All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
51:51
THE RACE PROGRAMMERS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep290
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Quick announcement, guys.
Tonight at 7.30 Eastern, I have my live Q&A coming up on the platform known as Locals.
You can check it out.
It's a subscription platform, but you can kind of check in just as a kind of observer and be part of it.
and I cover a lot of topics from elections to COVID to the trans issue, climate, some of these topics that are taboo on mainstream platforms. Check it out at Dinesh.locals.com. All right, today I'm going to talk about the race programmers, the effort on the part of the left to corrupt children, to actually indoctrinate them not away from race but into race, into race consciousness and
racial division. I'll reveal how the Pelosi January 6th committee is attempting to criminalize Republican fundraising. The police officer involved in the Makia Bryant case has been exonerated.
The left is a little bit up in arms.
We'll review the details of that case.
And I'll conclude my discussion of Brunetto Latini and Canto 15 of Dante's Inferno.
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.
I want to talk about the left's continuing effort to corrupt the children.
I'm not going to talk here about grooming or any of that.
I want to talk about racial indoctrination, the implanting of race consciousness, racial stereotypes, racial identity, and racial division in the minds of very young children.
Now, young children are not naturally that way.
And I say this, I mean, if I think back to my own childhood, I didn't obviously grow up in a world of black and white, but I grew up in a world of enormous religious and social differences among kids.
And we had all of them, the whole gamut in the school that I went to.
We had Christian kids.
We were about probably 40%.
Hindu kids, probably another 40%.
Muslim kids.
And I think those differences really do run pretty deep.
They affect your kind of basic outlook on life and on the cosmos.
But even so, children are kind of...
I wouldn't say blind.
They're aware of differences, but the differences are not as important as individual identity.
In other words, kids look at other kids.
Is this a fun kid to be around?
Does he have good toys?
And those sorts of things are far more important than other matters of national or racial or, in this case, even religious identity.
I think that's obviously true also in America.
And there have been studies of young children that show, well, they're not tabula rasa in the Lockean sense.
It's not that children are born a blank slate.
Children are born with all kinds of hereditary features.
Some kids are a little more aggressive, other kids are more passive, so no one is claiming that there aren't temperamental and psychological and intellectual features implanted in children.
The only point I'm trying to make is that racial consciousness is not.
Now, this is not to say that children can't see skin color.
They can obviously see the difference between someone who's dark-skinned or light-skinned.
But there's a whole difference between that.
That's like seeing kids who have You know, kids who are tall or short, kids who have thin or bushy eyebrows, kids who have big ears or small ears.
So what? You notice those things, but that doesn't mean that you don't play with a kid, or you are against a kid, or you dislike a kid solely because of those accidental features.
Now, all of this is kind of a backdrop to what's going on.
In Oregon, where, by the way, the left is very powerful, and the Oregon educational establishment has introduced new standards for social science teaching.
Now, in some ways when we talk about these debates, we talk about critical race theory.
But that's become something of a slogan and that gets into a lot of big issues about American history and the founding and so on.
Here we get to the very root level because we're not talking about, we're not discussing Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings.
What we're really talking about is how you begin by introducing these topics, if you do at all, to very young, very young children.
And for decades, really going now back to the Civil Rights Movement and even really before, the schools generally had, you could call it the colorblind approach.
And the underlying philosophy, if you will, was treat people as individuals.
It's not that Dinesh is brown.
He's just Dinesh.
And he's got particular features and particular ideas and particular temperament.
And evaluate him for that.
And that was the approach.
And don't develop...
There's group prejudices that are going to make a particular group feel lesser or excluded based upon any kind of group characteristic.
So this was the kind of prevailing doctrine, very familiar to us.
Let's call it the Martin Luther King doctrine.
This is Martin Luther King's dream.
But the Oregon standards introduced by the left are the exact opposite of it.
These are supposedly going to be introduced as of, well, this month, March of this year.
And so the starting point is to get kids to essentially look in the mirror and identify their own race.
So right away, they're saying to you, be aware not only that you are white or brown or black, but that that is an important defining feature of who you are.
So what's going on here is the left, amazingly, trying to cultivate racial identity.
Of course, this travels under the rubric of diversity.
So it's made to seem benign.
But kids are asked to identify who they are so they can now mark out a difference with other kids who are not that way.
So, for example, if I'm brown, I notice right away that I'm not white.
I also notice right away I'm not black.
And so I put myself, if you will, in the brown camp.
This is what's really going on.
And these students then are supposed to use that as the springboard to now identify differences between them and others.
All of this, you can see, is the first step to something that's very poisonous.
It's the first step to two things that the civil rights movement was mobilized to stop.
The first one, racial segregation.
Because think about it. If I say to myself, I'm in the brown camp, I'm going to want to hang out with the brown kids.
