All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:53
HIDING THE BALL Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep571
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend, Rebecca Walzer, 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, I'll reveal how the Biden administration is hiding the ball in a crucial free speech case involving government collusion with digital censorship.
There's a new text from Tucker Carlson that's out that's intended to put him in a very bad light.
I'll talk about that.
I'll review an interesting article advocating for deciding the presidency through a national popular vote.
What? And I'll raise a glass to the ongoing collapse of Bud Light.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify or watching on Rumble, please subscribe to the podcast.
and appreciated. This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
America needs this voice.
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.
There are a couple of interesting items in the news I thought I would mention.
Debbie and I were talking this morning.
We're quite pleased to see that the really bad guy in Texas who went next door and shot up really a whole family, killing multiple people.
And doing it for what?
Because they came over to tell him that he was making too much noise by firing his gun in his backyard.
Well, this crazed, psychotic, dangerous individual.
And I was afraid he had slipped away into Mexico and disappeared.
Well, happily, he has been apprehended.
I think it was, was it in Montgomery County in Texas or Palestine?
Yeah. Cleveland.
In Cleveland, Texas, he has been caught and, of course, we're hopeful that he will...
I don't see how this won't be a death penalty case, this being Texas.
There's also a Tucker Carlson text that people are talking about, a text that's intended to portray Tucker in a very bad light, and I'll talk about that in the next segment.
But let me start off by talking about interesting development in a groundbreaking First Amendment case.
You've probably heard of the case.
I've spoken about it before on the podcast.
Missouri v. Biden.
So this is a number of Republican state attorneys general filing lawsuit against the Biden administration for government collusion with private platforms, mainly social media, digital platforms.
To do censorship.
And this is prohibited by the First Amendment.
A very important part of this case is just ferreting out all the discovery, all the information, exposing the full extent of the collaboration between the government and the private sector.
As a constitutional principle, the government is not allowed to do through private actors what it is itself prohibited from doing.
So if the government can't regulate speech, they can't go, okay, private actors will work with you and you do it on our behalf.
The government can't get away with that.
So that's what this case is all about.
Very important case. It's taking all the stuff that's come out from the Twitter files and other sources, but it's not putting it into a courtroom.
I want to show you how the Biden administration is very nervous about this case and they're doing their best to duck it.
They're trying to kind of hide the ball.
Now, how do you hide the ball in a legal case?
Well, one of the ways you hide the ball, I'm looking at the kind of new briefing that's filed by the government, There are a number of people in the Biden administration in various offices, the Executive Office of the President, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Census Bureau, all of whom have been actively involved in censorship.
And what the Biden administration has been doing, I think because of this case, is going through these agencies and firing all these people.
Not because they're outraged by the censorship.
Not at all. But see, here's the point.
When you fire somebody, you get rid of them.
And then you bring in somebody else.
And so in the court case, when it says, let's call up, you know, Debbie D'Souza because she's been active in censorship, you go, oh, Debbie D'Souza no longer works here.
We're now going to send Jack Smith instead.
And Jack Smith will go, well, I don't know.
I've just gotten in.
I'm just new.
I wasn't doing any of this.
So this is the game that's being played.
But I want to show you how it is played.
Because this kind of gives us a window into how the government is working to cover its tracks, how it's working to hide the ball.
The latest, and I'm relying here, by the way, on the very good reporting of Tracy Beans, who's on the scene, who's covering this case in its excruciating detail, and the detail here that is illuminating, the detail that makes the difference.
So Tracy reports, quote, in the briefing are six pages of replacements or terminations of defendants who are named in the case.
And she just gives example upon example that I want to go through some of these.
So from the Executive Office of the President, Courtney Rowe, who was the former Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement for COVID, she's out.
She doesn't work there. Another guy named Dori Salcedo is now in.
Also, the White House National Climate Advisor, Gina McCarthy, out.
Ali Zaidi is now in.
The Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director in the NSC, Laura Rosenberger, out.
Sarah Barron is in.
A woman named Dana Remus, White House Office and the Office of Counsel to the President, out.
Another guy, Stuart DeLarry, in.
And so it goes on.
Office of the Surgeon General, Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon General, Eric Waldo, out.
Catherine Dealey is his replacement.
At the Department of Health and Human Services, Tricia Lambert, who is Director of Digital Engagement for HHS, Deputy Director also of the Office of Digital Strategy at the White House, she's out.
Out at the White House, out at the Health and Human Services Department.
