This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, newly released footage of January 6th shows a lot of what really happened on that fateful day and it undercuts the narrative of the January 6th propaganda committee.
I'll reveal how Antifa has been trashing Atlanta while the media stays largely silent.
I'm going to look at AOC's behavior at the Met Gala, for which she's being investigated.
It's kind of a window into the psychology of the left.
An entrepreneur and podcaster Robert C. Smith joins me.
He's going to explain why Virginia Law School needs to return his family's large donation.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Tucker Carlson has begun the process of releasing new, never-before-seen footage of January 6th.
Kevin McCarthy gave him access to the video, perhaps the full video, so they've been reviewing it.
And I think that this week, the whole week, they're going to be putting out new stuff.
But the stuff that they put out yesterday...
is already great stuff.
And I'm glad that they're focusing on key episodes and blowing the leftist narrative out of the water.
Three examples stick out in my mind.
The first one, of course, involves the shaman guy, the QAnon guy, so-called.
Again, anyone who watched even the footage that was previously available could see this is a pretty harmless fellow.
But what Tucker shows is two police officers literally escorting him through the Capitol.
They go from corridor to room.
In one case, the officers even open the door so that the guy can go in.
They ultimately lead him into the chamber, where we then saw the footage of him kind of prancing around.
Now, at one point, these two officers walk by seven other officers, and the other officers are not even bothered.
They hardly even look up.
So the Capitol Police's official explanation, which is that, hey, the Capitol Police are outnumbered.
They're kind of playing it low-key because they fear that the crowd will overwhelm them.
The footage dispels this as preposterous.
The Capitol Police were in every position simply to tell this guy, listen, you have to leave now.
Not at any point did they tell him to leave.
So you're in the peculiar situation.
You're a guy you don't know about the Capitol.
You're in the Capitol. You're obviously, in the case of this guy, something of an eccentric or maybe even a kook.
And the police are themselves sort of showing you around.
It's almost like you're a tourist.
And yeah, this is a guy getting, what, four years in prison for this?
This is outrageous. This is a scandal.
Number two, we see footage never seen before of Brian Sicknick.
And what's telling is this.
We see Brian Sicknick at a time when he's supposed to be dead.
So media reports, reports that are put out actually initially by the U.S. government say Brian Sicknick was killed.
New York Times, of course, falsely said he was killed with a fire extinguisher.
And we've known that this Brian Sicknick narrative that they put out, and they put it out for a purpose.
They wanted to show that the Trumpsters were the violent ones.
We know now that that's not true.
In fact, the only people killed, and I say people because it wasn't just Ashley Babbitt, but also Roseanne Boyland, were killed by the police shooting them or beating them.
But the narrative had to be That a cop was brutalized and Sicknick became that candidate.
But we've never seen Sicknick at the time when the Democrats said that Sicknick was killed.
So it's very telling that we now can.
Number three, the left says that Josh Hawley was, quote, running for his life.
And they show a video, and you see the video for only like one and a half second, and Hawley appears to be running across a hallway.
And the idea was, hey, here, Hawley helped to foment this insurrection.
And you can see the media and the sort of Capitol Hill types all chuckling in a public video that the Democrats put on the January 6th committee, of course, made a big deal of this.
But Tucker shows that first of all, the Capitol Hill police were ushering the senators and the congressmen out of the building.
Hawley was in a larger group.
It's just that he was the last guy in the group.
So the January 6th committee selectively edited the footage, removed all the other people, only showed a couple of seconds with Hawley as if he alone was running for his life, whereas in fact...
He's, first of all, not even leaving of his own volition.
The Capitol Police are like, come on, come on, get out of here, get out of here.
And so Hawley's merely doing what he's told by the Capitol Hill Police, and this is now falsely portrayed.
Now, the important point here is the January 6th committee knows all this.
They had all this footage.
So what did they do? They performed a real kind of Goebbels operation.
They went through the footage, and they realized, hey, listen, if we show 20 seconds, everybody will see Hawley's in a group.
Let's cut all the other people out and only show Hawley, and this is going to get the media to, like, obediently laugh.
Ha ha ha! Here's Josh Hawley running for his life.
So again, oh, we got sick Nick.
This is supposed to be after he's dead.
You know what? Let's not release that.
That's not going to make our side look good.
That doesn't support our narrative.
