All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
52:56
A QUESTION OF CLASS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep261
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah. I don't know if you all have seen this, but yesterday, former President Trump issued a terrific statement in support of the new trailer that I've released for my forthcoming film.
The film is called 2000 Mules.
Now, I know about the viciousness of media censorship, and so I decided not to put the trailer on Facebook.
You won't find it there. Not to put it on YouTube.
You won't find it there.
But it is on my Rumble channel.
And it's also on the movie's own website.
The website is 2000mules.com.
I really want you to go on the website.
Of course, if you haven't seen the trailer, watch it there.
And there's also an email sign-up list, particularly now when the left is trying to block our ways of communicating, even with our own side.
By putting in your email, we're going to use that to notify you about when the movie's out, where you can see it, how you can see it.
And so please go and fill out the email tab on 2000mules.com.
Now, coming up today...
Is the culture war at bottom a class war waged by elites against the American working class?
My daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, is here.
We'll discuss that.
Lindsey Graham says January 6th protesters aren't being treated harshly enough.
They need to have the book thrown at them.
I will respond to that.
Videographer Taylor Hansen is coming on.
He's going to talk about the casualties of January 6th, and he has new information.
And Debbie and I are going to talk about Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, and the perils of identity politics.
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.
American politics is witnessing some shifting coalitions.
And not enough attention has been focused on this because, well, there's not enough attention given to the deep ideological cross-currents of American politics.
It used to be, I remember when I first came to Washington in the mid-1980s, There was a lot of discussion among liberals and among conservatives about who are the liberals, who are the conservatives, and what is the real dividing line between them.
Are liberals liberal in the classical sense, or is there a kind of modern liberalism that is not only a departure from, but in some ways at war with classical liberalism?
Classical liberalism, by the way, is merely the defense of liberty across the board.
So, similarly on the conservative side, there were some who argued that conservatives were merely classical liberals.
It was conservatives who were the custodians of the liberal tradition.
There were others, myself included, who argued that conservatism was a kind of hybrid.
It incorporated classical liberalism, yes, but added to that a particular concern for social and personal and civic virtue.
And so it was classical liberalism plus what was then sometimes called social conservatism.
And I think it is that amalgam on the right that defined the Reagan coalition.
So the Reagan coalition, to sum up, was classically liberal in economics, but socially conservative in the area of culture.
But where are we now with all that?
If we fast forward to 40 years later, We seem to have now not just these two camps, the conservative camp and then the liberal camp.
Of course, the liberal camp in the 1980s was defined as being economically redistributionist or sort of welfare statish.
And then the liberals were also kind of permissive or you may say libertarian on social issues.
So, I have the right to do what I want with my own body.
I should have the right to, in a sense, unlimited free speech.
Seems odd to say, but liberals were the defenders of that.
In the 1980s.
And there was a small libertarian camp, and the libertarians always saw themselves as the most consistent of all.
The libertarians said basically, we are the only people who support liberty both in the economic sphere and in the sort of moral and cultural sphere.
So the libertarians always looked at both the liberals and conservatives as sort of inconsistent or trying to weld together elements that didn't really go together.
I think if we look today, I see not two camps with then some straggling libertarians sort of sulking by the side, but rather four camps.
And the four camps need to be kind of spelled out.
And probably I'll do no more today than to just spell them out so you can think about who these camps are.
And I'll talk further in the days ahead about how these camps are changing, which one is getting stronger and which one is getting weaker.
But let me just try to identify the four camps.
You do have, still, the, I would call them the Reaganite conservatives.
And the Reaganite conservatives you can describe as economically free market or liberal in the classical sense, and then socially conservative.
I think that's still the majority in the Republican Party, but it's not the only camp that is right of center.
That's one of the camps.
The other camp is, well, this is almost a new movement, a working class movement that is now, I'd say, transforming the Republican Party.
And this is a camp that can be loosely called Populist.
And by populist, I mean this is a camp that does not hesitate to say that the government does have a role in the economic sphere.
These people are not libertarians.
They believe that government can and should subsidize, for example, the family.
They support things like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
So they're not leftists, they're not socialists, but they believe in a certain amount of government involvement.
Trump falls very much in this camp.
Trump, for example, was kind of a big spender in certain ways.
He believed the government should be able to promote the common good.
And this common good populist camp also believes that in the social area, the government can and in some cases must be involved in upholding civic and social values, conservative values.
So now I see the right as defined by the traditional kind of Reaganite camp, but also the new populist camp.
And it's a little bit of a jostle to see which one is going to be dominant in the years ahead.
Now, the third camp is, of course, the libertarian camp.
And this is the camp that is free market in economics, but it's also, you could say, free market in morals, free market in culture.
And this camp, I think, is weakening.