And Ashley Morse is in.
At CISA, the Cybersecurity Agency.
The Senior Cybersecurity Advisor, Matthew Masterson, out.
Kim Wyman, in. The Census Bureau.
The Division Chief for the Communications Directorate, Zachary Henry, out.
Kristen Gallimore, in.
And on and on it goes.
Other agencies, the EOP, the State Department.
So the Biden administration is clearing these people out, again, I emphasize, not because they're doing atonement or penance, not because they're saying these are bad guys who need to be cleaned out of government.
It's rather they're getting rid of them so they don't have to show themselves before the court.
Now, Tracy Beans points out, and I hope this is true, that this tactic will not work.
They tried it with Jen Psaki.
When Jen Psaki left the government, And she was subpoenaed.
She goes, oh, I can't be subpoenaed.
I'm no longer in the government. I'm now in the private sector looking after my children.
And the judge basically goes, no, that doesn't really matter.
We're talking about your activities when you were in the government.
You can most certainly be subpoenaed.
You can most certainly be required to testify.
And so I hope that the attorneys general here press the issue and demand that all these people who are involved in the nefarious ring of censorship participate.
Be brought forward, be brought into court, be forced to testify, and the Biden administration be forced to take full responsibility.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched My Mattress Topper 2.0.
The new 3-inch MyPillow mattress topper is made up of three unique layers.
Layer 1, MyPillow patented foam, which provides superior support and durability.
Layer 2, transitional foam, which provides optimal comfort, evenly distributes body weight, and helps relieve pressure points.
And Layer 3, the cover, made from a special material to keep your body temperature regulated This MyPillow mattress stopper is washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA. Comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
The incredible 3-inch mattress stopper is as low as $219.59 with promo code DINESH. So go ahead, call 800-876-0227.
Again, the number 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com to get the discount.
You need to use the promo code DINESH. There is clearly underway an effort to smear Tucker Carlson and really defame him.
And Media Matters has been the recipient of various leaks from Fox.
And when I say leaks, it could be that there's someone at Fox who is supplying these videos to Media Matters.
So let's Let's look at what's going on here.
If that's true, then you have collaboration between Fox and Media Matters.
For what? To smear Tucker.
And there were some reports, by the way, that, oh, Fox settled this case with Dominion because they didn't want these incriminating texts coming out.
But if that is the case, why is Fox itself now releasing these texts?
So, is it the case that Fox didn't want to have legal responsibility but is perfectly happy to now try to blacken or smear the reputation of Tucker?
I don't think that that really makes any sense and we'll begin to see this when we look at the text that is now the focus of a New York Times article this morning.
I just saw it and I thought, well, I need to talk about it today because I want to go through what Tucker says in the text.
I don't think it proves what the left thing...
They're like, oh my gosh, this shows Tucker's vicious side.
It shows that he's a white nationalist.
It shows that he's a racist.
And this is the kind of toxic brew that Fox is responsible for and Tucker was responsible for.
All right. We're going to read the text and go through it.
A couple of weeks ago, says Tucker, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington.
A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living SHIT out of him.
It was three against one at least.
Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable, obviously.
It's not how white men fight.
Pause. So here's Tucker.
He's describing a scene.
And he's talking about the Trump guys basically giving it to Antifa.
By the way, there have been lots of videos of the opposite Antifa guys beating up on Trump guys.
So this is a street fight.
And evidently, it's three on one.
And because the three guys are white, I don't know if the one guy was black, the text doesn't say.
Tucker's basically saying that there's a kind of code of ethics among white people, seemingly, which is don't go three on one.
A fight should be kind of mano a mano, one on one.
So this is what Tucker calls dishonorable.
It's dishonorable of whites to fight this way.
And look, I mean, I think the phrase white people, it's a little indiscreet here.
But Tucker is actually right that there is a Western tradition, a white man's tradition.
This is not a global tradition.
Of going back to the Crusades, you essentially have a joust.
It's one-on-one. Think about duels or one-on-one.
There's no such thing as five guys shooting at one guy.
Think of the old Westerns.
It's one guy against one guy.
Each of you goes for your holster.
So, Tucker is not wrong here.
This is, in fact, a tradition.
Let's continue. Yet suddenly, says Tucker, I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping that they'd hit him hard or kill him.
So Tucker is basically confessing here to a kind of internal, let's call it a little bit of a bloodlust, and we all have it.
It's part of human nature.
It's like, wow, this is a really bad guy.