The shaman guy. In fact, they probably have all kinds of footage of the cops interacting with people, taking photos of them, smoking cigarettes because they got nothing to do.
All of this is on tape.
But you see what happens when you allow a kind of Goebbels operation?
You get one side of the story.
Nobody cross-examines.
Nobody produces other footage.
Nobody goes, but wait, but what about this?
Or let's provide the full context for what you're showing.
Yeah, this guy seems to be pushing back at the cops, but isn't it true that the cops basically hit him with spray first or they started punching him without provocation?
And then he begins to push back.
So at the very least, we need to know What the full situation really is.
Goebbels, the great propagandist, once said that, Good propaganda is judged by the fact that it works.
People believe it, even if it's a lie.
Bad propaganda is when people don't believe it.
I think by this standard, we have to say that the January 6th committee was a Goebbels-like operation, and they produced good propaganda.
I'm nominating Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for the Goebbels Prize.
I think they have to probably share it, because probably Cheney is the real winner, but Kinzinger was obviously a willing kind of Goebbels sidekick.
So the two of them need to jointly be given this award, and I'd be happy to administer an appropriate ceremony if they will agree to accept the award.
Now, some conservatives are saying in response to all this that, you know, see, we told you it's not an insurrection.
See, we told you these people aren't domestic terrorists.
And I think this kind of misses the point of why the left continues.
Why they use these names?
They use these names not because they think it's an insurrection.
They actually know it's not also.
They don't use domestic terrorists just because they're exaggerating.
Oh, it's political hyperbole.
No. They're doing it to demonize these people, to dehumanize them, to make them targets for long-term, well, to make them targets for charges of sedition and conspiracy, to lock them up for years.
In other words, the left calls the January 6th protesters, domestic terrorists, For the same reason that, say, Stalin called the Kulaks parasites.
Because he wanted to kill them.
And Hitler called the Jews vermin because he wanted to make them wear the Star of David and segregate them and ruin their lives.
And ultimately, in his case as well, kill them.
So the dehumanization serves a deeply vicious purpose.
It's not just that the left is, quote, wrong about using these labels.
They're using these labels with insidious intent.
Debbie and I are really enjoying our new MyPillow pillows, and I gotta tell you about them.
When you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched MyPillow 2.0.
Now, when Mike first invented MyPillow, it had everything you would want in a pillow, but now, nearly 20 years later, Mike Lindell has discovered a new technology that makes MyPillow even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has all the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow, But now with the brand new fabric that's made with a temperature regulating thread, the MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow you'll ever own.
Say goodbye to tossing and turning, flipping your pillow over in the middle of the night.
And more great news on the MyPillow 2.0 front.
Buy one, get one free.
This offer with promo code Dinesh.
The MyPillow 2.0, machine washable and dryable, made in the USA. 10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee.
So go ahead and order. Call 800-876-0227.
That number, 800-876-0227.
Lots of other products available there for deep discounts.
So just go to MyPillow.com, but don't forget to use the promo code.
That's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
There was a riot in Atlanta on Sunday and I doubt you've heard much about it.
In fact, it hasn't been much covered in the media and well, even the local press, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the so-called AJC, By the way, Predicted, they knew that there was Antifa, Black Lives Matter, a lot of these activists are mobilizing.
But here's how they talked about it.
They said that opponents of a plan to build a police training center on an 85-acre wooded property in DeKalb County gathered to kick off a week of protests and festivities.
Aimed at stopping the project from moving forward.
So they make it sound like it's like a town fair.
They're going to be like, they're just getting together to have a protest, but then they're also going to be having food and drinks.
This is not the case at all, because if you look at the images, and they are available on social media, mainly posted by conservative videographers, you see a lot of the same kind of information.
Signature images that we saw in the aftermath of George Floyd.
You see police vehicles turned over.
You see things on fire.
You see basically people marauding and burning and looting.
And all of this in Atlanta.
And it's a big story, but like I say, the story immediately is muted.
Why? Because the left's narrative is always nothing to see here, mostly peaceful.
And Now, 23 people were arrested.
These seem to be Antifa members.
And so here you go.
Antifa is supposedly just an idea, right?
It's not an organization. It doesn't really have members.
Except it does.
It has members. And in fact, we have all their mugshots.
They're, by the way, just as frightening looking as the earlier mugshots of Antifa apprehendees.