And by weakening, I mean it's a little ridiculous today to say things like, well, you know, we don't have a problem with Facebook practicing censorship because, after all, it's a private corporation, and we libertarians support the autonomy of the private sphere.
When you realize that these corporations have become behemoths, in some cases they're as big as governments, in some cases they have more power than traditional governments, and then they're coordinating with the U.S. government, all of that becomes a kind of political gobbledygook.
Moreover, I think that with the cultural disintegration we've seen in our society, the idea that we should simply kind of leave it alone, pretend like there's no problem, who cares if the illegitimacy rate is closer to 10% or closer to 90%, this kind of moral indifference that you see in certain I think there's no constituency for this anymore.
And young people who, by and large, have had a libertarian streak.
Young people, I mean, in a sense, coming out of the domain where they're living under the watchful eyes of their parents, tend to be sort of natural libertarians.
And yet I find young people today are less libertarian than certainly a generation ago.
And then, of course, we have the leftist camp.
And the leftist camp is economically socialist, redistributionist, in fact, to a much greater degree than the Democrats and the liberals used to be 40 years ago.
And socially, they've become not just libertarian or permissive, but downright radical.
And by downright radical, you see this, for example, my daughter, Danielle, who's coming on later in the podcast, mentions this in the context of the abortion debate.
The left has gone from being pro-choice to being pro-abortion.
Pro-abortion is a radicalization of the pro-choice position.
It's not just a matter of letting you decide.
Yeah, they want you to decide when it comes to certain things, but the Explicit advocacy of abortion is a sign.
And this, it seems to be, is the most dangerous camp.
And I would actually like to see a coalition of the other three camps obviously working together on issues where they can find common ground to crush this destructive leftist faction that, if it had its will, would destroy the country.
I've been texting back and forth with Mike Lindell and he's been...
Really excited about this new stuff that I've been putting out.
We're talking, of course, about 2000mules.com.
And Mike has paid a terrible price for standing up for his beliefs, and he's been canceled left and right.
I want to uncancel this guy, and I think we can do it together.
The good news is he makes incredible products, and by supporting his products, we defeat the left in their effort to sort of take him out.
Now, Mike also has new products that pop out every now and then, and his latest is MySlippers.
He's made these amazing slippers that are designed to weigh indoor or outdoor all day long, made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They're made with quality leather suede, and for a limited time, Mike is offering 50% off the new MySlippers.
The slippers are so comfortable.
You're going to want to get some for the whole family.
We actually did. Here's Danielle with her moccasins.
Of course, Debbie and I just love ours.
I got the moccasins. Debbie got the slip-ons.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
You'll get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products.
The pillows themselves, the Geezer Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, the MyPillow robes, and the MyPillow towel sets.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
It's been really fun to have my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, in town.
We've been hanging out and we're about to head to California, the whole gang, because we're doing some filming there for this new movie.
But I thought it'd be fun to talk on the podcast today about an interesting article that you just came across about the culture war.
Now, The culture war is thought to be a war over values.
The left is promoting progressive values.
The right is promoting conservative values.
And I think the interesting thing, Danielle, about this is that a lot of people on the left think that working class people are economically liberal but socially conservative.
And the left thinks, wait a minute, why do these working class people always want to vote for their values?
Things like they don't like the gays, they're all for guns, they're religious fanatics.
Why don't they vote their economic interests?
We, the Democrats, are willing to give them all these benefits, but evidently those benefits are not appealing.
So what is What is wrong with this liberal logic that sees the working class as deluded and incapable of understanding its own interests?
Well, the left always thinks that they know what's best.
They always think that the leftist elites like Joy Behar know what's best for people who are these maybe working class.
I wouldn't say that actually they are mostly liberal because we've seen so many more people moving to the conservative side just because of this, because they've realized that it's the conservative method that helps them to do better, whereas I mean,
the thrust of the article, which I think you'd agree with, is to argue that, no, it's not that these working class people have values that are somehow divorced from their economic interests.
The values that they support happen to Affirm their economic interests.
So talk a little bit about how that might be the case.
How is it the case that having conservative values of, let's just say you're a plumber, you're a blue-collar guy, why is it good for you to be pro-family, pro-marriage, to emphasize traditional education and so on, to be, let's just say, opposed to vaccine mandates?
Well, I think that the left, they've gotten to the point where they always argue that marriage is stupid, education is stupid because it's racist and things like that, when in reality we know that people who do graduate from high school, people who get married are on average, they do better, they're more wealthy, things like that.
And so in order for people who are in poverty to do better, it's actually better that they have families and That are intact.
Things like that. And so I think a lot of these wealthier white liberals, they do those things.
They get married and they go to school, but they don't recommend it for other people.
They think, oh, these poor people are so dumb, so we're just going to give them government money instead of actually improving their lives.
