'm hopeful that Roe v.
Wade will be overturned.
You've got all these so-called safe haven laws, which allow, in a sense, parents to abrogate their parental responsibility.
You have, obviously, not only adoption, but long lines of people waiting to adopt.
Of course, we know Amy Coney Barrett has herself adopted into her own family.
And so she goes, well, what is the real difficulty here, except for saying the, what, the inconvenience of having to give birth?
All of that seemed to me, it unnerved the left to hear this coming from Amy Coney Barrett.
But I think Amy Coney Barrett was sort of playing her hand, don't you?
I do. I think each of the justices brought up different really good points that were all really relevant to the conversation.
And so she focused, I think, on that, those safe haven laws.
And we saw some of the other justices focus on other things that are very important.
Even Clarence Thomas mentioned how there could be, in another case, a woman who is perhaps Abusing drugs, things like that.
And so the child in the womb is sort of at her, you know, dispense as far as being harmed by this.
And so what is the state's interest in protecting that child?
So right now, under Roe v.
Wade, the state doesn't have an interest really before viability in protecting the child.
And so I think what he was getting at is that clearly, the state does have an interest in protecting the child in the womb.
When we come back, I want to probe this some more with Danielle D'Souza Gill.
We're going to talk now about what the liberals had to say in this hearing.
We'll be right back. I don't know if you like broccoli or spinach.
I'm not a huge fan.
In fact, I gotta say when it comes to vegetables, there's just a few that I do like.
And same with fruits.
I mean, I'm not a fan of apples, for example.
Now, I know that these things are good for me.
I know that I should be eating, you know, a lot of fruits, a lot of vegetables every single day.
But see, most people don't.
A, you don't like them, and B, it's kind of a pain to produce all this produce every single day.
So there's a solution I want to propose to you.
It's called balance of nature.
If you take balance of nature, you're going to give your body all the nutrients it needs to increase your cells' vitality.
So 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, but here's how we do it.
This way, in six small capsules.
Boom! They're no trouble swallowing.
Always fresh. Nothing artificial.
They smell great. And then Debbie also takes this, the fiber and spice.
I was finally convinced to take it.
We are really liking it.
Invest in your health. Invest in your life.
Join me. Experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself for years to come.
For a limited time, all new preferred customers are going to 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'm back with Daniel D'Souza Gill, author of The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America, a book that you should get if you want to learn about this very important issue.
We're talking about the Supreme Court hearing yesterday.
Daniel, I was kind of laughing when we were talking about this because you were actually saying that you enjoyed the legal give and take of the debate, but in some ways you were dealing with lawyers who didn't know all that much about the abortion issue itself.
Let's start by talking a little bit about Scott Stewart, the Mississippi Solicitor General, arguing, you may say, on the pro-life side.
Give me a sense of what he was like and perhaps how he contrasts with Julie Reichelman, who was arguing on behalf of the clinic, or Elizabeth Proligar, representing the Biden administration, the U.S. Solicitor General.
What was the difference in strategy or tone between the two sides?
I think Stuart seemed like he wasn't exactly sure of things.
He seemed a lot more deferential to the court, but also when he was asked questions sometimes, he would not exactly know what to say.
One example is when he was asked about whether or not this is a religious argument, are there secular people?
He was asked directly who are pro-life, and he didn't name anyone in response to that.
That's not to say that he didn't do a good job in especially the legal side of things, I think he was definitely less of an abortion aficionado when it comes to the inter-workings of this debate, whereas the woman on the other side, she was very much speaking as though, kind of in Jen Psaki's style, as though everything she was saying was fact, everything she was saying was true.
She talked down to the justices much more, so correcting them even at times.
And so I think that their strategy was quite different.
I mean, you said at one point, not only in the context of what you just mentioned, but also in the context of the issue of fetal pain, which is an issue that came up in the Soto Mayor, part of the conversation that, I mean, this is stuff that you've been researching now for well over a year.
You've been talking about it.
There are studies that you could be cited to talk about all this.
Now, this was not at the lawyer's disposal, but you're saying this evidence was at hand.
It's almost like you felt like, you know, I'd like to run in there and kind of make a contribution to this debate.
Talk a little bit about the fact that very often in a legal case, factual questions and academic questions arise that fall outside the legal orbit, but that are right up your alley.