And one of them, very interestingly, is a lawyer at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Now, this is particularly interesting for a couple of reasons.
First of all, you've got an organization that's supposedly devoted to fighting hate and violence.
But as we know, that's not what the SPLC is about.
The SPLC is itself a hate group, but a hate group on the side of the left.
And so they promote violence.
And not surprisingly, this Tom Juergens guy, by the way, if you look at his bio on LinkedIn, he's a clean-cut guy with a tie, a navy blue blazer.
But then if you look at his mugshot, he looks like Che Guevara, a little unshaven mustache and beard, hair kind of straggling down, and a sulky look on his face like, what are you going to do to me?
And the SPLC has put out a statement basically, We'll continue to urge de-escalation.
We're against... And then they talk about condemning police force against black, brown, and indigenous communities.
Well, wait a minute. These are white guys we're talking about.
And so this is not about police violence against the brown and the black, but rather the police putting handcuffs on the bad guys who are...
Attacking police facilities and setting fire to things.
By the way, most of these guys involved in this aren't from Atlanta.
They aren't from Georgia at all.
And they are from all over the place.
In fact, I'm looking at a list of names and I see...
Massachusetts, I see Indiana, Colorado, Massachusetts again, Utah, Arizona, Wisconsin.
So these are import a domestic terrorist events.
These people come in for these events.
It's planned and organized.
Obviously, there's somebody paying for their airfares, putting them up in hotels, probably providing them with bricks to throw, at least whatever the equipment that they need for these so-called protests.
By the way, there's one guy, Dimitri Leni from France.
And Robert Paul Frederic from Canada.
So we even have a kind of an international presence here.
Let's just say that the domestic terrorists are joining up with some foreign terrorists to pull off this kind of an operation.
So this is what the left does.
They've got now in the United States a kind of militia.
And they organized these events.
Contrast this, by the way, with I've been talking earlier about January 6th, but look at the difference.
January 6th was a spontaneous event.
Yeah, you might have had a couple of groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, but even in those cases, they were infiltrated by the cops.
And they weren't planning any sort of insurrection.
In fact, if you look at some of the internal communications, it's pretty clear that what they're worried about is Antifa.
They're worried about confrontations by people showing up on the left at the Trump rally.
And most of their, quote, preparations are aimed at dealing with those guys.
This is sort of, I guess, almost like a sort of a gang skirmish.
But these are the people, Antifa, that directly array themselves against the cops and against the authorities.
And they're used to getting away with it.
They're used to having their bail paid.
Remember when Kamala Harris was raising bail for these guys?
They're used to having nonprofit organizations siding with them and looking out for them.
Very often when you've got these rioters on the streets, you've got lawyers.
With the SPLC and other groups running around with the rioters.
And their idea is to, quote, collect evidence that can be used to defend these people if and when they are arrested.
So this is a very disturbing street operation.
It's kind of our own answer to Mussolini's black shirts that we now have in America.
And the media's job here is to cover it up by pretending like this group doesn't even really exist.
What black shirts?
What fires? I don't see anything.
And even though fires are raging behind the CNN reporter, he doesn't really see anything.
But we see it.
And we know. And they can't pull, in that sense, the wool over our eyes.
Buy gold and you'll get a free safe to store it in.
That's right. On qualifying purchases from Birch Gold Group now through March 31st, they'll ship a free safe directly to your door.
Just text Dinesh to 989898 to get your free information kit on gold and to claim eligibility for your free safe.
Here's the deal. The Fed keeps raising rates because it's the only tool they have to keep inflation under control and it's not working.
You can't spend your way out of inflation.
You've seen the impact of the stock market.
You've seen the impact on your savings.
So you need to hedge inflation by owning gold, whether physical gold and silver in your safe or through an IRA and precious metals where you can hold real gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
Debbie and I buy gold from Birch Gold to protect our finances.
You can trust them, too.
They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of satisfied customers. So go ahead get the process started.
Text Dinesh to 98 98 98.
Get your free information kit on gold and claim eligibility for your free home safe. It's my March 31st on qualifying purchases.
Again text Dinesh to 98 98 98. Thanks to Republican oversight we're now getting the picture of what happened with AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Met Gala.
Now, what's interesting here is the story shows that she was desperate to go to the gala.
So here's AOC with her big tax the rich dress and denouncing the rich.