So Dave Ramsey, who I'm a fan of, he talks about this, about how, you know, these statistics show us that these things actually do help.
And, you know, getting married is supposed to be living together.
Things like that actually... Resort to better financial success in the long term for families.
We were talking on the way over here about how it's very easy for the liberal elitist to say, well, listen, there's no reason to have to go to work.
Let's just work at home.
And that's not practical for a lot of people.
Yeah, and I think we've seen that, yeah, as you mentioned with the vaccine mandates, because a lot of people who are white-collar people would say, oh, it's fine.
I can work from home.
Like, that's okay with me.
But a lot of people can't work from home.
And a lot of blue-collar people would say, well, you know, getting a check from the government, it might not be as much as they were normally making.
That's not what they want to do.
Not to mention kids. Oftentimes their school is their safe haven.
Their home might not be a safe place.
So work and school, I think, are things that are really important, especially to people who are not these rich liberals.
What do you think about the idea?
One of the things I think that Elizabeth Warren and people like this who pushed the idea of paid leave, hey, this is going to give you a chance to get government benefits for the two-career family.
And they're mystified about why people who seem to be in more modest circumstances might look askance on this.
I mean, look at the way that Bernie Sanders was lecturing Joe Manchin and basically saying, You don't understand the people of West Virginia.
They obviously support all these benefits that, you know, I, Bernie, the kind of Massachusetts socialist, I'm offering them.
So what is it that the ordinary West Virginian, Ann Manchin, understands that Bernie doesn't?
Well, Elizabeth Warren, as you mentioned, she loves talking about paid family leave.
It's like one of her favorite things to talk about every single time.
Over many years, she talks about this as if it's her number one issue.
And I think it shows that the left really only speaks to families where both want to work.
You know, the kind of family they want to create with their ideology is one where both work.
And many who are not in that situation would say, well, they're normalizing women not staying home, women not...
So they want to make it so you really need to have a two-income home.
That's kind of what she argues, that a two-income home is what's necessary in order to move forward.
And I think we would say that, no, we want to make it so that families can get by on one income.
And if someone wants to work or both want to work, that's fine, but we want it to be so that it's not that We're good to go.
This article by Bhatia Anghar Sargon, kind of an unusual name, but nevertheless, I think it's insightful in that it is able to cast a light, as we've been discussing, on the economic dimensions of the culture war.
And the title is kind of telling the culture war is a class war in disguise.
I don't think it's entirely that, but there's an aspect of it that is that.
And I think it's...
This article is effective in pointing that out.
We all know that in order to keep our immune system strong, we need extra protection for it.
Now, my friends at Centurion Labs have combined five key ingredients to defend your immune system against allergies, colds, the flu, and even coronavirus.
It's called Centurion We're good to go.
Does it? This also keeps the germaphobe in our family happy.
Just like the Centurions of Rome, led by example, held themselves to the highest possible standards, Centurion Labs has dedicated the last 15 years to research and develop safe, effective, and affordable healthcare products made in the USA For a limited time, listeners of this podcast can save 20% off their first order of Centurion Defender when you visit centurionlabs.com slash Dinesh.
Use promo code Dinesh.
Defend your health today with Centurion Defender.
That's centurionlabs.com slash Dinesh.
What is up with Lindsey Graham?
I cannot fully figure out this guy.
In fact, I seem to blow hot and cold on Lindsey Graham.
I'm enthused about him when he takes up the cause of Kavanaugh and gives a fiery speech on behalf of Kavanaugh.
And then I'm outraged when he says, as he just did, about the January 6th protesters, quote, I hope they go to jail and get the book thrown at them.
Because they deserve it.
No distinctions among violent or non-violent protesters.
Throw the book at them! And this is exactly what the Biden administration is doing.
Now, Lindsey Graham was responding to Trump, who said at the Conroe rally last weekend, quote, if I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6th fairly.
We will treat them fairly, and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons.
So Trump is not saying he will pardon all of them, but he's saying, look, there are cases of grave injustice, Trump is implying, and they need to be corrected.
I could not agree more with that.
And then here's Lindsey Graham erupting and saying, in effect, this is disturbing, and that we don't want to make sure this doesn't happen again, and so throw the book at them.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
Now, I can kind of see where Lindsey Graham is coming from.
He's coming from a kind of old-line republicanism that reflexively takes the side of, quote, law and order against, you know, the bad guys, the protesters, people who came of age in the 60s and 70s.
And, of course, I'm not saying Lindsey Graham goes back all that far.
But what I am saying is this idea that kind of if there are protesters, they have to be radicals.
And Republicans traditionally have had certain positions that I think we need not to be so...
Kind of thoughtless about.
Because in the old days, you'd hear people say things like, we're the party of law and order, the cops are great, and basically the protesters are bad.