Let's basically see him pummeled.
Sometimes on social media, I watch similar videos, and yeah, it kind of gets my heart racing a little bit because this is the way that human nature is wired.
Here's Tucker. I really wanted them to hurt the kid.
I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain an alarm went off.
This isn't good for me.
I'm becoming something I don't want to be.
The Antifa creep is a human being.
Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I'm sure I'd hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn't gloat over his suffering.
So, Tucker is doing something that actually mature people do, and that is that sometimes when you're in a situation, an emotion overtakes you.
You confess to the emotion.
You're rather candid. This is how I feel.
It's kind of like saying, wow, there's a knock on my door.
I see someone at the mailbox trying to break in my house.
Is the guy black? In other words, a thought enters my mind.
I know that a lot of people who commit violent crime are black.
I'm like, is this a black guy? And then I catch myself and I go, wait a minute.
I shouldn't think like that.
So Tucker's going through this sort of, I mean by analogy, going through this kind of a process where he confesses that he has this kind of, let's get this guy.
And then he goes, wait.
He goes, his reason is kind of moving in here.
Yes, Tucker, continuing, and I'm completing the text here.
I should be bothered by it.
I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid and would be crushed if he was killed.
If I don't care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
So this strikes me far from making Tucker look like a white supremacist, a white nationalist, a really bad guy.
Here it actually shows Tucker to be a really kind of a decent guy who, on the one hand, he's at the opposite end politically.
I mean, think about some leftists.
They see leftist pounding on a Trumpster.
They're like, oh yeah, this is fantastic.
Yeah, this is great.
This, this, these are the Nazis.
We got to take it out on the Nazis.
And you never have any contemplation, any reflection, any sense of identification with that, with the person on the other end.
But that's what Tucker is doing here.
He's sympathizing at a human level with the Antifa guy.
He's thinking about his friends, his relatives, his parents, what would they think?
And he's drawing back and he's ultimately turning the moral lens on himself and applying something that is all too rare in our society, self-judgment.
So I think that anyone who, the New York Times twisted this quotation highlighting the, this is not how white men fight, but anyone who I think reads this quotation in context and thinks about it will realize that far from making Tucker look bad, it actually makes him look pretty good.
As we get older, aches and pains start taking over and we need a remedy.
Well, Debbie and I 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 totally gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation that's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more We're good to go.
800-4-RELIEF to find out more about the offer.
The number again, 800-4-RELIEF. Go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. I spotted an interesting article in Town Hall.
Town Hall is the website that publishes commentary and news.
The article is by Rachel Alexander, who's been covering issues of election integrity, a good journalist.
But the article took me a little by surprise.
It's called, It's Time to Move to a National Popular Vote in Order to Combat Election Fraud.
I thought, wow, a national popular vote?
Really? First of all, politically, that's very bad for us, it would seem, because let's think about when was the last time that Republicans won the popular vote.
Well, according to Rachel Alexander, the last time was 2022.
Republicans won the Republican presidents going all the way back to Bush-Gore.
The Republican, even when elected, has lost the popular vote.
Trump lost the popular vote in 2016.
And even though Trump says in a very Trumpian fashion, hey, listen, if we were deciding this by the popular vote, I would have won the popular vote.
Now, the article by Rachel Alexander goes on to say that the problem we have now is that the whole election in the United States is settled in the battleground states.
So she goes, we don't really have a national election.
We have a kind of a battleground state election.
And she goes, and further, the problem is that the Democrats have created these schemes.
They call them get out the vote, but they're schemes that tip the scales or rig the playing field, rig the rules.
So that, she says, it's virtually impossible for Republicans to win in those battleground states.
The Democrats have sort of fortified the blue wall in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin.
And they've also developed some pretty elaborate operations in Arizona and in Georgia.
And she goes on to point out further that the current system, which is the electoral system, assigns electoral votes based upon population.
And she goes, this means that even if illegals move into a particular state, and let's say the illegal population of California has been swelling, so what happens is the census counts all those people, and then they assign congressional seats based on that, so California has been gaining seats.
Not because the citizens of California are multiplying.
In fact, they've been depleting a lot of people leaving California.
But it means that over the last several decades, California has gained seats because it has gained population.
And a lot of that population is illegal.
So California has actually gained 15 electoral votes over the last half century.
And some of the red states have lost votes as a result.
So, concludes Rachel Alexander, we're electing a president of the battleground states.
And how can that be good for America?
In fact, candidates don't even have to campaign around the country.