The rich are bad. Well, the rich pay for their stuff.
AOC doesn't want to.
And as it turns out, she seems to have violated the House rules in doing so.
And the story is particularly insidious because it shows how she tried to cover that up and lie about it and get other people to lie about it, including the museum and the designer of her dress and others as well.
So let's look at what happens.
Now, AOC is allowed to go to the Met Gala, but here's the point.
The invitation has to come from the Met.
And typically, the Met does invite senators and congressmen, but from that district.
And so, for example, the senator of New York, or maybe the congressman or woman from that district gets an invitation, but AOC is not in that district, so she wasn't invited.
So she could go to the Met Gala, but she'd have to pay.
Now, it's kind of expensive.
$35,000 for two people.
And AOC wanted to take her boyfriend.
So this was going to cost her some considerable money.
She didn't want to pay.
And so she decided, okay, let me figure out another way to get in.
Now, she knows Anna Wintour, who is the longtime editor of Vogue, and Vogue was apparently one of the sponsors of the event, and so she basically got her tickets through Vogue and through Anna Wintour.
But see, this is not allowed.
Why? Because Vogue is part of a massive media corporation.
The media corporation owns Spectrum, a highly regulated internet provider.
So if you've got a corporation like this that's involved in public dealings, it can be seen as a As a payoff, as a bribe, or either as a campaign donation.
It's basically members of Congress are not allowed to take gifts worth this kind of money from companies that employ lobbyists.
End of story. And so what happens is AOC uses the leverage or the influence of Anna Winter to get the tickets.
And then tries to hide that fact by saying things like, well, why don't we just say the tickets didn't really come from Vogue magazine?
They were like a personal gift from Anna Wintour.
That way we leave the corporation out of it.
So this is how AOC is trying to cover her tracks.
Even though she was warned that, quote, the congressman could accept an invitation from the Met but not, this is her lawyer's italics, from Vogue.
So she knows, but she's so eager to go that she basically still does it.
The second thing that's really interesting is that although she gets this kind of Kim Kardashian treatment, transportation, dress, hair, makeup, hotel room, manicure, shoes, handbag jewels, even accessories for the boyfriend, she doesn't want to pay for any of it.
And in fact, she doesn't.
So we find out later that as investigations begin and people start asking her about the event and who paid for this and who paid for that, she then starts paying later.
For example... She gets a haute couture dress from a Brooklyn designer, and it was supposedly rented to her, not even given to her, but rented to her for $1,300.
Her campaign office decided, why don't we bargain them down to $300?
And so they don't even want to pay the designer $1,300 for this elaborate dress.
Number two, she gets $635 shoes, which she apparently intends to only use once, and she gets the price of that dramatically knocked down.
Another time she writes to the dress designer.
This is an AOC staffer saying, hey, listen, we need some stuff for the boyfriend.
And she goes, quote, there's no restriction on Riley, by the way.
What's AOC saying? She's saying, listen, there are some restrictions on me, so we kind of have to be careful.
But you can give as much free stuff as you want to the boyfriend because he's not under the same rules.
So you can see here, again, the socialist habit where free, free, free.
We sometimes think that socialists are only providing entitlements to the ordinary guy so they can get their votes.
Hey, listen, I'll give you free stuff so you can then vote for me.
But notice that even the socialists that have money, that are well-paid, that are in this case sitting in Congress, are trying to get free invitations, Free outfits, free shoes, free jewelry.
So I don't know what's going to happen to this, but I think it's really important for the House to crack down on this scoundrel, AOC, at the very least hit her with an ethics violation and an ethics penalty.
I'm really glad at the very least that the information showing her to be a glaring hypocrite is now out.
Debbie and I gained some weight.
Well, not telling you how much, too much, during COVID, and we had a choice.
Well, hey, either go down the fat affirmation route or start dropping some pounds.
We started the PhD weight loss and nutrition program four weeks ago.
Debbie has already lost more than six pounds, and I'm down 13.
The program is based on science and nutrition.
No injections, no pills, no hours in the gym, no severe calorie restriction, just good, sound, scientifically proven nutrition.
It's so simple, they actually make it easy by providing 80% of your food at no additional cost.
They tell you when to eat and what to eat.
And guess what?
You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder, Dr. Ashley Lucas, has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition and is a registered dietician.