Well, we see in January 6th that that's not the case.
In some ways, the roles are reversed.
And this idea that all cops are great has to be qualified by the fact that there are some bad apples there.
And sometimes when the cops are co-opted by a bad regime that mobilizes them to a bad end, they can act very badly.
Oh, we're the party of big business.
Big business is always good.
No, big business is not always good.
It can become monopolistic.
It can become woke.
It can become, in some respects, even tyrannical.
Think about banks canceling people because they're on the wrong side of the ideological fence.
We're the party of the military!
Yes, we are. But again, the military can be corrupted.
And under Obama, now under Biden, they're trying to corrupt the military.
So these antiquated propositions, to which I think people like Lindsey Graham give lip service, it's time for us to have a more sophisticated approach.
We've got to look at it case by case.
We've got to look not just at the military, but what has happened to the military we have now.
To what degree have forces of evil burrowed into it?
Same with the FBI. The notion that we are simply going to be the party of big business and the military and law and order and the FBI. Sorry, Lindsey Graham, but those days are over.
Aches and pains now have a remedy that they never had before.
Many of us have gotten sort of used to, well, we're going to have an ache, we're going to have a pain.
It comes from the normal wear and tear of time.
But now there's a 100% drug-free solution.
It's called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
And inflammation is the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor are Order more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer in Relief Factor.
It's been a total game changer for her.
She had frozen shoulders.
She took Relief Factor.
Pain went away. And she knows if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain is going to come right back.
So Debbie's like, I'm not going to be without this.
Being able to lift her arm, exercise.
This is super important to her.
ReliefFactor is a tool she needs.
She's glad she's got it.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
You'll see. Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Wow. 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. Guys in an age of fakery and propaganda and media lies, we have very little real investigative reporting that happens anymore.
And one of the good guys who does the hard work is investigative journalist Taylor Hansen.
I'm delighted to welcome him to the podcast.
He's the founder of Baby Lives Matter.
He's also a reporter for the Gateway Pundit.
You can find him on Twitter at TaylorUSA, T-A-Y-L-E-R-U-S-A. Or you can read, well, he has an amazing article I'm going to refer to, but you can find that at taylorhanson.substack.com.
Taylor, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for joining me.
You have done an original deep dive into the casualties, the people who died on January 6th.
And many people think that there was sort of one person who was killed on January 6th.
That was Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by Lieutenant Michael Byrd.
But that's the only name they really know.
Now, I've mentioned a couple times the travails of Roseanne Boyland, who I've presented as a maybe, but that's all that people know.
They don't know about anybody else.
And what I found kind of eye-opening about your article, and you say here that you've done this as a team.
It's you, it's a guy named David Summerall and others.
You've kind of worked together to, as you say, crack the code of January 6th.
So let's crack the code right here, or at least do it in brief, and then people can check it out.
Let's start by talking about a guy named Benjamin Phillips.
Who was Benjamin Phillips?
How is he supposed to have died?
And how did he in fact die?
So Benjamin Phillips was a Trump supporter, a behemoth Trump supporter, and he ran a site called Trumparoo.
Basically, he really wanted an alternate platform where people could go and not be censored, and that's what he was about.
And he arrived that day on January 6th, and he bussed people in, and the last time anybody in his group actually saw him was when he was shaking everybody's hand and as he was getting off the bus that day.
The media ended up going with the narrative that Benjamin Phillips actually never made it to the Capitol that day.
He collapsed a little bit down the road, which was completely false, and we talk about that in our article.
And what really happened to Benjamin Phillips is there was a first initial, I call it the grenade barrage, and there was about five grenades that were thrown in under one minute.
And the first grenade is actually what hit Phillips directly, and the grenade separated from itself, and one of the metal pieces hit Phillips and caused him to collapse.
And then the media said, and the coroner's office said that he died of essentially what is a heart attack or a heart disease, which...
It's completely preposterous when it comes to this case.
But Benjamin Phillips, he was completely peaceful.
He was standing deep into the crowd when the first grenade was thrown, and that's essentially what led to him being killed.
So would it be fair to say, Taylor, that it was the attack of the Capitol Police, of the authorities, against the crowd that appears to be the direct cause of the death of this man, Benjamin Phillips?
Yeah, you would be completely accurate.
And Dinesh, I want to get this out of the way very fast.
I support the police in every aspect and form, but I support good police.
Coming from a family of law enforcement, this past year has been very weird for me reporting on bad cops and bad conduct.
But we do not need these officers.
These officers need to be held accountable.
And that's exactly what happened, is they killed countless people that day.
Let's now turn to Kevin Greeson, a story that, as I understand, seems to closely parallel that of Benjamin Phillips, another guy who died, who was essentially declared to have suffered some kind of medical ailment.
But you say, no, this is another guy who got blasted, who got pummeled by the force applied by the cops.