What do I have to do with the white kids?
I'm not white. What do I have to do with the black kids?
I'm not black. And second, discrimination.
If a white kid or a black kid wants to enter the brown camp, we go, nah, we don't really want you.
You're not really one of us.
So, the point to make here is that the left, which has for a long time maintained that, oh, you know, parents and society cultivates this racial identity and we need a campaign to fight against it, now the left is basically cultivating it itself.
It is essentially creating a demand for its own services.
Because what's the point of having anti-racism if you don't have race consciousness in the first place?
And it's almost like the left thinks that this younger generation does not have it.
These children who are coming into the world don't have it.
Let's put it there. Let's put it there and then declare ourselves the saviors are going to come in and address the problem.
This is why we need the diversity counselors, the vice presidents of diversity, and so on.
This is how we need to sort of reify diversity in the law, not only in education, but then continuing with jobs, promotions, government contracts, and so on.
It's not education.
In the end, it's merely indoctrination.
May I ask what kind of towels you use at home?
Do you use MyPillow towels?
If you don't, you're probably not drying yourself properly and this is a situation that does need to be corrected.
Ordinary towels just don't seem to dry you anymore.
They feel soft and lotion-y in the store.
When you take them home, they don't absorb.
Why not? Because ordinary 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, the CEO of MyPillow, has founded the best towel company right here in the USA. They have proprietary technology to create towels that feel soft but actually work.
They're all made with USA cotton.
They come with the MyPillow 60-day money-back guarantee.
These are the only towels we use in our home, and we love them.
Now, for a limited time, Mike is offering a ridiculously good deal on his six-piece towel set.
It includes two bath towels, two hand towels, two washcloths, all made with USA cotton, regularly $109.99, but now $39.99.
Great deal. Call 800-876-0227, that number 800-876-0227, or go to MyPillow.com to enjoy this offer.
You'll get, by the way, deep discounts on all the MyPillow products.
Just make sure that when you order, you use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I think we all know that the January 6th Pelosi committee is a nefarious operation.
But one of its more nefarious recent ventures, described by Molly Hemingway in an article in The Federalist, is how the committee is now boasting that it's going to criminalize Republican fundraising, or at least try to do that.
Now, how is a congressional committee going to do that?
Well, it's essentially a harassment strategy.
What they do is they use their subpoena power to go to all these Republican and conservative groups and basically say this.
Have you been raising money off of the election, the 2020 election?
Have you been raising money in the promise or the expectation that you're going to, you know, fight election fraud?
And the January 6th committee is like, if you're doing that, you're promoting the big lie.
You're creating the basis for a potential insurrection.
And so we're going to be able to sort of accuse you of the kind of incitement that led to January 6th.
Now, if all this seems like idle boasting, and I think a lot of it is, nevertheless, there is an effect, a chilling effect, when you get subpoenas and letters landing on your doorstep from the January 6th Committee.
Show up over here, provide copies of all your emails, send us copies of all your letters.
And so the idea here is to intimidate Republican and conservative groups.
And it's all based upon this kind of doctrine that it's sort of not okay.
In fact, it is completely out of bounds and is deeply undemocratic, if not potentially criminal, to question the results of an election.
Now, I think what makes all this really funny, I was a few days ago on Fox talking about this, is that Democrats have always contested, for a long time, in fact, for pretty much the last two decades, contested all elections that they have lost.
Let's start with the 2016 election.
Democrats, first of all, a bunch of Democrats contested the electoral count.
Number two, a whole bunch of Democrats, mainstream Democrats, people like John Lewis in the House, refused to show up for Trump's inauguration.
Why? Because they said he was an illegitimate president.
You might remember Hollywood actors, left-wing activists, calling on the Trump electors not to cast their votes for Trump, even though they were pledged to Trump.
Because, again, Trump's election was somehow illegitimate.
The Democrats for four years talked about how Russia hacked the election.
They're still talking about it, even though the whole notion has been exposed as a hoax.
A hoax, in fact, planted by the Hillary campaign.
Nevertheless, it's almost as if the media promulgated this so much, so relentlessly, that this kind of false doctrine has set in.
The point is that what makes the 2020 election unique is not that the results were questioned, but that the results were questioned by Republicans.
So Republicans are not supposed to question an election result.
This is the first time, in fact, to my knowledge and living memory, that Republicans have even done this.
Republicans normally go, okay, well, you know what, we lost.
Let's move on.
Even when Nixon lost to Kennedy, an election that, by the way, Nixon thought had been corrupted by fraud, both in Texas and in Cook County, Illinois, Nixon basically decided, let it be for the good of the country.
I don't want the division.
I don't want to stretch this out.
I'm essentially going to gracefully exit the stage.
And this is the Republican way.
So it's amazing that Democrats are suddenly acting in a sort of feigned pretense that questioning elections is just simply not something that you can do, when they've been doing it, and they did it in the very last election.
By the way, they questioned the results of the 2000 election, the 2004 election.
You'd really have to go back to 1988.
This was the election of George H.W. Bush when Democrats lost an election and basically did not question the result.
Number two, part of what the January 6th committee is trying to say is that these Republican fundraising campaigns by Trump, by the way, and others, are inherently deceitful because Trump knows that he lost the election.
So essentially what they're saying is that Trump is aware that he lost the election, he's aware that there was no election fraud, but still he's fundraising off of it, kind of like a false advertising type of claim.
But if there's one thing that Trump knows, it's that he won the election.
Anyone who sat down with Trump for five minutes recognizes that Trump does not believe he lost.
And anyone who says, oh yeah, he really knows that he lost, but he's just pretending that he won in order to raise money, has in zero comprehension of Trump and has not even been observing what Trump has been saying and doing for the past year and a half.
Of course, the final question, which is the question I'm going to explore in my upcoming film, 2000 Mules, is the underlying premise of all this, which is simply what happened in the 2020 election.
And the truth of it is, we don't know.
We don't have the full picture.
I don't have the full picture to this point.
But I do have part of the picture.
And I'm able to communicate it, not in a matter that suggests insinuation and suspicion, and it may have been this and it could have been that.
I'm able to describe the way that at least some of it really was and prove it.
And I think that's the power of this movie.
By the way, if you haven't gone to the website, go to 2000mules.com Make sure you sign up for the email updates.
Why? Because this way I can communicate directly with you, kind of circumvent the wall of censorship that inevitably surrounds this type of an issue.
Anyway, the January 6th committee, frankly, I find this menagerie to be unthreatening and virtually comic.
But I realize that people, particularly people kind of in the legal sphere, always freak out with subpoenas and demands for this and demands for that.
But I think that they're putting on a kind of theater.
A theater admittedly aimed at intimidation, but intimidation only works on people who are willing to be intimidated.
Aches and pains come to us all eventually, whether from the normal wear and tear of time or from injury.
But now, there's a 100% drug-free solution that'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 order more, Why?
Because it works for them. Debbie's a true believer in Relief Factor.
It's been a game changer in relieving the pain caused by her frozen shoulder.
And she knows if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain's going to come right back.
So Debbie's like, I don't want to be without this again.
Being able to lift her arm and exercise is super important to her.
Relief Factor's a tool she needs.
she's glad she's got it. You too can benefit. Try it for yourself. Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
That number again, 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. When he was campaigning for the presidency, Joe Biden put on a very tough, almost pugilistic stance toward Vladimir Putin.
And he said a lot of things about him, but here's one of them.
Quote, I'm the only guy that Putin doesn't want in the White House because he knows I will go toe-to-toe with him.
Now, first of all, the idea of this feeble Biden going toe-to-toe with anyone is...
A little pathetic, particularly because Putin, say what you will about him, is actually very fit.
I don't know if you've seen some of those social media videos of Putin in the gym and so on.
Putin is actually kind of an athlete.
This is not to say Putin could take on anybody, but it certainly is to say that Putin could take on Biden.
Anyway... Point I want to make is that I think for Biden, this was supposed to be a general statement about the kind of unafraid, aggressive stance that Biden would take, particularly if Putin acted up in any way.
Supposedly, Biden was going to be a lot tougher than Trump.
Now, we see in many ways that that is not the case.
Trump canceled the approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Biden then revived it and then kind of at the last minute canceled it again.
Biden said he would continue to buy oil from Russia.
Then once domestic pressure built up, he was like, okay, well, I'll cancel buying oil from Russia.
And here's an interesting report that the White House...
Axed a plan to give guerrilla warfare training to the Ukrainians in advance of Putin's invasion because they thought it might provoke Russia.
Think about it.
This would have actually been very useful to do.
It's always better to get betrayed before an actual invasion.
And Putin wasn't able to invade overnight.
In fact, for months, he had been piling up, you could say, on the Ukrainian border.
And American intelligence officials knew about this.
And so, apparently, senior military officials came up with a plan.
And that was quite simply to send a few hundred kind of experts in guerrilla warfare over to the Ukraine to assist the Ukrainians in military advice and planning and strategy.
And the White House said no.
They didn't want to do it.
Why didn't they want to do it?
Well, they said that, A, this will harm our diplomatic efforts.
Diplomatic efforts to do what?
To apparently discourage the invasions.
You can say those diplomatic efforts were a dud.
And number two, to avoid, quote, escalating the situation.
This, again, is part of the kind of rhetoric that you learn, you know, at the almost, you could say, in military school.
Let's not escalate the rhetoric.
Well, of course, I don't think Putin needed any, quote, escalating rhetoric.
And the whole idea that rhetoric somehow is what causes people to do the things that they do, I think, is a laughable overestimation of the power of words.
You have Putin. He wants to exercise domination of the Ukraine.
He thinks Ukraine is getting too big for its boots.
He doesn't like having a hostile neighbor right next to him.
This has nothing to do with what the State Department says in its communiques or in its idiotic cables.
No one even reads those, let alone, I don't even think people in the State Department read them.
But apparently, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin...
I was interested in this military plan, this plan to provide, you can say, guerrilla training to Ukrainian fighters to resist Vladimir Putin.
It's not clear whether Biden himself is the one who said no.
It often happens in these cases, they always shield Biden and they act like, quote, White House officials nixed the plan because they thought that the diplomacy should be given a full chance and we don't want to escalate the situation.
But I just want to point out that once again, what we have here is a clear failure.
At least we know now how good it would have been to provide this kind of training.
The United States is obviously not going to commit troops.
That was really never on the table.
We have provided some lethal aid to the Ukraine, but obviously this would have helped them to use it.
Yet, what is Biden doing? If you look at him today, he's not going toe to toe with anybody.
Most of the time he's hiding out in Delaware, he's hiding out in Camp David.
He tries to avoid questions on the situation. He may not even know what's really going on.
And so I think this latest episode, by itself I would say not a huge episode, but nevertheless, it points to a continuing pattern, not of strength, not of standing up, but rather of sitting down, or in Biden's case, falling asleep, in dealing with international crises like the one right now in Ukraine.
By itself, I would say not a huge episode, but nevertheless, it points to a continuing pattern not of strength, not of standing up, but rather of sitting down, or in Biden's case, falling asleep in dealing with international crises like the one right now in Ukraine.
Do you know about Legacy Box? It's the easiest and safest way to reclaim all the priceless footage you haven't seen in years.
Do you know about Legacy Box?
It's the easiest and safest way to reclaim all the priceless footage you haven't seen in years.
Send in your Legacy Box filled with aging VHS tapes, camcorder tapes, film reels and pictures.
And in your Legacy Box, filled with aging VHS tapes, camcorder tapes, film reels, and pictures, their team professionally digitizes everything by hand at their 110,000 square foot production campus right here in the USA.
Debbie and I have had a great experience with Legacy Box digitizing our old photos and cassette and video recordings.
Debbie literally cried when she saw my steps on Justin's beating heart in an ultrasound and he's now 26.
And here's Debbie's crazy hair of the 1980s which made us and everybody else laugh out loud.
These are the kinds of priceless experiences that Legacy Box helps us preserve.
Join the millions of people who've entrusted Legacy Box to safeguard their recorded moments, protect your treasured tapes, film reels, and photos from floods, mold, even the decay of time.
Visit LegacyBox.com to take advantage of an exclusive discount for listeners.
Legacy Boxes are still in stock and ready to ship.
Go ahead and visit LegacyBox.com Remember Makia Bryant?
Now, I ordinarily wouldn't remember Makia Bryant, but it's the striking name.
It's M-A apostrophe K-H-I-A, Makia Bryant.
Well, she was the... Sixteen-year-old young woman who was shot by a police officer.
This was in Columbus, Ohio.
The police officer's name was Nicholas Reardon.
And Makia Bryant was at that time in the process with a drawn knife of brandishing it and attempting to stab another young woman dressed in pink.
Somebody called 911 and told the cops that there was a stabbing that was going on outside the home.
The police showed up.
They saw Makia Bryant, as I say, waving the knife.
The cops fired several times, I believe, and Makia Bryant tragically dropped dead.
Now, normally, I think this would not even be a national case, in part because Makia Bryant was in the process of using at least potentially lethal force against another individual, and it's to protect the safety of that person that presumably the cops used lethal force themselves.
But it turns out that this incident occurred the exact same day That Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd.
So there was a heightened kind of racial sensitivity, and the general kind of leftist uproar was, not again!
Not again! Please, not again!
And so this case has been prosecuted pretty relentlessly, going after this cop, Nicholas Reardon, as if to say that he, like Derek Chauvin, is some kind of a...
Some kind of a murderer.
But a grand jury was convened and the grand jury looked at all the circumstances and decided to...
I think this is the correct decision.
Exonerate the cop.
No charges.
Case dismissed.
And we see from a statement from Riordan himself, the suspect had a knife drawn back in her right hand and was starting to swing it forward to stab the female in pink.
So when Raiden was asked, why'd you do it?
That's his reason. He sees a suspect with a knife in the process of trying to stab someone else, and it is to protect that person's life that he used force.
Now, Bryant's family members have said, wait a minute, you don't know the context of all this.
Makia Bryant had actually grabbed a knife to defend herself.
But from the situation itself, it appears quite clear that Bryant was the assailant and not the person who was being attacked.
And the cop, I think, was doing his job.
Now, this, of course, comes to the issue of what is when you can use lethal force.
And all kinds of people have implied that the police don't need to do it.
Valerie Jarrett kind of absurdly says, police do not need guns to break up a knife fight.
First of all, there was no knife fight.
One person had a knife, the other person didn't.
That's not called a knife fight.
A knife fight's when two people have a knife.
And Biden goes, well, why don't the cop shoot her in the leg?
You know, this is sort of, this is kind of this doofus playing cop.
Well, the reason that you don't shoot people in the leg, and there have been a number of cases of this, is when you shoot people in the leg, they often keep going.
It doesn't immobilize them.
The idea is to neutralize the threat, and sometimes shooting people in the leg only makes them more angry, and they come at you with renewed vigor and rage.
Right? Joy Behar.
Officers who come upon someone about a knife another person should shoot in the air.
Down comes a bird landing on the ground and presumably the assailant goes, Oh, wait a minute.
That was really troubling. I better stop attacking this person with a knife.
This is all fantasy talk by people who don't do what cops do.
And look, cops are fully capable of abuses.
I've talked about this in the January 6th context.
But in this case...
I think this police officer was using the standard.
The standard is, by the way, called imminent harm.
And what imminent harm means is that when someone, either the cop themselves or some third party, is facing imminent harm, then the police can and should do what is necessary to neutralize the threat.
And cops are actually trained to shoot at the middle part of the body, in part because that's the way that you neutralize the threat.
This is what Riordan did.
And this is why I think the grand jury exonerated him.
Have you noticed lately that criminals, illegal migrants, corrupt politicians, even tyrants get all the protection?
I say it's time we protect what's right and good.
And my friends at AMAC can help you do just that.
AMAC is the Association of Mature American Citizens, and they're standing up for your conservative values and for the future of America.
AMAC is the conservative voice for mature Americans, and they stand up for causes that all freedom-loving Americans share.
By joining AMAC, you'll combine efforts with over 2.3 million members who share your values, and you'll receive exclusive benefits like discounts on travel, cell phone plans, and Go to amac.us and join or renew today.
Debbie and I are proud members, and for just $16 a year, you can be one too.
It's time to protect faith and family and freedom.
Join AMAC today by going to amac.us and join.
And take a stand for America.
Democrats are facing, and Debbie and I have talked about this on the podcast more than once, a kind of hemorrhaging of the Hispanic vote.
It's actually a beautiful thing to watch.
And the white leftists who are observing this with some dismay have come up with a really good answer to it.
The answer is encapsulated in the title of an article in Axios.
It's called, The Rise of White Nationalist Hispanics.
So the basic idea now is Hispanics have joined the ranks of the racists!
These people are...
They're nuts. Well, let's talk about what's going on.
So here's the broader phenomenon that a lot of Democrats apparently, they noticed in the 2020 election that Trump increased his percentage of the Hispanic vote.
And they noticed, by the way, this just wasn't just Cubans and Venezuelans.
No, it was also the group of Hispanics that's the largest group and the one that Democrats count on to be firmly in the Democratic camp.
And this is Mexican-Americans.
But Trump was making inroads among Mexican-Americans and especially among Mexican-American men.
Now, the Democrats, noticing this, apparently came to the view, well, yeah, you know, it's probably something to do with Trump's personality and his machismo.
And I've got to say, honey, you two thought that it might just be Trump.
It may be that their attachment is to Trump, the man, and that when...
They do love him. Yeah, and Debbie has seen an enthusiasm for Trump that is without rival.
They have seen it. Nothing like it.
But, you know, Debbie's fear, too, was that, you know, when Trump moves away from the scene, will these guys basically then return to the Democratic Party or just not vote at all?
It turns out that the data that we're getting shows that this is actually a very important demographic shift, a political demographic shift, probably similar to other shifts that we've seen in the last several decades.
For example, the South moving from the Democratic Party into the Republican camp.
This happened really starting in the late 70s but continuing through the 80s and 90s.
And here we see that this shift is occurring, I would say, even more rapidly than that one.
Just back in November of 2020, the two parties were tied in terms of political identification.
But a Wall Street Journal poll just last week shows that Republicans are now ahead with Hispanics by nine points.
I mean, think about that. This is the largest ethnic minority group in the country outnumbering blacks, and Republicans are winning it straight out.
Democrats still have a slight advantage with Mexican Americans when you subtract out the other Hispanics, but even that is eroding.
And apparently the reasons for this is essentially the progressive agenda, which Hispanics are not on board for.
A, they're not on board with climate change.
They would rather have high-paying energy jobs.
Number two, they're not on board with all this diversity and racial indoctrination and political correctness.
This is just not how they talk.
It's not even how they think.
In fact, most of them want the American dream.
They don't want to attack the American founders.
They don't want to attack capitalism.
They want to join. They want to see some of the fruits of capitalism.
And finally, they're not on board with the left's open immigration agenda.
The left keeps trying to sell Hispanics on, hey, you know what?
Listen, you may not like us, but we're opening the border for you.
These Hispanics are like, what?
What? My ranch?
What? My house? What?
So what you really have is these, let's call them Ivy League dunces, who are running, the progressives who are shaping the whole approach of the Democratic Party, and they're losing Hispanics in droves.
And so they've come up with their...
Solution to it, the rise of the white nationalist Hispanics.
And I'm like, wow, I'd like to meet some of these white nationalist Hispanics.
First of all, where are they?
I mean, are Hispanics these days acceptable in the Ku Klux Klan?
Are the skinheads recruiting Hispanics?
Let's get some Hispanics!
We need more Hispanics!
Yeah, so obviously this whole thing is laughable, but when you skim through the article, you basically find that the whole article is built on two examples.
Nick Fuentes. So Nick Fuentes apparently is half Mexican-American.
One of his parents is Mexican-American.
And of course, Nick Fuentes is, I would call him, I mean, this guy to me is an exhibitionist.
I'm not even sure he believes half the stuff he says.
He's obviously a baiter, and he's obviously playing a game for attention.
But okay, so he's the first white nationalist Hispanic.
And the other is the Cuban-American Enrique Tarrio, the guy who's head of the Proud Boys.
But of course, the presumption there is that the Proud Boys is a racist organization when the Proud Boys, as Tarrio's own presence signifies, no, it's not a racist organization whatsoever.
It's got a whole different thing we don't even need to get into right now.
But the point I'm trying to make is that this hardly proves that of the millions of Hispanics, the millions who are basically now saying, you know, we're not really at home in the Democratic Party.
We might have habitually thought we were, but we're really not.
We don't like these people. We don't like how they talk.
We don't like how they treat us.
Quite frankly, we don't want to go the way of the blacks.
We don't want government dependency.
We don't want broken families.
We don't want the kind of misery that then brings in an army of social workers to look after us.
Sorry, we're not on board.
And so, since the Hispanics are checking out the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party figures, let's just turn around and call them names.
The Russia invasion of Ukraine has sent the markets into an uproar.
The market's going down. Gold is going up.
Hey, this is exactly why you have gold as part of your investment strategy.
Precious metals have historically been a safe haven in times of geopolitical insecurity.
Now, Birch Gold is the leader in converting IRAs and 401ks into a tax-sheltered IRA backed by gold and silver.
Now's the time to protect yourself by investing in something with real value.
Gold and silver from Birch Gold, if you haven't already.
With thousands of satisfied customers, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898 to get a free information kit.
On gold, there is no obligation.
Go ahead, text Dinesh to 989898 and get your free information kit now.
Like me, you'll be thankful that you have gold in your retirement account.
I can't say I'm a regular reader of Rolling Stone and I've generally regarded it as a magazine read by people who are stoned.
But Rolling Stone has an interesting article, I actually picked it up online, about CNN. And sometimes in these kind of gossipy accounts of the kind you get in Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone, you begin to get the real story that has been somewhat submerged or camouflaged in the other media.
And the question that this article, I think, pretty effectively answers is, why was Jeff Zucker really fired?
Now, there's a kind of official story here, and the official story, on the surface, makes a kind of sense.
It goes sort of like this.
CNN has some very strict guidelines about, kind of, you call it inter-office dating.
According to these guidelines, the Code of Conduct, I'm going to read, To avoid a conflict of interest, employees must not hire or supervise, directly or indirectly, someone with whom they have a personal relationship.
And if that is the case, it says, quote, And so the official narrative is that Jeff Zucker began, had a relationship, the duration of it is debated, with a woman named Allison Gallist at CNN. He did not disclose this relationship, even though this woman was kind of one of his top lieutenants.
And therefore, he's in violation of the CNN code, and therefore he had to be let go.
The idea was that this is a kind of...
A staff situation that arose and was discovered in the wake of the investigation into Chris Cuomo.
Remember the accusations from several women against Chris Cuomo that resulted in Chris Cuomo being ejected.
And so it's like we stumbled upon Jeff Zucker's relationship.
And unfortunately, even though he's the head of CNN, he had to go.
Now, according to Rolling Stone, that is only a little part of the story.
And in fact, if that were the only violation, I suspect that CNN would have said to Zachary, listen, you should have been a little more upfront.
Yeah, so I'll do that next time.
I'll be more upfront. Okay, thank you very much.
Go back to your office. It would have been more like that.
But as it turns out, what happened with CNN in the Cuomo investigation is they hired a law firm and they said, sort of, dig into the situation.
Let us know what's really going on.
And what this law firm discovered, this is Cravat, Swain& Moore, a very prestigious law firm, they discovered that there was a whole operation going on in which Zucker and Golust, remember, this woman Golust used to work for Governor Andrew Cuomo.
And it turns out that between her and Zucker, they became unofficial advisors to Andrew Cuomo.
They were basically strategizing with Cuomo about how he could raise his profile vis-a-vis Trump and make him, Andrew Cuomo, a potential rival to Trump.
Think of it. You've got a news network, the most trusted name in news.
And what are they doing? Their number one and number two, you can say, guys are working with an actual elected official and cooperating and you can almost say conspiring in using CNN itself as a propaganda vehicle to raise this guy's profile and sort of score points against Trump.
Now, Rolling Stone kind of documents this by showing that there was a proposal by Trump to deal with COVID by imposing, and this goes back to the early months of COVID, a potential temporary moratorium, a temporary shutdown.
And apparently, Cuomo had nothing particularly interesting to say about it until...
Allison Golust and Jeff Zucker got into the picture, and apparently there was some sort of three-way communication between them.
I don't know if it went through Golust or whether Zucker and Governor Cuomo spoke directly.
That's not clear from the article.
But... What is clear from the article is that these guys were advising Cuomo, and once Cuomo took their advice, they're like, yeah, come on CNN, so that this strategy that we're passing over to you, you can now use in your public attack on Trump, which we will present as a CNN scoop.
And we know that this all happened because after Governor Cuomo appears on CNN, Golust, Texts Cuomo and she says, quote, Well done, Cuomo W. Trump L. In other words, Cuomo gets the win.
Trump has a loss.
And so, in a sense, what Golas is doing is congratulating Cuomo, but she's also congratulating herself and she's congratulating Jeff Zucker because the three of them cooked this up together.
And I think what happened is Kravats, Wayne and Moore, noticing a lot of this kind of stuff going on, went to CNN and said, listen, this is highly unethical.
You have a news network that is supposed to be reporting on the news, is supposed to be sort of putting a skeptical eye on the political class.
And what are they doing?
They're basically all in unethical.
Almost as if they are part of the communications team of Governor Cuomo.
I think it is this grotesque ethical lapse that's the reason why Jeff Zucker got the boot at CNN. I'm continuing and I intend to conclude my discussion of Brunetto Latini in Cano 15 of Dante's Inferno.
And when we left off...
This guy Brunetto, a Guelph statesman and poet, was saying to Dante, follow your constellation and you can't fail to reach your port of glory.
And then he goes on, and I'll interpret what he's saying, but I want to continue with the text itself.
Let's stay with the text for a moment.
And he makes a kind of prediction.
He goes, that ungrateful and malignant race, which descended from the fee soul of old, will become for your good deeds your enemy.
What's he talking about here?
Well, Brunetto Latini is predicting that this race of people, it turns out to be the Italians, are going to become Dante's enemy.
Remember, Dante was a Guelph and therefore opposed by the Ghibellines.
But then later, when a factional struggle developed within the Guelphs, the white and the black Guelphs, Dante was exiled because the black Guelphs came to power.
So the point here is that who doesn't like Dante?
Ghibellines don't like him, and a lot of Guelphs don't like him either.
And what Brunetto Latini is saying is that these people are after you.
They're against you.
Predicting, in a sense, Dante's exile, although not as explicitly as Parinata did in Cano 10.
And he continues.
This is Brunetto Latini talking.
He goes, referring to Dante, Among the bitter berries, there is no fit place for the sweet fig to bloom.
Now, what he's saying is that you, Dante, are a sweet fig among these bitter berries.
And he's implying that the reason all these people don't like Dante is they're envious of him.
They're not as good as him.
They're thorns. Dante is a sweet fig.
And this use of the term sweet fig, I think...
It is a very Dante-esque and subtle indication that we are in the Canto of the Sodomites.
It is the use of language in such a way as to suggest something without saying it explicitly.
Let's continue to see how Dante continues this rhetoric so we're not just reading it in there.
It is, in fact, in the text.
Your destiny, this is Brunetto talking, reserves such honors for you.
Both parties shall be hungry to devour you.
Again, the language of being literally devoured or eaten, yeah, it suggests a certain kind of carnivorous aspect to all this, but at the same time, there is also a suggestive aspect here, which reminds us of what canto we're in.
As I said last time, I'm a little flattered by all this because they're talking about how great Dante is and how envious people will go after him.
And Dante, of course, has very sweet memories of Brunetto Latini.
And so Dante says, Oh, if all I wished for had been granted, you certainly would not, not yet, be banished from our life on Earth.
My mind is etched and now my heart is pierced with your kind image, loving and paternal.
When, living in the world, hour after hour, you taught me how man makes himself eternal.
Very important passage here.
So Dante, first of all, embracing this idea that Brunetto had called him, you're my son.
Dante is saying, yes, you were very paternal toward me.
And you taught me a lot of things.
Well, what did Brunetto teach Dante?
Dante says, you taught me, quote, how man makes himself eternal.
And this is, now we're getting to the heart of the chapter and the heart of this canto.
It's really about fame.
And it's about...
Making yourself eternal.
But how do you make yourself eternal?
Remember, Dante is traveling through the afterlife.
He's traveling through, you may say, the eternity that other people who have died before him are experiencing.
The eternity of hell, the eternity of paradise.
Now, purgatorio is not eternity because purgatorio is transitional, but it's transitional to paradise.
And so, the point of the Divine Comedy is that is the type of eternity that matters.
In other words, your eternal destiny of your soul.
The type of eternity that does not matter, or matters a lot less, is your fame on earth as a poet.
And yet, that is what Brunetto Latini cares about.
Remember what he said earlier to Dante?
He's like, listen, you know, I'm your patron.
If I were alive, I would have pushed your reputation.
I would have built you up.
And of course, when this seems very benign, Brunetto wants Dante to advance.
But of course, what sometimes happens with mentors is that they want a talented student to advance so that they will get the glory.
Aren't you the person who taught Dante?
Aren't you the person associated with Dante?
And in fact, the simple truth of it is that today, we know Brunetto Latino's name, why?
Because of Dante.
So Brunetto Latini's idea that by being, in a sense, a successful mentor, he himself would be remembered turns out to be true.
Turns out to be true. But you see here, Dante is falling for it.
Dante himself goes, yeah, you're teaching me to become eternal.
Eternal, obviously, in the earthly sense of Dante's reputation.
And again, Dante is prophetic.
Dante's own poem lives on.
We read Dante today.
You have Dante studies going on all over the world.
So, it is a fact that Dante, in that sense, is his Now, Brunetta Latini, now we're coming to the end of the passage, kind of gives Dante a little bit of a tour of who else is in this circle of the sodomites.
And I sort of chuckle when I read this all the time because Brunetta basically looks around and he says, listen, basically what we find here is we find some clerics who He says we find some lawyers and we find some, quote, respected men of letters.
So, even in Dante's time, it appears that these professions were rather highly populated with so-called sodomites.
Of course, in the clergy, this has always been sort of the case for the simple reason that if you do have that disposition, it's easier to go in the clergy.
You're supposed to be celibate, but no one raises any eyebrows.
They don't think it's odd that you aren't married.
Why? Because you have a vocation as a priest.
So Dante knows all this, and Dante has Brunetto look around and go, yeah, there's a bunch of priests over there, and there's some lawyers over there, and some artists over here, and some men of letters over there.
And And then Brunetto kind of has to go.
And he says, We don't know who they are or why he cannot mingle with them.
But he then says...
Remember my tresor, where I live on.
This is the only thing I ask you.
Now, Brunetto Latini wrote a collection called The Tresor.
He wrote a couple of collections which were influential on Dante.
So he's telling Dante, listen, when you go back to the world, you know my one book, The Tresor?
Make sure you promote that.
So again, you can see for Brunetto, it's all about raising his fame and living on.
What he cares about is his reputation living on in the world.
And I think what Dante is getting at here, and the connection to astronomy is never made clear.
Dante never spells it out.
But he's talking about a certain type of narcissism in which your favorite action is to see yourself in the mirror.
The idea here is that you are the center of the universe.
And your image, your look, your fame, how people regard you, how they remember you, this is ultimately what is important.
And for Dante, of course, that is to miss what is truly important.
It's kind of losing sight of what eternity really means.
This entire section is built upon the biblical idea, going right back to the book of Genesis, be fruitful and multiply.
But Dante is using the term not in the narrow sense of be fruitful and multiply, have children.
He is including that sense.
But what he actually means is something much bigger.
And that is...
Order God's creation through human activity and through art.
This canto actually begins with the construction of dikes.
Not dikes in the sense of dikes, but construction of dikes to keep the water out.
Construction of levees in order to, again, this is man using art to continue God's ordering of the world to Ultimately, what Dante is showing is that the sin of Brunetto Latini is to refuse this divine call to be fruitful and multiply, and instead to engage in a certain kind of barren pursuit.
Barren not just in terms of sexuality, but also in terms of art.
▲
Export Selection