She spent her whole life helping people lose weight, get healthy, and most importantly, maintaining that weight loss for life.
If you're ready to lose that excess weight for the last time, call PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition.
Here is the number, 864-644-1900.
Find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
Again, the number to call, 864-644-1900.
Guys, I'm happy to welcome to the podcast a new guest.
His name is Robert C. Smith.
He's the managing partner of Chartwell Capital Advisors.
He's the host of the Rob is Right podcast.
He's a graduate of the University of Richmond Law School, and he happens to be the great-great grandson of a man named T.C. Williams, who was the original benefactor for the University of Richmond Law School.
And you'll see why I'm mentioning this.
Rob, welcome to the podcast.
By the way, the website, robisright.com.
Great to have you.
And I gotta say, I talked about the University of Richmond Law School on the podcast.
This was probably a few weeks ago when I saw some news reports about it.
And basically, your great-great-grandfather was the largest, if not one of the largest donors to the school.
The school named the law school after your great-great-grandfather, as I understand it.
And then they decided to cancel him.
Talk a little bit about the process that led to that, how you found out about it.
Were you involved in that process?
Talk about how this stuff happens.
Sure. Well, I'd like to just say that the Williams family were the greatest benefactors for the University of Virginia over a number of generations, starting in about 1840.
But I went to law school there.
And by the way, it was a very hard law school back when I went there.
We had the highest bar rates in the state.
Now that it's gone woke, they had the lowest bar passage rates in the state.
But I got a call from the president of the University of Richmond, I think it was September 24th, telling me that they were denaming the law school And I guess he called me because I'm a graduate.
And he told me it was because T.C. Williams had a connection to slavery.
And there was a five o'clock press release, of course, virtue signaling press release already scheduled.
Now, the University of Richmond, I didn't know this.
I wasn't keeping up with all this, but they had this denaming process, which, by the way, is kind of smacks of the Taliban or the Soviet Union rewriting history.
But they had this process.
Family members were supposed to be included in that process.
And of course we weren't.
And, you know, Dinesh, the Williams family were great people.
They were fervent Baptists.
And the school had a Christian founding, and they really gave their lives to the school.
They served on the board.
They rescued the school from bankruptcy several times.
And to be treated like this, I think, dishonors my family and also dishonors everybody else who Who contributed to universities by just canceling them.
The school would not be there but for the benevolence of the Williams family.
Now, may I ask you this, Rob?
For the left, they think virtue signaling is free.
In other words, they think that it gives them a sort of posture of moral superiority.
I think you have a remarkable opportunity here to make them pay for this virtue signaling.
You wrote a letter, as I understand it, to the president basically saying, If you don't want to be associated with our family and with my ancestor, why don't you give us the money back?
And that just seems, morally speaking, to be a fair deal, right?
In other words, if he's such a bad guy, why keep his dough while removing his name?
So have they replied to you?
Have they responded to your very sane suggestion?
No, they have not.
My brother's helping me out with this, and he's written to the president 25 times.
And he said, let us put on a defense of our family, and they have not gotten back to us.
And of course, you're exactly right.
If the Williams name is tainted, just give back the money.
If you're so virtuous and pious, you're better than all these people who devoted themselves during the 19th century, didn't give the money back, because obviously the money is tainted.
But of course they won't do that.
They won't even talk to us.
That's amazing. I wonder if you should just consider a lawsuit.
I mean, even if your ancestors' donations were not conditional, this will put the whole virtue signaling enterprise on trial.
And I think it will expose the hypocrisy of these people.
These are people sort of like, they have all these art treasures.
They're claiming, oh, these were Nazi treasures.
These were stolen by the Nazis.
But guess what? We're going to keep them.
Yeah. Well, we're going to issue a strongly worded resolution against Nazism while hanging on to the Nazi art treasures.
That's exactly right.
And, you know, Dinesh, after we got involved in this, you know, my thought was, okay, Let's compare the virtue of the Williams family with the virtue of the current administration, the Board of Trustees, and the faculty of the University of Richmond.
And let's let the public decide, who's more virtuous?
Who was a better man?
And what we have dug up, what they teach at the University of Richmond these days, it has gone completely neo-Marxist woke.
We have found a professor who is an ardent Satanist, and of course he's in the Gender Studies department, which encourages students to mutilate themselves so they can become another gender, which of course they can't do.