Talk about the case of Kevin Greeson.
Yeah, Kevin Greeson, he was pretty much identical to the case of Benjamin Phillips, and we actually had a little bit of a mix-up in the initial investigating, and we've been reporting on this for over a year and doing the research, is because Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, they do look very similar.
They're similar in size, similar in looks, but what really led to us figuring out that there were two different people is we had countless witness statements regarding Benjamin Phillips and then Kevin Greeson, at least who we thought he was, and then we matched the pants and the boots that they were wearing.
And Kevin Grayson, he was wearing darker blue jeans with boots, and then Benjamin Phillips was wearing lighter blue jeans with shoes with red soles on them.
So that's kind of how we tracked through the crowd.
And then, yeah, I got a witness statement, too, from Lauren Witzke, and then David Snow is his name.
And they corroborate everything we reported on, is that, you know, Grayson was actually, he went down in the first initial grenade barrage, just like Phillips, and he was actually only about 20, 30 feet away.
So the crowd was very confused when the EMT, the first responders, wanted to come in and actually help.
They ended up getting to Griesen first instead of Benjamin Phillips, which Benjamin was actually the first to go down.
And no cops helped.
I mean, there was no medical aid provided.
Our witnesses say that Benjamin Phillips lay there for up to 40 minutes, just completely incoherent.
He was dead by that time.
And a picture that I actually include in the article is It shows them carrying him by his belt and his pants because the EMTs or the cops wouldn't help, and his bowels have released, and it's a really graphic picture, but it's a terrible thing.
The Capitol Police are definitely responsible for that death, too.
I've never reported on something that has made me feel so sick in my life.
I mean, Taylor, what I find remarkable about your article is it has video evidence, it has eyewitness evidence, you've interviewed people.
I mean, you've gone to a lot of trouble to do the kind of work that the media should be doing, but it seems like the mainstream media is covering up what really happened.
What is the media narrative about why Kevin Griesen died?
Well, the media narrative, at least the original one, was that Kevin Greeson actually repeatedly tased himself in the testicles until he died.
And that's what brought on, you know, the heart disease or the heart attack that he essentially had.
And that was, you know, a complete lie.
It's been debunked quite a while ago.
And now with this newest report is there really needs to be some accountability here is because it was clearly, you know, the...
The conclusion that we've come to and that the evidence points to, and the Washington Post reporter, they actually helped us out greatly, and it was on complete accident.
But they even reported on the fact that right after the grenades went off, a man went into cardiac arrest, and that man happened to be Kevin Greason.
Let's take a pause, Taylor.
And when we come back, I want to talk about two women, Roseanne Boyland and Ashley Babbitt.
Sounds wonderful. Ronald Reagan saw it 40 years ago, the threat of inflation, the massive inflation of the Carter years that we haven't seen since then until today.
Now, in Reagan's words, inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hitman.
Right now, your retirement accounts are under attack.
thanks to the inflationary policies of this administration.
If you haven't yet called Birch Gold, these are the people I trust, to help you diversify your 401ks and IRAs into gold, well, you're missing the boat.
Actually, you're treading water without a life vest.
Birch Gold has your life vest.
Let them help you convert an IRA or eligible 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
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 989898.
You'll get a free information kit on gold.
Reagan knew the biggest threat to our wealth.
Protect yours now.
Text Dinesh to 989898 and get your free information kit from Birch Gold now.
I'm back with investigative journalist Taylor Hanson.
You can find his work, well, you can find him on Twitter at TaylorUSA, T-A-Y-L-E-R-U-S-A, or taylorhanson.substack.com.
Taylor, we've been talking about the people who lost their lives on January 6th.
We've talked about two of the men.
Let's turn to the women, Roseanne Boyland.
You say in this article, and I find this extremely eye-opening because I'd heard about the possibility that Roseanne Boylan had gotten bludgeoned in the tunnel, but you've got, you name a Metropolitan Police Officer, Leela O'Lila Morris.
And you have a picture of her.
In fact, you have an amazing picture of her with Officer Michael Fanone.
This is the guy who testified.
I don't remember if this was the weeping guy, but he was certainly the guy who was putting on a heroic, you know, fighting back tears stance.
And he's with Lila Morris at a Super Bowl.
And this is the woman, Lila Morris, who you have and you produce evidence that she has a stick.
And she is viciously beating Roseanne Boyland.
And it's, I think, reasonable to assume it is those injuries that led to Roseanne Boyland's death.
First of all, how did you find this?
And second of all, am I giving an accurate description of what seems to have happened to Roseanne Boyland?
So, I actually initially found that video.
It was a member of my team.
I'm named Gary McBride with M5 News.
And he actually found it from mainstream media is they actually released a portion, just a small clip of the officer to the left of Lila Morris's body cam to show how violent, you know, these Trump supporters were being towards the police.