And she says there is, when you're talking about the national popular vote, some people think, and some people on the left have proposed, let's amend the Constitution.
They've said, let's eliminate the Electoral College.
Let's federalize the administration of elections.
And Rachel And Alexander says, I'm not talking about any of that.
She goes, we don't have to amend the Constitution.
We don't have to federalize the election.
We don't have to eliminate the electoral college.
She goes, let's think about how you can have a national popular vote system Within the system we have now, the Constitution doesn't say, by the way, how elections should be organized.
It simply says that states should organize them.
So states could, in fact, set up a system and by mutual agreement agree that the system will operate on a popular vote basis.
These are laws that can be passed at the state level.
She goes on to say you can still have an electoral college and there would be electors who would then come and cast their votes for the president.
And she says, the real objection to all this is that some people think that this is very bad for our side because guess what?
A few, a handful of cities collectively will end up ruling the whole country.
So you get away from the battleground states problem, but now you have a big city problem.
But says Rachel Alexander, this is not really true.
She says the total population of the big sort of the 100 biggest cities in America, they have 65 million people.
But she says, rural America has about 66 million.
So about the same. So she goes, there's no inherent advantage to the cities over the rural counties or vice versa.
It's basically a net wash.
And so she says if you have a popular vote system, a popular vote system of the kind she describes, not the left's idea of a popular vote system that sort of chucks aside or rewrites the Constitution.
She's saying we don't need any of that.
The Constitution right now is silent on how states should choose their electors.
They can do it the way they've been doing it or they can do it by popular vote.
And she says this will create a truly national election.
Now does this mean that the Democrats can't try to rig the rules?
They can't cheat? Well, Rachel says they can, but it's more difficult for them because it's one thing for the Democrats to say, listen, all we need is a few places like Philadelphia, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, think 2,000 mules.
But if it's a national election, you've got a campaign everywhere, and so you'd have to Rig the rules everywhere.
And that's not so easy to do.
It'd be much easier for Republicans to mount an effective campaign.
So anyway, I mentioned this article because it just sort of got me thinking a little bit.
It's one of those times where you read an article and it takes something that you think on the face of it is bad and absurd and not something that we should take seriously.
And then an argument is made where you go, hmm, there's some interesting points here.
So I just wanted to share the logic of the article with you so you can think about this.
Think about whether there is a system better than the one we have currently.
Debbie and I started eating better this year.
We've lost weight, but the foods we can't seem to eat enough of, and it's a requirement, are veggies and fiber.
Now, there's no better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature fiber and spice right here, it's a proprietary blend of 12 spices for digestive health.
The intense flavors and deep colors of spices are the most condensed whole food source of phytonutrition available.
It's recommended to be paired with their star product, fruits and veggies, in a capsule.
So easy. Select the Whole Health System for the best price.
Start your journey to better health right now.
Take advantage of Balance of Nature's great offer.
$25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies when you use discount code AMERICA. 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. Conservatives have launched what would seem to be their most successful boycott, at least in recent history.
And the result is plummeting sales and a continuing rapid decline at Bud Light.
No, Debbie was just joking and saying, you know, it's their own doing or their own undoing, which is certainly true.
Bud Light is responsible for the stupid measures that they took that have caused all this to happen, and they're now trying desperately to make amends and backtrack, but it doesn't seem to be working.
The latest figures, Bud Light sales dropped 21% in the wake of the Dylan Mulvaney fiasco.
The company is now in serious trouble.
Now, when the controversy first erupted, there was a dip in Bud Light, a drop of 6% in the first week.
And then a 17% slide the subsequent week.
And then the 21% I've just reported.
And by the way, the drop is also severe, not just in people who walk into a store and pick up a Bud Light or order Bud Light in a bar.
But also volume sales of beer.
Remember most people who stock up on beer in the house when they have friends over, they buy in packs of 12 or 18 or even 24 cans, and the beer volume dropped 28% at Bud Light versus 21% a week earlier, an initial drop of 11%.
So this is like a An escalating crisis and what this means is that the core customers of Bud Light are ditching the brand.
There are some quotations in the article here about larger packages of Bud Light are not being purchased.
And what this means is that we know when your customer base is walking away, it's very hard to reverse the decline.
Now, Bud Light is still, but not by that much, the leading beer in the United States.
Modelo, I guess, is number two.
Michelob is number three.
But if this trend continues, Bud Light is going to drop to number two and ultimately to number three.
Anheuser-Busch has been doing its best, as I say, to turn things around.
The first thing they did was they took the two marketing executives, Alyssa Heinerschreid, the vice president of marketing, and her boss, a guy named Daniel Blake, and they have both been put on leave.
Apparently, they undertook some of these initiatives.
Now, admittedly, Alyssa Heinerschreid was brought in To make Bud Light more appealing to younger people.
And I guess she decided to go the whole hog and put up Dylan Mulvaney as if to say that he is the new cool cat, if you will, of the younger generation.
But what this did was, I don't think attracted too many of the new customers, but certainly ticked off and drove away a number of the old ones.
So this is a marketing blunder that I think is going to be studied in business schools because it is so bad.
It's really so stupid.
Now, Bud Light, as I say, has been trying to fix it.
Well, the problem with fixing it is there's really only one way to fix these things.
You've just got to come out and do a massive mea culpa and say, listen, we made a horrible mistake and Either the CEO didn't know about it, or he knew about it, and he made a horrible mistake.
He's going to hold people responsible, including himself.
They're not going to do this again.
But instead of this, the CEO came out with some very milquetoast, ambiguous statement, in effect, basically saying, Bud Light is here to unify, not to divide.
And This didn't appeal to the left and it didn't appeal to Bud Light's customers either.
And so you'd have to rate the CEO's performance here a complete flop.
So not only does he have bad management structures in place where you have something like this that gets out supposedly without his knowledge, but then on top of that, he doesn't know how to deal with the situation.
I mean, when you look at the guy, he looks like the picture of competence.
In fact, he looks kind of like a movie star.
I don't know why he isn't the spokesman of Bud Light, because he looks far more like the kind of Marlboro man that should be selling Bud Light instead of Dylan Mulvaney.
Over the weekend, evidently, Bud Light released a kind of new country-style YouTube ad.
It evidently shows young beer drinkers frolicking in the rain at a country music festival.
So here's Bud Light sort of trying to reach out to its traditional customers.
But you know what? No one seems to be paying attention.
And this is really what happens, is that once you do something that is so bad that you cause people to recoil, you give them a sense of repugnance, they sulk.
They don't really want to come back.
And quite honestly, they don't have to come back.
There's a lot of beer on the market.
I mean, Debbie and I aren't particularly fans of beer.
We both drank beer in college kind of to join a social circle.
But once we realized we don't have to do that to talk to people, we were like, let's get rid of the beer can and go to something else.
So, but nevertheless, there are committed beer drinkers and I'm told that, yes, my stepdaughter is one of them.
And look, there are people who say that, you know, when you're at a party, when it's hot outside, a cold beer, there's nothing like it.
And Bud Light had a large market.
And as I say, they were number one, but sometimes happens kind of like you're the leading guy in a race and you, you know, you take a fall.
And then you try to get up and you try to catch up and you try to pick it up.
But sometimes you're not able to do that.
I think for us, it shows us that effective boycotts can be really effective.
And interestingly here, this boycott, as far as I know, wasn't even really an organized boycott.
There were people on social media, let's just stop drinking Bud Light.
I just think this is a case where the customers of Bud Light said, if this is what the company thinks of us, eh.
We're out of here.
And so instead of the good old hand me a beer, it's sort of like let me return my beer and I'm not going to be getting more where that one came from.
Former President Trump recently issued a warning from Mar-a-Lago, quote, Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years.
Some experts believe there are serious threats to the future value of the U.S. dollar because of inflation, deficit spending, and our increasing national economy.
Now, one asset that has withstood famine, wars, and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times is gold.
And you can own it in a tax-sheltered retirement account with the help of Birch Gold.
Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold.
And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
So go ahead, text Dinesh to 989898 to get the process started.
Think about this. In March of this year, when the banks faltered, the stock market faltered, gold surged.
Birchgold can help you find out how to protect your savings with gold.
Birchgold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers.
So go ahead, text Dinesh to 989898.
Get your free information kit on gold and get started.
Again, text Dinesh to 989898.
Debbie's looking at our schedule and she's like, artificial intelligence.
What are you going to say about artificial intelligence that you haven't already said?
Well, I have talked about it because, look, this AI, artificial intelligence, could very well be the new internet, a transformational technology on a number of fronts.
And very often, like technology, like new technologies, this would be true of the automobile, this was true of the airplane, the phone, the computer.
There are many good and bad things on the horizon and sorting out between them and trying to figure out how we can tap into the good while avoiding the bad is not so easy.
In fact, very often I tend to think that you end up getting both.
The good is too irresistible to say no to the technology and then as a result you just get the bad because there are no easy ways to block it.
And so, You know, let's think about the automobile.
It was certainly an instrument of freedom.
It allowed people who live in the country to go to the city.
It allowed people to be able to drive 100 miles to a new job that's better than the job they had before.
It allows you to be able to travel.
So many Americans go on vacation by driving.
At the same time, it broke up or destroyed the integrity of the small town and small communities.
Where you had people who all know each other, where by and large people lived their whole lives, and you married the girl next door, and you went to work at the local bank or the local pharmacy.
Suddenly all of that changed.
And small towns, many of them began to struggle.
I'm just giving an example of how the car made huge changes that are so hard for us now even to fully grasp because we don't really know the world that there was before that.
And with artificial intelligence, the same thing.
Now, here's a renowned pioneer of artificial intelligence.
His name is Jeffrey Hinton.
He's one of the guys who invented this stuff and, in fact, invented the technology that has now led to ChatGPT, which is the AI that everyone is talking about, as well as Google's answer to ChatGPT, which is Google Bard.
Now, this guy, Geoffrey Hinton, worked at Google, but he's decided to resign.
But his resignation isn't because he's unhappy with Google, per se.
He's unhappy with the technology.
He's unhappy because of the dangers it poses, and he says that it's causing him to regret his life's work.
I mean, a very interesting phenomenon for a brilliant scientist and technology guy who's put so much into making something new And then, I guess what he's saying is it could become, I don't think he's saying it has become, a Frankenstein.
He says, quote, These are the people who built the atomic bomb said the same thing, which is that these technologies are based upon advancing knowledge.
And ultimately, it's just a matter of putting the pieces together.
Now, he agrees, Hinton does, that generative AI can produce important advances in industries, greater efficiency, better drug research, better forms of education, but there are also risks.
And he mentions three.
And I just want to highlight them as we think about this together.
He goes, it's hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.
So what are the bad things?
Well, the first bad thing he says is misinformation.
Now, he doesn't mean misinformation of the kind that is being censored by the digital platforms.
Oh, Dinesh, you're talking about climate change.
It's misinformation. No, he's not talking about that.
What he's saying is that with artificial intelligence, you can create fake pictures.
You can take somebody, let's say Dinesh, and put him somewhere that he isn't.
You can take an existing photograph and manipulate it so dramatically or even replace the person in the picture with someone else.
So think about the impact of this for criminal intelligence.
Yeah, I saw the guy and he was at the scene of the crime.
Oh, no, that's a fake picture.
That's not a real picture. Yeah, but I saw posts on social media.
Those are manipulated. Those are altered.
So the line between what is seen and what is not real, the line between, let's just say, for example, that you can replicate somebody's texts and And you can talk exactly like them.
You can use their very similar lingo.
You can pick up all the people that they know and refer to those people.
And then you present them.
Here are Tucker Carlson's texts.
Here are Debbie D'Souza's texts.
And it's not their texts.
Or there are some of their texts mixed in with others that are not.
So this is the kind of misinformation is where the whole internet becomes untrustworthy.
Number two. Displacing jobs.
And here Hinton says, you know, it's one thing to say that there's an industry here, an industry there, and we've figured out through technology how to make things more efficient.
Look at the way, for example, that booking on Expedia, booking directly at Hotels.com.
These are things that travel agents used to do.
And now there are still some travel agents left, but not a whole lot.
So that industry has been transformed.
But what Hinton is saying is, what if every industry is transformed in this way?
What What if you no longer need, let's say, teachers?
What if you no longer need paralegals or legal assistants in the entire legal profession?
What if there are whole jobs and whole fields that can now be done electronically?
And we're not just talking about, quote, think jobs or white collar jobs.
Even blue collar jobs can be done by intelligent robots.
And they will load everything and they will stack everything and they will organize the Amazon warehouse as they do now.
So Hinton is saying, what really happens to a society when you have people who are rendered, in a sense, rendered unnecessary or rendered superfluous?
And finally, a point I'll talk about in a separate episode because we need to go into it.
the human race, being able to do things and control things.
Literally, the plot of the Terminator, where the machines take over and begin to run the, I mean, they run the nuclear facilities and they run the police force.
And, and because maybe they can run the country and maybe they can, but Hinton's point is for whose benefit?
Think about it.
When humans do something, no matter how incompetent they are or even malevolent, they're even driven by some self-interest.
I'm going to do this because it's better for me or it's better for our team or it's better for humanity.
But the machines don't care about humanity.
That's not their interest. And they're emotionless.
So the possibilities here are kind of scary and I agree.
So there's a lot more thinking has to go into this, but here you've got somebody at the heart of the enterprise who's saying, in a sense, I want out because I don't like where this is going.
Hey, I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
I post lots of exclusive content there, including content that is censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I do a weekly live Q&A every Tuesday.
Just did one. And no topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded some very cool films to locals, both documentaries and feature films, both my films and also films by other independent producers, including 2000 Mules and a new film that I'm working on for this year that'll be out this fall.
So if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch these films for free.
Check out my channel at dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
I'm continuing my discussion of the crimes of atheism.
And in this context, I've been talking about Hitler.
And whether or not Hitler was personally a Christian and moreover, was the Nazi philosophy a kind of extension of medieval anti-Semitism?
And I've been arguing that that's not the case.
Let's start by talking about Hitler himself.
There's an important book that came out several years ago, Hitler's Table Talk, which was based upon a series of recordings made by a top Nazi of Adolf Hitler himself.
In the latter years of the war, it was made over a pretty long period and catching Hitler at various times.
What particularly interests us here is what Hitler had to say about religion, about God, and about Christianity.
It turns out Hitler was rabidly anti-theistic.
Anti-Christian. He talks about Christianity as, quote, one of the great scourges of history.
And he said of the Germans, quote, let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease.
So this is how Hitler viewed Christianity.
He promised that, quote, through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.
In other words, Hitler wanted not just an atheism of the upper class, but an atheism of the ordinary German.
And thus this would... Hitler's leading advisors Goebbels,
Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann were outspoken atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany.
Now, some atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens have pointed out that the Nazis were obsessed with the ancient pagan and Nordic and Germanic gods.
And they said, well, if Hitler wasn't a Christian, maybe he was some kind of a pagan.
But a pagan, after all, that worships other gods is still religious in the kind of broad sense of the term.
It was an interesting documentary.
I mean there still is, that came out now many years ago about the kind of influence of the ancient Nordic deities on the Nazis.
And you can see Nazis parading with gods like Wotan and so on, ancient Nordic and Germanic gods.
But there's an important difference here that is often missed and I don't think this was really stressed in the documentary and that is that the ancient Germanic people believed in these gods the same way that the ancient Greeks believed in the Greek gods.
They believed that these gods really exist and that they live in Mount Olympus and that So Hitler didn't believe that.
Hitler didn't really believe that there was such a being called Wotan.
He didn't believe in these gods.
What he was doing was kind of digging into the ancient Nordic past to find, you could call it, themes or myths or, as we say today, memes that would be helpful to reconstruct a kind of modern racial ideology for the Nordic peoples.
This was Hitler's motive. It wasn't that he had the same type of genuine belief in the pagan gods that the ancient Germans did or Now, historian Richard Evans writes, So once Hitler came to power, Remember I said earlier that Hitler had kind of said nice things about the churches partly
because he was trying to cultivate the political support of the German people.
Once he came to power he didn't need to do that.
In fact, he didn't need to have elections again.
He was essentially first chancellor and then he got emergency powers making him a virtual dictator.
So Hitler basically dropped the pretense.
He then began a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany.
Evans points out after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government become increasingly anti-religious.
The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas.
No Christmas celebrations in Germany.
The Hitler Youth recited prayers thanking the Fuhrer instead of God for their blessings.
And clergy who were seen as troublemakers were told, listen, you stop preaching.
Hundreds were imprisoned.
Many were simply murdered.
Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance.
The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers.
So there you have it, a comprehensive anti-religious policy.
And notice here the Nazis are pretty much in the same genre.
As the Socialists and the Communists.
So the kinship, the ideological kinship between Nazis, Socialists, Communists is made clear here in their shared hostility and opposition to religion.
So, it's very clear here that you've got an ideology in direct opposition to Christianity and how you can now say, as some atheists do, well, the Nazis were a culmination, a consummation, a kind of logical extension of Christianity.
That makes absolutely no sense.
But as I'm going to show you in the next segment, if the If Nazism was the culmination of anything, it was not Christianity, it was not religion, it was actually the late 19th century and early 20th century philosophy known as Social Darwinism.
If Nazism was a culmination of anything, it was not a culmination of Christianity.