Exactly. I think that if you're going to be the person who goes before the Supreme Court on this topic, it's of course important that you are one of the best lawyers, which I'm sure he is, but also to be really knowledgeable about the actual debate itself, because a lot of questions that he was asked weren't necessarily legal questions about precedent or about things like that.
But as you mentioned with Sotomayor, he was asked questions like, well, what about fetal pain?
And what about even, he was even asked what would happen to the state of the court if this was overturned?
How would this be viewed?
Would this be seen as political?
So obviously these are questions that people discuss outside of the realm of So it wasn't just a discussion of stare decisis or things like that, but really questions about, well, what happens to the woman if she's in this situation?
And these other questions more about, I guess, changing the hearts and minds of the justices in a practical sense, not based on the Constitution.
If somebody had asked you in that direct context, is abortion a religious issue?
Yes or no? What would you have answered?
I would have answered no because I think that actually if someone on the left is arguing that it is, they're basically saying that people who are not religious cannot be good people.
So I would say that people who are not religious of course can be good people because we all have the ability to have We all have empathy for others.
We all have a conscience.
Assuming that we don't have sociopathic tendencies, we can all empathize with the child in the womb.
So to say that only religious people can do this, I think, is in a way giving too much credit, perhaps, to those who are religious.
And also, I would point to the atheist Christopher Hitchens, who was one of the most prominent atheists.
Who was actually pro-life, and he was very much in favor of that.
As a materialist, he discussed how he believed in pure annihilation, which means that after death, there is nothing else.
That is the end.
And since he believed this is our only life to live, it is really the worst crime of all to take away that one life.
And oddly enough, if you are religious and believe in afterlife, you might have a consolation of thinking these children go somewhere after death, but he did not have that consolation.
You know, one thing I found really striking, and we'll close on this, is the fact that the left in this case didn't try to explicitly defend abortion.
They were defending the idea of respecting precedent.
Sotomayor's main argument was that if the court overturns Roe, it, quote, won't survive the stench of being thought of as political.
So let me ask you, what about this idea that Somehow, to overturn Roe is political, but to keep Roe the way it is, is, quote, not political, and therefore preserves the credibility of the court itself.
Yes, that's one thing I would have said if I were Stuart as well, which is that she said, how can the court survive if we overturn this?
Well, I would say, how can the court survive if we don't overturn this?
Because right now, we've been living under Roe v.
Wade for 50 years and have experienced the harm, the pain, the 61 million deaths of these children.
We've seen so many people horrified from abortion.
So we've gotten to see what has been the effect of this.
Has it been something that's If legal and rare, as it was explained 50 years ago, or has it become something that's really been a bane on our society?
And so I think that her saying that made it almost like a threat, as if this is overturned.
The left is no longer going to support the court.
The left will move to packing the court.
And then I would say, well, why do you never assume that of the other side?
Why do you never assume that of those of us who believe that you cannot kill an innocent baby?
And I actually remember hearing the pro-choice lawyer Say the word baby.
She referred to it as a baby.
And so I think that we all know this is a baby.
So why that would outrage only the left, but in being in this situation would not outrage those of us who are pro-life, I think is an assumption that is rooted in the fact that the left oftentimes acts like, you know, these gangsterized politicians, whereas we often do not, even though this is an issue that is so dire.
Terrific, Danielle. Let's have you back to talk a little bit more about what will happen post-Roe, if there is, in fact, an overturning of Roe, what the pro-life movement needs to do.
Thanks very much for coming on.
We'll have more of this down the road.
Thank you. The philosopher Schopenhauer says that if you have the smallest pain...
Or ache. It's going to completely disrupt you.
It's going to ruin your day.
You're going to never be able to concentrate on what you're doing until you take care of it.
And yet, these aches and pains come to us all, whether from normal wear and tear of time or from injury.
So I've got an answer for you.
In fact, I've got a 100% drug-free solution.
It's called Relief Factor.
Now, the genius of Relief Factor is it supports your body's fight against inflammation.
And inflammation is the source of aches and pains.
So the vast majority of people who try Relief Factor, they order more and more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Debbie is actually a happy customer.
She's been suffering from frozen shoulder for a couple of years.
So she said, look, let me give it a try.
She found, boom, it works amazingly well.
The pain went away. And she also knows if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain is gonna come right back.
So Debbie's made a vow. I'm not gonna be without relief factor again.