But they didn't realize that in the corner portion, it actually showed Lila Morris beating Roseanne Boyland over the head with her metal baton.
And then we got another angle from just one of the protesters there that day, and it shows Roseanne being beaten overhead with a wooden walking stick that Lila Morris had taken from a protester.
And Roseanne's story is truly tragic because they said she died of an acute amphetamine overdose.
And Roseanne She had been an ex-addict.
She had done an amazing job in her recovery process.
She was very proud of it.
It was her greatest accomplishment.
Her family, they all loved that about Roseanne, is how proud she was of getting clean and staying away.
And the medical examiner, of course, they ruled it as a drug overdose because, you know, they looked back in her history and they said, okay, yeah, this would be easily doable.
But I talked to the family, you know, I talked to all the people closest to her and more witnesses that day.
And all she had in her system that day was her legally prescribed dose of Adderall.
And then I talked to, it was, his name is Phillips, and he was one of our eyewitness accounts, and he actually was trampled alongside Roseanne Boylan, and he was holding her hand at the time.
And then he felt Roseanne let go, and then he knew that she was dead.
And that's when he accepted himself that he was going to die because he was stuck under 30 people.
He was being sprayed nonstop.
He was being beaten. And the cops continued to push the line over Roseanne and over Philip Anderson.
And then that's when the video comes out where she gets dragged in the Protesters are trying to apply CPR to her.
They're trying to save her life.
And the cops are spraying them and they begin hitting Roseanne over the head after she had already been unconscious.
So I can without a doubt 100% say that Lila Morris is responsible for the death of Roseanne Boylan.
Now, Taylor, when we look at these cases, I mean, it's hard for me to see a single case where this kind of lethal force, as it turns out to be lethal force, is justified.
Because even in the case of Ashley Babbitt, she's coming through a window, but there are plenty of people there who could have subdued her, and we now know she had no weapon.
Obviously, Roseanne Boylan posed a threat to nobody.
And even in the case of the two men that you talked about, I mean, this looks to be like the Capitol Police provoking something, provoking a reaction from the crowd, then using a tremendous amount of force.
So this is the exact inverse of what can be called the Pelosi narrative of January 6th.
The Trump supporters are the aggressors, they're the insurrectionists, they're the violent ones.
But what I find impressive is the level of detail that you bring to debunking that kind of bogus narrative and replacing it with the tragic and yet the chilling truth.
Yeah, well, what you said, Dinesh, couldn't be, you know, closer to the truth is, you know, I was there that day.
I experienced, I still remember the way that the air tasted, you know, being shot with rubber munitions, pepper balls, and I actually documented the death of Ashley Babbitt.
I watched Michael Bird shoot her, and I tried to render her medical aid afterwards.
So it really stuck with me after that, and that's really when I decided to go on this crusade, to go After the truth and to really expose this is because they are hiding everything that has to do with that day because of the police misconduct.
I have never seen in my year and a half of reporting in Portland, in Washington, all around the country reporting on riots and unrest, I've never seen police action like this before and straight up police brutality.
is they started the initial barrage and then they actually threw grenades deep into the crowd in order to get people pushed more towards them and it made this effect from the above cameras that they conveniently had placed for the HBO documentary and it made it look like the crowd was trying to advance but they were actually just trying to get away from the concussion grenades being thrown into, you know, crowds of innocent peaceful protesters.
Taylor, you're doing incredible work.
I've got to ask you as we close, how do you support and subsidize this kind of work?
Because I'd like to figure out ways in which I and also our audience can help.
I'd like to see more of this kind of journalism.
How do we take the kind of work that you're doing and make it bigger?
You guys can support me in my Linktree bio.
It's my link available on Twitter and it actually just says support my journalism.
It's a redirect to my PayPal and to my Venmo.
And then it has my team. My team can be supported at helpstophate.com.
And then you can go and there's just a bunch of redirect links there and it will tell you exactly what you're doing.
There's donations for prisoner funds.
There's donations for our investigative journalism.
But so far, as we've done this completely unfunded, Dinesh, we haven't had any support from the public, from anyone within the industry, as we've really just done this bare bones for an entire year, and a lot has come out of it.
Okay. Well, I'm going to make sure, Debbie and I will definitely contribute, and I'm going to urge people to check out these sites, check out these links, find Taylor Hansen at atTaylorUSA on Twitter.
Taylor, thanks for joining me.
This has been sobering, eye-opening, and frankly, the truth is disgusting.
But thanks for joining me. I appreciate it.
Thanks for having me on, Dinesh. Joe Biden has pledged to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court.
And Tulsi Gabbard, who is, of course, has been a longtime Democrat, but is sounding increasingly like a Republican these days, is not having any of it.