We have found a professor who is a virulent anti-Semite in the journalism department.
It's a complete joke.
It's not journalism.
It's activism.
And one of the professors there runs a workshop to teach Antifa and Black Lives Matter It doesn't matter, folks, how to riot, basically how to be a domestic terrorist.
My brother was on campus the other day, and there are these woke signs that they are encouraging students to inform on other students Basically, for thought crimes.
And if they turn somebody in, they get rewarded with free merch.
I mean, that's something right out of what the Soviet Cheka did.
I mean, that's downright creepy.
Rob, let's take a pause. When we come back, I want to talk a little bit about your podcast and your hilarious website and some of the stuff that you're thinking about these days.
We'll be right back. Okay. Sometimes we all need a fresh start.
Now the phrase literally means an opportunity to begin something again.
You know you need a fresh start in your eating habits, right?
How many times last year did you say to yourself, I need to start eating better?
Well Debbie and I are eating better, but you know what?
Eating the recommended amount of fruits and veggies every day is almost impossible.
I have a more practical and more convenient way for you to make that fresh start with Balance of Nature.
Now, Balance of Nature is sourced from 31 whole fruits and vegetables.
You'll get maximum nutrition with their star product, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Debbie and I take them every day.
And I want you to do so also.
Right now, take advantage of their New Year's offer.
Balance of Nature is offering $25 off, plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies when you use discount code AMERICA. Now, the offer can end at any time, so act now.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA. We're good to go.
I was a little surprised to see some stunning endorsements.
I didn't expect. One is from, well, none other than Donald Trump.
You make the observation that Trump really owes you big because it's because of you that he was in the White House and now you are the sole beneficiary of his will.
Well, you also point out that Giselle Bunchen, this I believe has not been widely reported, really wanted to leave her husband for you.
And this was not just based upon the fact of your family wealth and so on, it's really based upon your amazing looks.
In that department, you totally topped Tom Brady.
And finally, I wanna take note of the fact that you're offering, and I wanna extend this to my viewers and listeners, an amazing deal Rob has on his podcast.
By the way, normally it costs $25,000 a year to subscribe.
But if you want to subscribe, he has a promo code for a $25,000 discount.
So this is something that I'm going to take advantage of it, Rob, because what a discount, man.
It's not easy to get $25,000 off anything these days.
Talk a little bit about your podcast and a little bit about the tone that you use.
And tell us a little bit about what are some of the subjects you cover.
Well, Dinesh, I do it all for the people and my love of humanity, obviously.
And, you know, I really can't help it that Gazelle is attracted to me.
I did nothing, nothing other than help Tom throw a better pass.
And she's been all over me.
Oh, my gosh. Yeah.
But, you know, Dinesh, I really have no redeeming qualities at all, except I am a smart ass.
So you have to play to your strengths.
And I really have always enjoyed learning.
I've always enjoyed discussing politics and history and literature.
And really, that's what my website is about.
And I must say, on a serious note, you know, my dad hit the beaches on D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge.
My grandfather was in World War I. Every member of my family has served his country.
I have not in that regard.
And, you know, I kind of want to protect what they fought for.
I think we're in somewhat perilous times with what I would call neo-Marxism, which is grounded in hatred and jealousy.
And I think we need to fight back.
And I'm a smartass.
I get that. But...
My website has been pretty effective.
We have over a million views a month and I really enjoy it.
Being a smartass and commenting on these things.
Well, I think what I find really interesting...
I mean, you're a smart, smartass.
And by that, I mean you...
You know, there are people who are smartasses, but they got no substance behind them.
They're just... But in your case, you're interested in ideas, and you cover them, and you got things to say about issues of the day, but you do it in a sort of a wry tone.
And I think... What I find particularly effective is you take the insults of the left and you totally embrace them.
So they say things like, well, you're a meanie.
You want to leave widows and orphans out in the cold.
And you go, that's me.
You know, that's my motto.
Leave the widows and orphans out in the cold.
Not to mention the fact I don't like little dogs and little cats.
So I enjoy the fact that you are not intimidated by these sorts of insinuations.
You embrace them.
What's your technique?
What's the thinking behind pleading guilty to these contemporary offenses?
It's fun pissing the left off.
It's just fun.
I like having fun.
And substantively, they can't keep an argument with you.
They're not as learned or as smart as you are.
So, you know, making them more unhinged than they already are.
I mean, gosh, who wouldn't want to do that?
It's extremely entertaining.
See, I couldn't agree more.
There are a lot of people, including my wife, sometimes, she goes, Dinesh, why do you do these things?
And now I can just say, for the answer to that question, I refer you to Robert C. Smith.
Rob, it's been a pleasure.
Thanks for joining me. I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Dinesh. Thank you, Debbie, too.
You don't just have to endure or live with aches and pains.
Debbie and I have an answer.
We started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Now, Relief Factor works by supporting your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor swear by it.
They order more because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer. She can now do the exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
Relief Factor's been a real game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and other people.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call the new number, 800-4-RELIEF, to find out more.
That number again, 800-4-RELIEF, or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
There's an interesting new report by a couple of army officers.
It's published in the Journal of the Naval Postgraduate School.
The report written, by the way, Major Morgan Martin and Major Clinton Williamson, it's about Chinese influence in Hollywood.
And it's a subject I've talked about on the podcast before, but there are a couple of interesting new details I want to highlight.
So Hollywood desperately wants access to the huge Chinese market.
And the Chinese go, okay, but you've got to work in partnership with the Chinese film industry.
A film industry that we don't need to say, it's obvious, has ties to and is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and by the Chinese government.
Now, it's one thing to say that when films are released in China, you have to pay attention to Chinese sensitivities.
I'm assuming that as a customer, China has the right to be able to say things like, well, you know, this is our country and we get to say what kinds of films are distributed and so on.
But interestingly, the Chinese influence goes much further than that because what the Chinese are doing is they're telling Hollywood how to remake and rewrite their films to make China look good, to remove Chinese bad characters or villains, and to add positive portraits of China.
And if it may seem like there's just a single example of this, no.
This report talks about 147 films that were made between 2003 and 2021 with studios in America linked to the Chinese government.
And out of these, 33 of the films contain China elements that are skewed to support Beijing's official line. So in small ways and big, the Chinese now have their tentacles inside of Hollywood and they review content and they say, No, we're not gonna go with that.
No, you better change this.
And in some cases, we suggest you change that, but always with the idea that if you don't, we might cut you off from the lucrative Chinese market.
So Hollywood in this sense is apparently quite willing to prostitute itself to Chinese demands and Chinese sensibilities.
The authors focus on a couple of prominent examples.
Disney, for example, worked closely with China Film Group Corp when they're doing the live-action 2020 Mulan remake.
And they, in fact, apparently submitted the script for approval by the Chinese propaganda department.
They said, we want to show it to you.
We want to make sure that you're okay with it.
Because, of course, they wanted the film to be released in China.
Other films were modified, removing elements that clashed with the Chinese view of how they should be portrayed.
Apparently, the 2014 remake of Robocop was redone.
Even the 2012 film Red Dawn.
Apparently in Red Dawn, the filmmakers altered the script to turn an invading Chinese army, which would have made more sense, into an invading North Korean army.
So Chinese were like, listen, if you want to have some Orientals, it's okay, just not us.
Get the North Koreans instead.
And the script writers were like, well, yeah, if it upsets you, we'll go with North Korea.
So these may seem like relatively small alterations, but they're really not.
Because what's happening is the Chinese are basically saying that negative portraits of China, even if China is America's leading adversary, it's certainly America's most dangerous adversary.
The Chinese today can put, what, 80, 90, 100 million people on the battlefield.
They have sophisticated technology.
They've got a navy that's just as good, if not better, than the United States.
So you've got a really threatening, emerging superpower.
Now, normally, Hollywood scripts would take account of this, but the Chinese are going to have none of it.
So, you know, the Russians would condemn American movies in the Cold War era, but the Russians didn't have control over Hollywood.
They didn't have the kind of leverage.
Now, they did have some Marxist sympathizers in Hollywood, and of course, we know that there were communists in Hollywood.
This came out, of course, in the so-called House on American Affairs Committee hearing, so there was some of that.
But the idea that Hollywood willingly submits to a foreign country, sends over their scripts, when movies are made, take this scene out, take that scene out, this is really remarkable.
I think it goes beyond the kind of leverage that the Soviets ever had in the U.S. film industry.
Now, what should be done about all this?
Well, at the very least, we should know about it.