I like being able to lift my arm.
I like to exercise. This is super important to me.
Relief factor is a tool that she needs.
She's glad she's got it.
You too can benefit. Try it.
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. Dr.
Fauci likes to present himself as the very apostle, the very oracle of science itself.
Here is Fauci basically giving his I am science speech.
Listen. But they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
That's dangerous. To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me.
I represent science.
Wow. I don't even think, as I said yesterday, I don't even think Einstein would take that position.
But I want to talk about the science of the new variant, the Omicron variant.
And I want to do it by...
I'm appealing to a woman named Angelique Coetzee.
She is the chairman, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association.
She is a doctor of 33 years standing.
She is a leading authority on this subject.
In fact, she is the discoverer and the publicist of the Omicron variant.
She's the one who found these cases.
She's the one who reported them.
They were picked up in the British press and they went worldwide So this is someone who knows what she's talking about and has actually seen the cases up close.
So when we talk about science, you have Fauci, a kind of bureaucrat sitting in Washington, pronouncing in a kind of oracular manner about this and that and making these policy pronouncements.
Well, I'd like to see this. And yeah, maybe next Christmas you can do that.
Now, it's important to realize that science is an ongoing investigative process.
Science is not something that just declares conclusions.
Even the conclusions of science, even subtle conclusions, are open to revision, clarification, and so on.
It precedes, science does, by empirical observation.
Fauci is not in a position to make those direct observations.
The observations lead to scientific hypotheses.
The hypotheses are then tested by further experience, by data.
And then the data is then used to make policy conclusions, which come at the end of this process.
And the policy conclusions then are based upon the best available knowledge and should be modified as new knowledge becomes available.
This is actually the way things work.
Now let's look at what we know and don't know about the Omicron variant.
We do know At least from early indications, it appears to be more contagious.
But it also appears, and we'll see that Dr.
Coetzee here affirms this, that it's a lot less severe than the Delta variant.
And the global panic over the Omicron variant, stopping travel not just from South Africa, all these other African countries, we'll hear Dr.
Coetzee in a moment say that this is preposterous, this is ridiculous, this is unjustified.
One interesting point of data, the Omicron variant has been present in Africa for at least two months.
And yet, COVID deaths in Africa have continued to decline.
Africa actually has a smaller problem right now than Europe.
So it's funny that Europe is freaking out over what's going on in Africa.
Let me read from an op-ed.
That Dr. Coetzee just published.
She goes, She goes, She goes on to say, And she says, I have been stunned at the response in the West to this variant.
And now the key sentence, quote, No one here in South Africa is known to have been hospitalized with the Omicron variant, nor is anyone here believed to have fallen seriously ill with it.
Wow. There's a global freakout, even though there's not a single hospitalization, let alone a single death.
She continues, the simple truth is we don't know yet anywhere near enough about Omicron to make such judgments or impose such policies.
She says, take my first Omicron case, the young man I mentioned earlier.
It didn't occur to him that he had COVID. He thought he had had too much sun after working outside.
And then she basically says, only yesterday I saw five more patients who tested positive for the new variant.
They all had a very mild illness.
She says, quote, we have been able to treat these patients conservatively at home.
Most of them are seeing very, very mild symptoms.
None of them so far have admitted any of these patients to surgeries.
The most predominant clinical complaint is, quote, severe fatigue for one or two days and with it, headache, body aches, and pain.
So, this is the science of Omicron.
And by science, what I mean is, this is the empirical reality of what we know so far.
So, what strikes me about Fauci, and this is the most unnerving thing about this guy, is he is willing to jump to conclusions in the absence of apparent facts.
He is willing to sort of run off at the mouth and And, you know, the other day I saw a picture of him, it was on the cover of InStyle magazine, and he's looking sort of like Pierce Brosnan.
I think the celebrity has gone to his head.
He's never been, he's been more of a bureaucrat for many, many years now, but he's a bureaucrat who enjoys the limelight.
And so his declaration, I am science, appears to be nothing more than the pretensions of a hollow man who feels better to be sitting in front of the camera than to be peering down the lens of a microscope.
Want to get a really cool Christmas present for your loved one?
Well, how about giving them a new iPhone?
That's right. Pure Talk has iPhone 12 starting at just $479 through the end of the year.
And yes, they have the 13s too.
I switched to Pure Talk and I'm getting great nationwide 5G coverage.
Yes, it's the same coverage as the big guys and you can too.
The average family saves over $800 a year.
Now that's just smart. I wouldn't tell you to use a service I'm not completely happy with.
Go ahead, make the switch with PureTalk's 30-day risk-free guarantee.
You got nothing to lose.
Unlimited talk, text, and 6 gigs of data.
It's just $30 a month.
And like I said, the iPhone 12, like mine, take a look, is just $479.
Go to puretalk.com, shop for the plan and phone that's right for you, then enter promo code SAVEHALF. You'll get 50% off your first month, and you'll save on a new phone.
That's puretalk.com, promo code SAVEHALF. Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Some restrictions apply. See site for details.
I want to talk about...
Twitter and about Rumble.
First, great development at Rumble.
This is the video channel that's an alternative to YouTube.
In fact, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Now, I got on Rumble very early on.
And in fact, as of now, I am one of the top three or four channels on Rumble.
I'd love you to follow me on Rumble.
If you don't already set up your Rumble account, please follow my channel.
And Debbie and I have also become early investors in Rumble because we want to encourage and promote these free speech platforms.
It just turned out that Rumble has now made a deal with a so-called SPAC. A SPAC is a kind of mechanism for taking a company public.
And the good news about this is it's going to be a giant infusion of cash into Rumble.
Chris Pavlovsky, the founder of Rumble, kind of a friend of ours, has actually now become very rich.
And I sent him a funny note.
This morning basically saying, Chris, you are now in the same league as people like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg.
But my wife saw a photo of you and she thinks you're a pretty handsome guy.
But that will not remain the case if you start growing a long beard, you stop bathing, you start dressing like a homeless guy.
So Chris replied with the laugh emojis.
So this is great news, guys, because we've talked about the importance of alternative platforms.
And right now, this is the best one we have by far.
You have channels like Getter, which have come out the gate really strong.
Getter has, what, three, three and a half million people on it.
There's Parler. But Rumble is in a league of its own.
Rumble has grown to something like 40 million users now.
So this is huge, and it's going to get a lot bigger.
I think the Rumble model, which is essentially we're open to the level We're open to the right.
We're open to all sides.
No censorship. If it's legal, you can say it.
Wow, this is a model that I think is going to make Rumble in the long term bigger than YouTube.
So, very good news from Rumble.
Now, from Twitter, I can't say the same, because Parag Agarwal, the new guy who's taken over Jack Dorsey's slot at Twitter, has just announced, literally the day after he's appointed, a new policy.
The policy is that, basically, Twitter is now going to ban the sharing of images or videos of private individuals without their consent.
Now, Twitter says that there's a reason to do this.
They're trying to prevent doxing.
They don't want it to be, quote, a tool to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals.
And then Twitter makes this remarkable and I think ridiculous statement.
The misuse of private media can affect everyone but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities.
Wait. They're basically saying that you take two private individuals, one is a white guy, the other is, let's say, a black guy or a Latino guy.
I mean, why would it be the case that one guy has, you know, it's okay to release this guy's name, but that guy can have a disproportionate effect on him.
It's very unclear to see why.
And when they start talking about dissidents and activists, now they're getting to the heart of the matter because I think that what Twitter is trying to do is to prevent people like Drew Hernandez from recording Antifa guys breaking windows.
You can't publish their images without their consent.
Think about what Project Veritas does.
They go undercover.
They discover all this damning information.
So if they are required to get the consent of the person that they're recording, then obviously Project Veritas would not be able to do that.
Think about the videos released on Revolver News of this guy Ray Epps standing in front of the Capitol yelling at people, let's go in the Capitol, let's take the Capitol.
This is on January 5th.
And the question, of course, is that was Ray Epps put up to do that by the FBI? Remember, here's a guy who has never been arrested, never been apprehended in this context, is not charged with anything.
So again, do you have to get the permission of Ray Epps before you can show him doing what he's doing?
So what Twitter is doing here is, on the one hand, they're presenting this policy as benign.
Look, in theory, we would say we should own our own images.
We should, by and large, especially if we're not public figures, but in the private domain, we are the owners of our own likeness.
You can almost say that your own likeness is your own IP address, if you will.
And so if Twitter were, in a kind of politically neutral way, merely interested in protecting privacy, That would be one thing.
But it's very clear from Twitter's own rhetoric, from their own signaling, if you will, that this is an ideologically compromised platform.
We may have to make our peace with it.
I'm on Twitter. I have no intention of getting off Twitter anytime soon.
But I'm also assiduously cultivating other platforms.
And of course, I don't put my money in Twitter.
I do put my money in other platforms because I want to help to encourage them and to build them up.
So So, disturbing developments at Twitter.
With Parag Agarwal, I talked yesterday about an interview with him and what he said.
It was a little unclear from that where he stood, but if this act, this first policy is any indication, then we return to the biblical adage, by their fruits ye shall know them.
More of this, and it'll be clear that the departure of Jack Dorsey, himself a censor, nevertheless puts us in even greater danger of more aggressive Censorship.
And that this Indian-American replacement for Dorsey, far from being an improvement, is actually taking things even further down in a bad direction.
Some days I'm just sick of the news.
Every day it's the left trying to make another money grab, spying on our accounts, taxing our unrealized gains.
There's no shortage to their creativity when it comes to taking your hard-earned money to fund their expensive, radical, far-reaching agenda.
Let me make something really clear.
You're making a real mistake if you're not diversifying your savings.
Hold gold in a tax-sheltered account or just hold gold at your home.
In your safe, I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
It's the only company I trust and recommend.
When you buy gold from Birch Gold by December 23rd, they'll send you free gold for every $10,000 you purchase.
First time they've ever offered free gold.
With thousands of satisfied customers and A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you can trust Perch Gold to protect your savings.
So go ahead, text Dinesh to 484848 to claim eligibility for their free gold with purchase offer by December 23rd.
Again, text Dinesh to 484848 and protect your savings today.
I'm really happy to welcome back to the podcast Andy Ngo.
Andy Ngo doesn't need a lot of introduction.
He's known for his reporting on Antifa.
He's editor-at-large at The Post Millennial.
He's written for a bunch of other publications, The New York Post and Newsweek.
His book, Unmasked, Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, a New York Times bestseller.
Welcome, Andy. Great to see you.
Debbie and I were thrilled to see you.
Just, gosh, a few weeks ago, I guess it was, at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend in Florida.
You received an award for your bravery, and you gave a short speech in which you talked a little bit about What motivates you to do the kind of, you know, dangerous work that you do?
And you talked a little bit about your family.
I thought it'd be very nice for you to share some of that with our audience to understand where Andy Ngo is sort of coming from.
Well, first, thank you so much for inviting me on, Dinesh.
I thought it would be good for me to speak about my family since it was a thank you speech.
And You know, I think with your own experience being an immigrant to the United States and seeing that you wanted to become a part of the society which you have and you contributed so much to the American society.
These are some of the themes I hit on.
So my family background, my parents were refugees from Vietnam.
They had grown up during the Vietnamese-American War.
They were from the former South Vietnam, so that was the part of the country that was allied with the United States, the anti-communist government, and that government lost.
And after the fall of Saigon, Hundreds of thousands were sent to prison camps where they had to work under hard labor to atone for their sins against, essentially, socialism.
And they were re-indoctrinated and subjected to Horrible, horrific conditions.
So my parents experienced that, and they were part of the very large diaspora who left by boat.
Many, many perished at sea, unfortunately, trying to reach these refugee camps in neighboring countries.
And the United States, among some other countries, Graciously welcomed Vietnamese refugees for decades and welcomed us to become equal citizens and the children of these first generation immigrants have gone on to do very well.
I'm part of that generation and I thought it was important to share that just because many of the immigrants that we see, the second generation Americans in America who are featured on Television or public figures in some way usually express a hatred of the country that their families adopted.
And I think it's put in the minds of, understandably, of many that maybe immigrants are ungrateful or they produce people who are resentful and hateful to their host country.
And I want to share that there are those like you and those like my parents and many others who are thankful for this country because we know that we have inherited our legacy of freedom and liberty and that's not a given.
Andy, it'd be very easy for you to say, and in fact, many people have said, in effect, look, I come with this background of trauma in my family, and what they wanted for me is for me to be free of all that, for me to live, or you may say a politics-free life in America to achieve success, to maybe start a band or to be an innovator of a new product and make a lot of money and achieve the American dream.
You have taken on what I would have to say is perilous work.
Here you are, you've taken on Antifa.
They know you by name, they know you by sight.
They seem to be threatening to kill you every day.
You have decided to get into the fight.
And what I wanna get at is, is this a native bravery that your parents instilled in you?
Is it part of the natural?
It doesn't seem to me.
You're such a gentle, soft-spoken guy.
It doesn't seem to me to be your natural disposition, and yet it's got to be, because here you are.
You know, I was surprised that I received an award for courage and bravery because I didn't particularly see myself as brave.
I just saw myself as someone who was willing to stand up for the truth and I've come to have to pay dearly for it in many ways through various assaults that have happened over the years by the far left and being driven out of my home.
I think the context from my family's background makes me recognize how, I guess, the stability of society can really be...
It's just...
Your whole life can be overturned upside down.
I don't think, for example, my mother, she was a teenager during the fall of Saigon.
I don't think she anticipated that within a period of months, not only would she no longer be in school as a girl and unable to go on to university, but would be languishing in a labor camp.
You know, there's just so much prosperity in liberal Western societies that I feel like young people, my peers who have no memory and experience of war, the Second World War, all these other wars that America have been involved in are in distant lands and far away long ago that they just...
Assume that how they're experiencing life now is how it is for everybody else around the world and that the goal then is to just go for a rapid progression, revolution and change without thinking about what are the consequences potentially of that and what legacy are you potentially throwing away by I mean,
part of what you're saying, Andy, is that civilization is a fragile plant.
Your family experienced it, you've experienced it personally, and part of, I think, are you suggesting that what Antifa represents in America is a civilizational breakdown?
Because not only do you have the thugs on the street, but they appear to have influential supporters in the media, maybe in the political system, that sustain this kind of thuggery, if I can call it that.
Yeah, I think probably the most disturbing thing for me out of my years now covering Antifa is that what I thought were really embedded liberal democratic values in the American public is kind of a tin pot.
I think we saw firsthand last year how people are willing to not just sacrifice their own liberties and rights, But actually embrace it under the, I guess, under the guise of COVID regulations.
And when it comes to this left-wing move towards embracing leftist political violence, I mean, that should chill all of us.
And the Antifa in America in many ways Their violence is subsidized by taxpayers in that many of them are living off of public assistance and they literally riot and create havoc as a full-time career, if you will. That's what we were witnessing in Portland and various other cities last year.
And no politicians and no leaders locally have really really brought up Like, how they've enabled this violence to go on.
And in fact, they, I think, they seem to have used the far-off violence as almost controlled opposition.
I'm still now, you know, and I'm hearing the stories of how the federal officers last year who were mobilized to Portland to protect the US federal courthouse because rioters It came with explosives and projectile weapons night after night for an entire month.
The officers were hospitalized for injuries.
They suffered vision issues because the rioters brought dozens and dozens of lasers to shine in the eyes of the targets.
At that time, the local and state officials in the state of Oregon actually We're on the side of the rioters and demonize the federal officers and call them Trump's Gestapo, Trump's secret police.
You know, it feels like It's like American society has been turned upside down, and I know 2021 was reprieved compared to the political violence of the year before, but all of the conditions that allowed those riots to happen last year involving BLM, Antifa, and other extremists on the left, those conditions are still there.
And the next time that we have another George Floyd viral moment, you're going to see Let's take a pause, Andy. When we come back, let's probe this Antifa issue a little bit more.
We'll be right back with Andy now.
Christmas is right around the corner, and you know what that means?
Why not be an early shopper this year?
And here's an easy present that works for everyone.
Everyone needs towels, but you gotta get the right one.
Now, ordinary towels just don't seem to dry you very well.
They feel soft and lotion-y in the store, but you take them home and hey, they don't absorb.
Why not? Because towel companies typically import the product and they add softeners that make the towels feel good.
But they don't dry you very well.
Now, Mike Lindell has solved this problem.
Debbie was saying this morning, the thing about using this guy's towels is that they actually get fluffier and more absorbent with time.
Normally, towels go the other way.
Mike Lindell has created the best towel company right here in the USA. MyPillow has proprietary technology to create towels that don't just feel soft, but actually absorb And leave you feeling fresh and dry.
MyPillow towels come with the MyPillow 60-day money-back guarantee.
And for a limited time, Mike is offering a ridiculously good deal on a six-piece towel set.
It includes two bath towels, two hand towels, two washcloths, all made with USA cotton, soft yet absorbent, regularly $109.99, but now $39.99.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
I'm back with journalist Andy Ngo.
He's the author of Unmasked, Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.
Andy, give us a picture of these Antifa guys.
You mentioned that some of them were sort of on the dole, kind of nothing to do with their lives.
It looks to me like this is a combination of losers, criminals, perverts.
I mean, when you get to hear these people talk, They appear to be operating outside the orbit of knowledge or civilization, human decency.
It's hard to believe that they function within families and have normal human relationships.
I mean, do they? These are dysfunctional people.
Yes, you can pull examples of those who come from white-collar possessions, such as academics, nurses, even doctors, lawyers.
But by and large, these are people who are mentally unwell, living on public assistance.
And I think the fact that you have extremist ideologues willing to Take on vulnerable people and use them as fodder for political violence.
I mean, that shows you how morally bankrupt they are.
And in terms of the ideology, I will say that sometimes I hear it described by journalists and those in the public, critics of Of the left that this is all wokeism.
I don't think that's really a good term to describe it.
This is ideological possession.
These are people who have literally nothing to lose, so they're willing to do any means necessary.
And they have gone on to kill, as they did in Portland.
They have also created conditions where discriminality rises, such as these autonomisms, where others then go on to shoot and kill people.
And so, in my book, the subtitle is Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.
I know that sounds hyperbolic and like an overstatement, because when you view, at an aggregate level, the violence is relatively contained to certain areas of certain cities.
However, I think what makes it a threat to democracy is that the political violence and extremism has changed the Overton window of the left of what they're willing to tolerate and accept.
To the point now, as you'll see this, those who are in the chartering classes and the mainstream left, the elite left, they actually excuse arson attacks on police stations and public property, looting, violence against American citizens that they call far right, and that label is applied spuriously often as you will see. So normalizing this acceptance of political violence, that's
how you break down civilization, break down society. I mean, Andy, we seem to have seen a glimpse of this in the Rittenhouse trial.
This was the beauty of having that on video, because the prosecutor, Binger, was literally saying things like, what?
These guys were just rioting.
They were just looting. They were just burning things.
And you got the sense that for a prosecutor, the official charged in enforcing the law, you have a guy who took a very kind of lax view of what Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz and the other guy, Huber, were doing.
It appeared like part of what he was trying to do is camouflage what Antifa was really all about and seek to demonize only Kyle Rittenhouse.
Yes, and not only that, day in and day out, during, before and after the trial, people on the left were signaling their willingness to engage in violence if the trial didn't go the way they wanted.
And so you saw in the state that they had to mobilize the National Guard in anticipation of mass political violence.
In Portland, there wasn't a lot of coverage of this, but after Writtenhouse was acquitted.
Antifa called for a direct action in Portland and rioted by trying to break inside one of the public courthouses in downtown, the Justice Center, and they actually breached one of the gates and their stated goal, according to police and the sheriff's office, that they were trying to burn down the building.
And you can see how the fear from the jury in making sound decisions based on the evidence is affected.
Thank God that the jury wasn't doxed.
We saw that there were several attempts.
I mean, there were people who said they had cameras in the courtroom.
And then, infamously, there was an NBC-affiliated team that followed the vehicle that was driving the jurors out.
So... You know, the rule of law is under threat here and it's a fragile system and we have agitators on the mainstream left seeking to see this system break apart and fall apart.
I mean, I think once you tweeted out right after the trial that many of the Antifa guys saw the Rittenhouse acquittal as a call to arms, that they now needed to have AR-15s, they now needed to have weapons.
Were you suggesting that there's a sort of almost an escalation in the militarization of Antifa in response to the Rittenhouse acquittal?
Yes, but that's what they've been doing for months, going even before the Rittenhouse trial.
People forget that in the Pacific Northwest, just this year during the summer, in late summer, there were two anti-farm-involved shootings, one in Portland and one in Olympia.
So, I already know, many who follow into that already know that these militants already come armed, and now they just feel a bit more emboldened and calling for more people to bring deadly weapons to their direct actions.
And if need be, to kill.
Andy, thank you for coming on.
We're living at a time when mainstream journalism doesn't cover the kind of stuff you do.
I know you're not the only guy doing it.
There's a bunch of other great guys doing this kind of dangerous work, but you're one of them.
I want to commend you and thank you for coming on the podcast.