So here's Debbie.
Honey, this is the...
This is Tulsi Gabbard.
Biden's mistake, he should not be choosing a Supreme Court justice based on the color of their skin or sex, but rather on qualifications and commitment to uphold the Constitution.
I mean, this is the traditional view.
Okay, that is the view.
That should be the view for everything.
I mean, who wants to be chosen for the color of their skin, really?
I mean, because that is, to me...
More demeaning than anything else.
Because the fact that you're not choosing me for what I do, what I know, who I am, but rather what I look like.
Well, one way to change that, to see the ridiculous...
Imagine if Biden were to say, listen, everybody on the court happens to be...
At least five feet eight.
We need to have a short guy on the court.
You know, the court just doesn't look like America because after all, there are some guys who are a little bit, you know, underwater, so to speak, in the country.
So they need a token shred. So let's find some guy who's like 5'5 or below or perhaps a midget.
But, you know, people would be like, what?
What does this have to do with being a justice?
Now, Tulsi Gabbard goes on to say, and I think this is a little more, she's almost turning the screw, Biden chose Harris as his VP because of the color of her skin and sex.
And look how that's worked out. Not qualification.
She's been a disaster.
Ironically, there are some people who have actually suggested putting Harris on the court and sort of moving her out of the vice president.
Who has suggested that? No, I've seen this. I've seen this from— I mean, that is crazy.
Well, it's kind of a way to get rid of her as the potential successor.
So if you thought that she was going to be great, you now realize that she's a liability.
What better way to deal with her than to sort of move her off stage and put on some black robes?
And then she… So that's a possibility.
Apparently, though, well, I was thinking back to the Reagan years and when Reagan nominated Justice Scalia, he did say, he said, I'm happy to be nominating a man who will be the first Italian American to the Supreme Court.
So I don't want to imply that there's something that's so shocking about ethnic politics that presidents don't take into account that there is some significance to this sort of thing.
I think the problem here is just simply that everybody knows that Biden is going to go for an ideologue.
Yeah. Now, Lindsey Graham, interestingly enough, is pushing for him to pick a woman from South Carolina.
And her name is Childs, C-H-I-L-D-S. She's evidently a judge on the district court for South Carolina, and she's a nominee to go on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
But apparently, Graham and House Minority Whip, this is Clyburn from South Carolina, they're pushing Childs.
To be Biden's nominee.
I don't know if it's going to happen.
And is this woman? What kind of politics does she...
Because you know, as you know, picking women or men liberal on this court is actually picking an activist for their side.
Whereas when we do it, that's not the case.
So it's important that people understand that, that they are picking an activist.
Right. Well, I think they're looking for someone who's more in the Sotomayor-Kagan mold.
Because... Well, they're activists.
Yeah, but I mean, Breyer was too.
But you could tell that with Breyer, there was a certain moderation of temperament.
He was a little more old school.
He was a little more old school.
He was willing to side with the conservatives on certain key issues.
I think religious freedom being a notable one.
Whereas... I'm not confident.
Now, I don't know a whole lot about Childs.
My guess is that the fact that Lindsey Graham is pushing her, to me, suggests that maybe she's not a complete radical.
Now, obviously, Clyburn would not support her if she wasn't on the progressive side.
And we should have no illusions.
Biden's not going to pick, you know, Carol Swain.
He's not going to pick Candace Owens.
He's not going to pick a conservative.
He's going to pick someone who's...
Or me. I would represent pretty much every ethnicity known to man.
Actually, if they wanted a black Native American Latina of Spanish descent, I mean, in that sense, you look like America all by yourself.
The world.
I represent the world.
Right. So there are two forms of diversity.
One is to pick like a full-blooded Indian, that's me, and full-blooded this and a full-blooded that, and then match them all together and you get looks like America that way.
Or just pick you because you're such an amalgam that diversity is achieved in a single spot.
But you know what's really funny is when I was younger, when I was in school, I never wanted to put down my ethnicity.
Right. Why?
Because I didn't want anyone to treat me any differently.
And of course, my last name was Sestero, so there was no doubt that I was not.
I mean, I laugh. You have a funny story about how a teacher was like...
Wait a minute, Debbie. That's terrible.
You know, aren't you Hispanic? Aren't you Latina?
And you denied it. Right.
And, you know, sometimes my mom would say, are you ashamed of being Latina?
And I would say, Mom, no, but I don't want to wear it on my sleeve.
I don't want that to be my identity.
And unfortunately, that has become the thing to be in these states, you know?
I mean, we have moved so far away from the race-blind ideal, and so...
This is the culmination of it.
I mean, we're now not just talking about having a campus that looks like America.
But when you take the Supreme Court, where you think you'd want the best legal minds in the country, you'd want to have people who have a fidelity to the Constitution.