It actually would be helpful if film studios would post, when they list the credits, that this film has been approved by the China Film Corporation in conjunction with the Chinese Communist Party.
That way people go, oh, okay, well, we recognize that at least to a degree we're watching not a movie, we're watching Chinese or CCP propaganda.
Over the past century and a half or so, modern science has become a completely secular enterprise.
And what I mean by this is that supernatural explanations, transcendence, miracles are disallowed at the outset.
Science is only looking at Materialistic and naturalistic explanations.
I want to show really how this leads to some problems for science.
It leads to some problems for scientists who are forced into a kind of dogmatism or even crack pottery, embracing implausible theories because they have nowhere else to go.
Let me start with a few examples.
Franklin Herald wrote a very good book on the structure of the cell.
It describes in intricate detail how the cell works like a supercomputer.
And he goes on to say that these cells couldn't really have evolved because supercomputers can't evolve.
Someone has to make them. So the cell comes fully formed.
And the fully formed cell is the absolute prerequisite for life.
Darwin doesn't even try to explain it.
He takes for granted that you already have life.
And then he looks at how you can get other life.
How life form A can give rise to life form B. So, Franklin Harald knows all this.
And yet in his book he writes this.
Life arose here on Earth from inanimate matter.
In other words, life arose from non-life.
By some kind of evolutionary process.
Now, how does Harald know this?
Thank you. He doesn't. He admits it.
He says, Into this kind of dogmatic assertion or assumption,
as he calls it, because he has himself foreclosed the possibility of looking at other, perhaps more reasonable or plausible explanations.
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, again, can't figure out how life could possibly have evolved out of inanimate matter on the Earth.
So guess what? He finds the easy answer, quote, space aliens must have brought life to Earth from another planet.
Now, this again, there's no evidence for this.
In fact, scientists have sort of looked to see if this theory, by the way, it's called panspermia, has any, there's even sort of reason to believe it could have been this way or it did happen this way, and it turns out there really isn't.
So, you see here that in trying to reject supernatural explanations, the scientists, you know, sound like quacks.
I mean, they sound like sort of, you know, ancient scam artists who are coming up with preposterous explanations, but it's the only explanations that they have.
John Maddox, a prominent writer for Science and Nature magazines, he says, well, science has not advanced very far in its understanding of human consciousness.
And yet he says this, quote, Here's Nicholas Humphrey, the biologist. Our starting assumption, notice again the word assumption, as scientists ought to be that on some level consciousness has to be an illusion.
Consciousness has to be an illusion.
Now what's an illusion? An illusion is that when you think something is there, But it's not there.
And so Nicholas Humphrey is saying that our consciousness, our awareness of ourselves, perhaps the thing that we most fundamentally know.
I mean, we know that we are conscious even better than we know that other beings exist in the world.
Why? Because for other beings to exist in the world, we have to believe That the map that we make of them, the pictorial representation we make of them in our heads, matches the way that they really are.
And that's a difficult thing for us to prove.
But our consciousness doesn't even require an external world.
All we have to do is reflect within ourselves.
And we experience this consciousness.
As I say, it's as real as anything else we experience.
And yet, here's a prominent scientist saying that our assumption, our starting point, is there's no such thing.
Here's Richard Dawkins.
This is my final example in The Blind Watchmaker.
He says he starts off by talking about gaps in the fossil record.
And then his argument takes this really strange turn.
He says, hey, if you take Darwinism seriously, quote, the gaps, far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect.
This is a little bit of an odd statement.
It's kind of like saying you have a prosecutor who's laying out his evidence and he goes, you know, I don't really have a motive.
I don't really have a weapon.
I have some other facts about why the guy did it.
But, you know, you expect him to say, but there are some limitations in my case.
But instead he goes, no.
He goes, in fact, the absence of a motive and the absence of a weapon far from undermining my case strengthens my case.
And then you have to look at them and say, are you trying to pull a fast one?
Are you trying to con us into thinking that your case is stronger than it is?
So you see here, these are examples.
And I'm not picking examples from like social media or, you know, science major from Tulane University.
I'm picking some of the most prominent scientists of the last several decades.
And they are reduced to babbling dogmatism and nonsense.
Why? Because they are committed to sort of the methodological atheism of science, and they don't allow their minds, at least professionally, to wander to other, perhaps more plausible, explanations.