It was a culmination of the ideology of social Darwinism.
Now, historian Richard Weikert has a really good book on this.
I think it may be called Hitler and Darwin or Hitler and Darwinism.
And he says, listen, both Hitler and Himmler were big admirers of Darwin, often spoke of their role as enacting a law of nature that guaranteed the quote, elimination of the unfit.
Notice that Darwinism was often summarized as survival of the fittest.
And essentially Hitler and Himmler were applying this exact doctrine to the human race.
They believed that the superior, the stronger, the fit peoples, the Nordic peoples, the white people, would wipe out the unfit.
And there was no better representative of the unfit than, of course, the Jews.
Weikert argues that Hitler himself, quote, drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy.
Now, he says, look, I'm not saying that Darwinism is a sufficient explanation of Nazism, that social Darwinism by itself fully explains Darwinism, but he's saying I think it was a necessary condition.
It was a necessary precursor.
It was the foundation on which Hitler constructed and then went on to elaborate his own Nazi philosophy.
So, without Darwinism, there might not have been Nazism.
And the Nazis didn't just rely on Darwin, they also relied on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, adapting Nietzsche's philosophy to their crude purposes.
So Nietzsche had this idea of the Übermensch, sometimes translated as the Superman, probably better translated as the Overman, the Superior Man, the man who is more than man.
And Nietzsche said that this Übermensch, this new ethic that he was promoting was, quote, beyond good and evil.
So it's a philosophy that isn't confined by traditional morality.
Is this good? Is this evil?
You don't even have to ask that question.
And so the Nazi propagandists loved all this stuff because, in a sense, they were trying to get away from the idea that what they were doing is evil.
They're like, no, no, no, we're trying to create these superior human beings and questions of good and evil don't even arise.
And Nietzsche's slogan, the so-called will to power, became almost like a Nazi recruitment slogan, the will to power.
And I'm not suggesting, by the way, that Nietzsche, had he been alive, Nietzsche died in the 19th century.
Nietzsche himself was a messed up and kind of weird, but also a...
Also kind of a gentle man.
And I mean gentle in the sense of kind and not giving himself to any kind of cruelty.
So the idea that Nietzsche would have approved of the Nazis, I'm not saying that.
But what I am saying is that the Nazis approved of him.
And there are things that Nietzsche said and the way he said them.
That I think you can see when you read them, you can see Nietzsche talks, for example, admiringly of the blonde beast.
He's talking about this strong man who's blonde and is almost animalistic in his instincts.
And you can see that there's a kind of rhetorical recklessness in Nietzsche and the Nazis were all over it.
In atheist literature, I see no recognition from Sam Harris or any of these guys about the kinship between Nietzsche, the great atheism of Nietzsche and Nazism, and also very little discussion of the Nazi sympathies for Darwin.
Now, the Nazis were also, it should be pointed out, champions of science.
This may seem strange, but the Nazis believed in science.
They saw themselves as promoting a scientific philosophy, survival of the fittest.
They saw their project as an institutionalization and continuation of the Enlightenment, of the Age of Reason.
Let's remember, by the way, Marx was also a product of the Enlightenment.
Marx also saw himself as advancing a reasonable philosophy.
When Marx made his so-called prophecies, Marx never said, I'm like an Old Testament prophet.
He said, oh, no, no, no. I'm making scientific predictions that will come about as surely as the combination of hydrogen and oxygen is going to give us water.
So Marx saw himself as discerning the scientific processes of history.
And in a way, the Nazis were cut from the same cloth.
The Nazis were also progressive.
By progressive, what I mean is they placed their hopes not in the past.
Let's learn from the past.
Let's draw on the fund of wisdom of the past.
No, they were like, let's draw on the future.
Let's focus our attention not on where we've come from.
That doesn't matter, not even on what's going on now, but on the kind of glorious age that is to come.
So communists and Nazis have always seen history is on our side.
And our opponents are what?
Well, they're religious and bourgeois reactionaries.
They belong to the past.
We belong to the future.
Notice, by the way, that modern progressivism has the same idea, that the past is somehow something to be discredited, to be attacked.
That's why they attacked the American founders.
It's something to be annihilated.
We are all marching toward a kind of more glorious and more equitable future.
So this secular kind of apotheosis of science, reason, and progress, a doctrine that, by the way, is very much with us today, is precisely what licensed men to do things to other people in a manner and on a scale that would previously have been completely unthinkable.
▲
Export Selection