I mean, let's come back to Tulsi Gabbard and her conclusion.
She says, identity politics is destroying our country.
And I would have to agree.
Absolutely. I've been talking the last few days about the economist Joseph Schumpeter and his description of the distinctive features of the entrepreneur.
I want to conclude my discussion of Schumpeter's book called The Entrepreneur by talking about how Schumpeter is so far superior in his analysis to Karl Marx.
Let's summarize what Schumpeter's been saying.
He's been saying, look, things don't get done in a productive economy unless the entrepreneur is there to do them.
Now, the entrepreneur doesn't do them by himself or by herself.
What the entrepreneur does is make it happen.
Think of the idea and then organize the idea.
Raise the capital.
Sometimes the entrepreneur supplies the capital.
Sometimes the entrepreneur goes and gets the capital from investors or from a venture capital firm or from a bank.
So the capital comes from somewhere.
And then the entrepreneur takes risk and the entrepreneur decides Does the marketing, and the entrepreneur kind of pulls it all together.
So, you might have a good idea, but if it's not carried out, then it remains an idea on the shelf.
You might have people willing to work, but if there's no entrepreneur willing to employ them and say, listen, I need this to be done, I need that to be done, there's no way to get a regular paycheck because there's no one who's organizing the activity that puts you to work.
And so this is Schumpeter's point, that the entrepreneur is the indispensable feature of the market machine.
And in fact, where there were no entrepreneurs and so-called static societies, really the societies did not advance very much.
No new things were made.
People did farming with the same implements that had been used 500 years earlier.
And houses were built the same way.
And economic activity, in a sense, I won't say grinds to a halt, but moves in a sort of predictable, stable way.
Now... Marx does not talk about entrepreneurs.
He rarely even refers to all the various activities that entrepreneurs do.
In fact, Marx's critique of capitalism is based on misdescribing the entrepreneur.
Marx misdescribes, and you can see here the pejorative label that he uses deliberately in order to put the entrepreneur into a bad light.
He calls the entrepreneur a capitalist.
Marx didn't, as far as I know, invent the term, but he certainly made it famous.
He popularized the term.
It came into general circulation after and because of Marx.
And the reason that Marx used this term wasn't merely that he wanted to make it appear like all that entrepreneurs do is supply capital, but he wanted to identify the entrepreneur with the function of money.
Now, as I mentioned and as Sean Pater knows, entrepreneurs typically don't provide their own capital for their business.
It's only a small number of entrepreneurs who have enough money to start out with to fund their business.
Most entrepreneurs have to go get it.
And even if you start the smallest entrepreneur, a small grocery store, You typically have to go to family and friends, borrow money, put it together, get started, and then later you find it's easier to get a bank loan and so on.
So this idea that the entrepreneur supplies capital, which was Marx's idea, is factually untrue.
Most entrepreneurs do not supply capital.
But Marx's main point is entrepreneurs don't do anything else.
Marx essentially acts as if, listen, since the entrepreneur, the capitalist, as he calls him, supplies only capital, what does he deserve over on top of the interest on that capital?
And Marx is right. If the capitalist only supplied capital, then all you would deserve in return is a...
It's a certain rate of sort of a fee on capital, which is normally called interest.
And so Marx assumes that all the productivity of an enterprise belongs to the workers.
Why? Because there are workers who do the work, and then the capitalist only supplies the money.
Missing. Who's the one who came up with the idea?
Doesn't that guy deserve some reward for that?
And then who is the guy who organized all these things to bring them together into a productive enterprise?
And then while the workers could count on a steady check, see, the entrepreneur could have gone to the workers and said, listen, I have a great idea, guys.
I need 10 of you to come and make this product with me.
And listen, I'm going to give you all a small share in the business.
No money, no salary, no health care benefits.
You're just going to get, like, 3%, 5%, 7%, depending on your contribution, and go in on it with me, and then when the profits come in, we'll split them according to some agreed-upon formula.
But see, the point that Schumpeter makes is the workers wouldn't go for that, typically.
Why? Because they don't care about the enterprise.
They don't even understand the enterprise.
They merely want to play a small part to bring their particular skill.
I'm a loader on a dock.
I'm a guy working on an assembly line.
It's not interesting to me as to how the parts get made.
It's not interesting to me once the car is put together how the car is going to get sold or what the financing terms are going to be.
No, I'm a guy who's working the assembly line.
Pay me my salary.
Give me my benefits. I want to be able to go home on the weekend.
So, Schumpeter's point is, without the entrepreneur, all of this would not occur.
And this is the part that Marx wants to hide, he wants to cover up, or he's too stupid to realize that this is, in fact, what entrepreneurs do.
And without the entrepreneur, within the marketplace, it was not an exaggeration to say that without the entrepreneur, nothing would get done.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection