All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
48:12
LIES OF THE LEFT Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep577
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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, a special podcast.
I'm going to be talking about lies of the left.
I gave a talk on this topic at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
I'm going to try to cover some lies about slavery, some lies about race and about civil rights.
I'd like to talk about some lies about gender and guns and the climate.
I maybe won't cover all of it, but I'll try to cover as much as I can.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google or Spotify, please hit the subscribe button.
I'd appreciate it. This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
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'm going to do a special podcast today that is titled, Lies of the Left.
Now, usually in my podcasts, I surf on the wave of current events.
I try to keep in mind what the big stories are of the day and of the week and relay information that you may not have seen elsewhere and offer a perspective.
But I stay very close to what's going on that day in the world.
Now, why do special podcasts like this one?
Well, the answer is that it allows us to probe a little bit more deeply into a subject that's really important and that if you only scratch the surface and talk about this is what happened, let's just say, at Stanford University and this is what happened, it doesn't allow you to dig into the issue and also to expose Where the other side is going wrong at a fundamental level.
My focus today is derived from a talk I gave recently at the University of Texas in San Antonio.
I haven't been speaking on campus a lot the last, well, ever since COVID, campuses have been, well, kind of shut down, or if they, when they started up, mostly online, and then they began normal classes, but nevertheless, outside speakers continue to be a rarity, and organizations that organize these speakers, turning point, Young America's Foundation have not been as active as they typically are.
But the turning point chapter at UT San Antonio was like, hey, Dinesh, we got to love to have you come.
And since Debbie and I live in Texas, it was not all that difficult for us to organize.
And the event went off terrifically.
Well, interestingly, they had a pretty hefty security presence.
The kind of Chief of Police on the campus contacted me beforehand and wanted to know if I had my own security detail.
And then, needless to say, I was very well protected, but there was, I won't say no need, but there was no incident to really worry about.
Texans in general are pretty well behaved.
Well, I mean, not always.
And there are disruptions in Austin.
So you don't want to take things for granted.
But nevertheless, the event went off smoothly with lots of questions and a pretty lively exchange following my talk.
But I began my talk by saying to the students that I'm going to talk to you about lies, but I'm going to talk to you about lies that you will not initially recognize as lies.
Why? Because the lies of our time are tricky.
They are complex lies.
See, if someone says that they make a statement that's false, but it's easy to verify that it's false, that's a lie that's easily caught out.
If you were to make a factual statement, for example, I could just tell you, well, listen, let's Google it.
Or I would say, let's try to find out the truth of the matter.
And you can quickly check and see.
Let's just say that you claim that the capital of the Philippines is something and I say it's Manila.
Well, we can find out who's right and do that very quickly.
That's a simple misstatement, a simple lie.
But on the other hand, if we're dealing with something like, is fascism left-wing or right-wing?
That's a complex matter.
And if we're getting wrong information, it's not so simple to correct.
And there's a great deal out there and not all of it itself accurate.
And so the lie becomes more difficult to expose.
A second thing I said about lies is that lies come draped in the costume of truth.
And what this means is that very rarely does a lie blatantly advertise itself as such.
Lies come partly hidden.
So if someone wants to tell a lie, they say four things, of which number three is a lie.
Or they give you a false premise.
That's the lie.
But then they draw accurate conclusions.
The logical reasoning from the false premise is fine, but the premise itself is dubious.
So we have to be on guard for lies that are smuggled inside, you can call it, the outer barrel of truth.
And then, finally, I put the students kind of on notice that the lies that I'm about to expose are lies that they are being taught.
And not only are they lies that they are being taught, they're lies that they come to believe, that intelligent people come to believe.
And I said the reason intelligent people come to believe these lies is because they get the same information from multiple sources.
I went on to point out that this information doesn't, in fact, come from independently confirmed multiple sources.
Typically, there's a single source.
But what happens is a single source, let's just say, for example, a professor at Tulane University who writes an article about how Nazism is really right-wing, and then this receives a favorable review in the New York Review of Books, And it's picked up by PBS and the guy is interviewed on NPR. And Michael Moore makes a documentary and quotes this fellow saying that Nazism is right wing.
And so think about it.
For the ordinary guy who doesn't know better, he's like, I'm trying to find out whether Nazism is left wing or right wing.
They're like, well, you know, I saw a book at Barnes& Noble on this topic, and then I saw a guy on PBS, and then I heard someone else talking about it, and then I saw it on a documentary.
It was on the History Channel.
And so this individual is thinking that they're getting independent confirmation of this point, whereas what they're actually getting is the same A bullet, the same stone bouncing off one wall and the other, ricocheting from one wall to the next.
And because you're seeing this come at you from different directions, you wrongly think that you're getting multiple sources, but you're getting the same source repeating, in this case, the same lie.
So I'll pick up some specific lies through the podcast.
I'm going to focus. There's so many to do.
I can almost have more material than I know what to do with.
But I'm going to really focus on lies about slavery, lies about race, touch upon lies about gender.
And then I might, if I have time, talk about, well, there's lies about guns, lies about the climate.
I'll see how much I can get into this podcast.
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.
Now, how does it work? 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 because it works for them.
Debbie's been able to do the exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do. So, ReliefFactor has been a game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and for many other people. You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
Order the 3-week quick start for the discarded price of only $19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
The number again, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
When we think about lies, and many of the lies that we confront today come out of the left's identity politics propaganda.
These are lies disseminated through critical race theory.
And the lies rely upon things that we, quote, know about slavery, about race, about civil rights, and so on.
And I'm going to put some of those things that we know into question.
So let's start with slavery.
And one of the key premises of slavery is that slavery in America is unique because it was racial slavery.
Now again, this is a lie that seems to be plausible because slavery has existed since ancient times.
But since ancient times, slavery has been Within the same race.
So slavery for the ancient Greeks wasn't racial, neither for the Romans.
Of course, the Romans did have black slaves, but they also had white slaves.
By and large, slaves were taken as captives in war.
And so American slavery is supposed to be especially unique and especially invidious because it is all about white people enslaving black people.
Now again, I don't deny that for the most part it was that.
But first of all, it didn't start out like that.
Initial slavery in America was whites enslaving Native Americans, American Indians.
That proved to be impractical because Native Americans, first of all, were very difficult to capture.
Second of all, they knew the country better than the whites.
They often escaped and ran away.
It was hard to contain them.
And so for various reasons, the sort of slavery of the Native Americans proved to be an evanescent or passing phenomenon.
Now, there was a developed slave trade in Africa already, and it was supplying transatlantic slaves to the slave markets of the Middle East and slave markets in Europe.
And so when America entered the slave trade, the slave trade was already humming.
It was already going. By and large, African chieftains would capture people from inside Africa, bring them to the coast, and then sell them off.
So it was a deplorable trade in human beings.
But here's an interesting wrinkle.
And this is not something you'll find in textbooks.
And I'm interested in it not because of its magnitude in and of itself, but because it sort of shows the fact that even in America, slavery wasn't entirely a black and white phenomenon.
And that's the existence of the black slave owner in America.
Now, again, we pause when we see this because we haven't heard about it.
Again, when you, you know, read, you see documentaries on slavery, there's typically no mention of this.
I haven't seen a discussion in any textbook of this subject.
And yet, there were black slave owners in the South that owned black slaves, and quite a few of them.
The practice may have started kind of small in the 19th century.
But between 1830 and 1860, which was the heyday of American slavery, let's remember that the plantation system only got going in the early 19th century.
So between 1820 and 1860, there were about 3,500 black slave owners who owned about 10,000 black slaves.
So not an insignificant amount.
Certainly, as a proportion of the overall number of slaves, there are about 2 million slaves in 1820, about 4 million slaves in 1860. So, the black percentage was not huge. But isn't it interesting that there were no laws in the South that prohibited free blacks from buying and selling slaves? And not only were there blacks who, in some cases, of course, there were blacks who had one, two, and three slaves. Some blacks bought their relatives out of slavery and unfortunately
enslaved them themselves.
But there were blacks who had plantations and there were blacks who had dozens and in some cases even hundreds of slaves.
So this fact has been erased or has been downplayed, to put it violently, in American historiography.
Why? Because it, again, embarrasses the narrative that slavery was exclusively a phenomenon of the white master.
And the black captive.
Debbie and I started eating better this year.
We've lost weight. But 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 the spices are the most condensed flavors It's recommended to be paired with this, their star product, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy to take. 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. I want to move on to my second lie about slavery.
And this is a little bit of a tricky one.
I had said in, I think, the movie Hillary's America that no Republican owned a slave.
And that the vast, vast majority of slaves in America in the 19th century, I was thinking specifically of 1860, the year that the Civil War began, were owned by Democrats.
Now, as it turns out, the second part of that statement is entirely true.
And the first part of that statement is almost entirely true.
And here's what I mean. When I said this, the point I was trying to make is that we think of slavery as a regional, the slavery fight as a sort of regional fight, the fight between the North and the South, that there were no slaves in the North, there were slaves in the South, that's what the Civil War was all about.
Well, that's not even true.
There were slaves in the North and there were border states that had slavery.
And the Civil War, while it had this sort of regional dimension, also had a partisan dimension.
That's really what I was highlighting with my claim.
That no Republican owned a slave.
Now, this was so upsetting to the left that a large army of leftist historians set out to prove me wrong, led by the historian Kevin Cruz at Princeton.
And through prodigious efforts, they were able to identify about, well, about 10 Republicans who owned slaves.
Now, how did this come to pass?
I was kind of intrigued.
How did it come to be that Republicans, largely, by the way, in free states, how could they own slaves?
Well, as it turns out, there were some Democrats who owned slaves in border states, and they were worried about the coming of the Civil War because they thought the Civil War would defeat and destroy the South, would bring slavery to an end.
And so in order to get themselves in good graces with the Republican Party, in order to try to prevent secession and Civil War, in order to try to find some moderate compromise on the issue, these Democrats decided to move over to the Republican side, typically right about the time the Civil War was about to begin.
And so you have this anomalous phenomenon of a very small number of, at that time, Republicans who nevertheless owned slaves, typically a very small number of slaves.
So think about it. Let's put things in perspective here.
In 1860, you have four million slaves.
You have Republicans collectively, in the entire country, owning about 10.
You have some other parties that have small numbers of slaves and all the rest, what, 3,999,000, a giant number, the overwhelming majority of slaves owned by Democrats.
So you can see here how I'm quite right that this is not merely a North-South issue, but it is...
Equally, and equally dramatically, an issue between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
To put it somewhat differently, the Republican Party was the anti-slavery party, and the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party, and there are very small exceptions to this rule.
Now again, this is something that you would expect people to know, but almost nobody knows it.
There are virtually no conservatives and Republicans I know who knew it until I pointed it out.
I have never seen it in, not only in a textbook, I've never seen it even described or reported on in conservative magazines.
So, for example, I've never seen an article in, let's say, the National Review or commentary that talk about this.
So, isn't it amazing how you can have something that is A, factual, and B, relevant?
I mean, when we're talking about slavery, isn't it relevant?
Instead of just saying Americans did this, Americans did that, is it relevant to ask which Americans did this?
Why? Because we know that there were Americans that promoted slavery, but there were Americans that opposed slavery.
There were Americans that...
That drove the institution forward and wanted to expand it.
And of course, the position of the Republican Party was not immediate abolition.
Lincoln even said the founders had made a compromise with slavery.
Slavery was present in the southern states.
Lincoln was, I don't have the power, even if I wanted to, to root it out.
But what I do have the power to do and what I do want to do and what the Republican Party stands for is preventing slavery from going into the new territories.
That really was the issue that led to secession and to civil war.
So there are inconvenient facts about slavery that are known, that are well-established in the historical record.
Nothing that I'm saying today lacks documentation.
It's all there, and the documentation can't really be questioned.
And I'm open-minded about this.
In other words, when someone points out to me, I say, no Republican owned a slave.
They go, well, what about this guy?
I look into it. I go, well, actually, you're right on that.
What about this guy? Actually, you're right on that.
But let's add up your numbers.
You're now under 10.
So while what you say is true, and I'm going to take back my statement that no Republican owned a slave, I'm going to modify that statement now to say that virtually no Republican owned a slave and 99.9%, the vast, vast majority of slaves in the country were owned by Democrats.
So the Democratic Party is unequivocally, unmistakably, indisputably the party of slavery.
And that's a fact that young people need to know, but often don't.
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, end quote.
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 debt.
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 get started. Text Dinesh to 989898.
Think about this. In March of this year, when the banks faltered, the stock market faltered, gold surged.
Birch Gold can help you find out how to protect your savings with gold.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers.
So text Dinesh to 989898.
You'll get a free information kit on gold to get you started.
Again, text Dinesh to 989898.
The next slide that I want to focus on goes past the times of slavery and I now want to talk about the lie, or really lies, involving segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, segregation and the KKK kind of went together.
The KKK was not the vehicle of segregation.
The KKK was essentially a paramilitary organization, the guys in the white hoods.
This was an institution dedicated to racial subjugation, preventing not just blacks, but even whites who were seen as Republicans or allies of blacks, prevent them from voting in the South, and then also going after black Criminals who were seen as evading the justice system.
And so the KKK essentially became a lynch mob or became a vigilante organization that would terrorize people, including people who had not had a fair trial and would say, all right, we won't leave it to the justice system.
We'll go get this guy ourselves.
So an organization devoted to racial terror and terrorism.
But again, when the left writes about the KKK, they seem to imply, one, this is some sort of American organization.
It's just we got to blame the country.
America is responsible for the KKK. But again, without asking which America, which Americans, who started the Klan, who promoted it, who fought against it, who blocked it, who shut it down, and then who started it up again?
Well, the answers to those questions are known, but the left does a pretty good job, really, in trying to hide all this by not talking about it.
Instead, what they say is that today, today, the Klan is somehow pro-Trump, is for the Republican Party.
Today, the sort of white supremacists are on the right.
Now, this is not even true.
White supremacists today are not on the right.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Klansmen or skinheads or any kind of white supremacists have voted disproportionately Republican or are in the Trump column.
The left relies here on they'll go to a rally, they'll find one guy waving a Confederate flag and they go, see, this guy is obviously a Trump supporter.
Or they will find an article that is published in some Klan leaflet.
The Klan doesn't really have any kind of systematic method of communication, but they put out these sort of, nothing more than 8.5 by 11 sheets of paper with scrawlings on it.
Look at this Klan paper in Oklahoma that seems to promote Trump.
Well, the problem with this kind of thing is that when you're talking about organizations that number some thousands, maybe a few tens of thousands of people, it makes no sense to find one guy and use one leaflet or one photo and say that's indicative of anything.
You need to have a survey, you need to have a poll, you need to have some record of voting habits and the left has produced none of that.
Now, historically, the Klan was very clearly an organ of the Democratic Party.
And that's not even my view.
The progressive historian Eric Foner writes that for decades, the KKK, the Ku Klux Klan, was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, end quote.
So it's explicitly admitted and stated.
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, an influential Southern Democrat who started the Klan.
And the Klan became this terrible, violent organization in the 1860s and 1870s.
And then there was a Republican mobilization against the Klan, and the Klan was disbanded.
It was shut down. And under, I believe it was Grant, the Force Act was passed, which was a federal act that greatly restricted, limited, and outlawed, in many cases, Klan activity.
So it looked like the Ku Klux Klan was done, was finished.
And then again, weirdly, in the early 19th century, the Klan began to make a comeback.
And we began to make a comeback largely as a result of a film called Birth of a Nation.
In fact, when I made the film Death of a Nation, I had in mind the background of Birth of a Nation.
Birth of a Nation was essentially a pro-KKK propaganda film.
It was screened in Woodrow Wilson's White House for Woodrow Wilson's cabinet.
Now let's notice, when we talk about Woodrow Wilson, we're talking about the nation's first progressive president.
And this was the guy, a progressive Democrat, who...
Who not only screens the film, but then praises the film, talks about it like, wow, this is like writing words and images with lightning.
In other words, it's so emotionally powerful.
And then you begin to see a Klan revival.
And this time, the Klan revival isn't just in the South.
It begins to spread to the Midwest.
It occurs in some northern cities.
So the nationwide revival of the Klan is also done by the Democrats.
And so when people talk about this sort of sordid history of lynchings and so on, you've got to remember that these were done by the Democrats.
Democrats now try to say, well, we don't really accept responsibility for them.
The parties switch sides.
I made the point before that that's not true, but even if it were true, it wouldn't make any difference.
You are not absolved of a crime that you did because you subsequently, quote, switched sides with some other guy.
Nor does your guilt somehow transfer to that guy.
You still did these things.
You started the Klan, you revived the Klan, you did the lynchings, and so on.
And I'll talk in the next segment about the very peculiar, not only the history of segregation, how segregation was promoted and advanced In the Democratic Party and only in the Democratic Party, but also about how these segregation laws passed by the Democrats had a peculiar effect across the pond in Europe with a group of people called the Nazis.
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 through the night.
This MyPillow mattress topper is washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA. Comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
This incredible 3-inch mattress topper is as low That's $219.59 with promo code Dinesh.
So go ahead and call 800-876-0227.
Again, the number 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com but make sure to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I want to talk in this segment and the next one also about the Nazis.
And I want to do it for two reasons.
I want to document the way in which the Nazis learned from progressive Democrats in America.
It seems like a startling thing to say, but I'll show you why it is true.
And I also want to show that Nazism was from the beginning, like fascism in general, of which Nazism is a species or is a part, why fascism is clearly a phenomenon of the left.
But let's begin with the Nazis gathering in a room In the early 1930s, this is before the Holocaust, before the gas chambers, before this so-called Final Solution, the Nazis are really discussing how do you create a racist society?
And they're talking about, specifically, they're debating what came to be known as the Nuremberg Laws, laws that turned Jews into second-class citizens, laws that segregated Jews, laws that confiscated Jewish property.
And I'm going to make the claim, and this is a claim I've documented in my book, Death of a Nation, and shown, depicted, I think, in an effective way in the movie called Death of a Nation.
The Nazis got the idea and the blueprint for the Nuremberg Laws from the Democrats of the American South.
What happened was that there was a prominent Nazi in the room that day who had studied in the United States.
And so while the Nazis were arguing, they were running into all kinds of roadblocks.
It's like, how do we create a racist society?
What would our laws look like?
And they also ran into the specific conundrum, how do we decide who is a Jew?
You've got people who are Jews, who are religious, but then you have secular Jews.
Do they count as Jews also?
And what about people who are half-Jewish or one-fourth Jewish?
Do they count as Jews? How much Judaism do you need or how much Jewishness do you need to qualify as a Jew?
Well, as it turns out, this Nazi who studied America said to his fellow Nazis, hey guys, we don't have to worry about any of this because these problems have already been thought about and they've already been solved.
Admittedly not solved with regard to Jews, but with regard to blacks.
And so all we have to do is cross out the word black and write in the word Jew and we will have our Nuremberg laws.
This again, wow!
You have, and this is a phenomenon like so many of the other things I've been talking about today, erased from American textbooks. You don't find it taught in the classroom.
You won't find documentaries about it, and yet the evidence for it is unmistakable.
In fact, there is a book by a Yale scholar named Whitman.
It's called Hitler's American Model. Notice that even Whitman is sort of hedging his bets.
He should have called it the Hitler's Democratic Model, but he didn't want to do that.
He himself is on the progressive side. Hitler's American Model.
Hitler got a bunch of his ideas from America, and he describes the incident I'm talking to you about.
Now, the reason that Whitman is being a little disingenuous is that when the Nazis referred to these laws in the American South, they knew that these laws were passed by Democrats.
This was explicitly brought up by the Nazis, and they knew something that again is not taught in America, and that is that all the segregation laws of the South, without exception, were passed by Democratic legislators, They were signed by democratic governors.
They were put into effect and enforced by democratic officials.
So these are democratic laws, and the Democratic Party bears the responsibility for them.
And to this degree, the Democratic Party was the teacher of the Nazis and was the inspiring force behind the Nuremberg Law, showed the Nazis how to get it done.
In a very interesting part of this debate, the Nazis asked, taking up the question I mentioned a moment ago about who is a Jew, they said, well, how did the Democrats solve that one in America?
How did they decide who's black?
Because if you think about it, the same questions arise.
You have people who are half black.
You have people who are black, but they're of black ancestry, but light-skinned.
And so the Nazi who had studied in America goes, well, in America, the Democrats used the one-drop rule.
One drop of black blood makes you black.
And amazingly, remarkably, with bitter irony, one can note, the Nazis found this racism to be too extreme.
The Nazis go, what?
One single drop of blood?
This is ridiculous. This is too racist even for us.
And so the Nazis decided on a more moderate, you can say, definition.
And that is that you had to be 75% Jewish to count as a Jew.
In other words, if you were half Jewish, that's not enough.
If you're a quarter Jewish, that's certainly not enough.
But you would have to have...
You could say three out of four of your grandparents need to be Jewish.
That gives you the 75%.
And so...
So we have here a chapter that has been greatly hidden in American education and American historiography, the way in which the Nazis got their segregation laws, got their Nuremberg laws, their state-sponsored discrimination, their property confiscation, the initial evils of the Nazis that later led to the Holocaust.
This was inspired by the Democratic Party of the United States.
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.
It's also a way to interact with me directly.
I do a weekly Q&A every Tuesday 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 films by other independent producers, including 2,000 Mules, and we're working on a big new film for this fall.
And I'll be giving you the inside scoop for that on Locals as well.
If you're an annual subscriber, you're able to stream and watch these films for free.
So check out my channel at dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, check it out, dinesh.locals.com.
I now want to discuss my second lie about fascism and about Nazism.
And this is the question about whether fascism and Nazism are on the left or on the right.
Now, there's so much distortion and falsehood about this that it's incumbent upon me not merely to state and show in a kind of clear way that fascism and Nazism are on the left, but to show you why they have to be on the left, why it makes no sense to think about fascism and Nazism as being anywhere other than on the left.
So let me begin by noting that fascism is a phenomenon of the early 20th century.
Fascist parties first began to show themselves, by the way, in many countries, In Germany, to be sure, and in Italy, but also in France and in England and in Belgium and in a couple of other countries.
So you begin to see this nascent developing fascist movements.
And here's the interesting thing.
All these movements were led by men of the left.
And not just the left, of the far left.
One example would be this guy Oswald Mosley in England.
Now Mosley was in the Labour Party, in the party of the left, if you will, but he was far left.
He was the far left part of the party and he thought the Labour Party was too moderate, was too centrist, so he left the Labour Party to join the fascists and to sort of build fascism in England, but his purpose was to have a party to the left of the Labour Party.
In France, if you look at the fascists, they came out of the movement for socialism.
Jean Aleman was considered the kind of grand old man of French socialism.
He was the leader of French fascism.
But there were many other figures, again, prominent leftists who led fascism in France.
Same Henri de Man in Belgium.
In Italy, we need to focus on Mussolini, because Mussolini created the first fascist state.
And he did this really, he came to power in 1922.
Let's remember Hitler came to power in 1933.
So Mussolini was 11 years ahead of Hitler.
And he was the kind of face of European fascism.
Mussolini was a Marxist.
He was the editor of the Marxist Journal.
He was a man of the left.
And the reason that Mussolini became a fascist was because he saw the need to modify or you could even say radicalize the left.
Mussolini went to fight in World War I and Mussolini had been sort of taught by Marxism and by the Marxists that working class people have no country.
That the real division in society is between the bourgeois on the one hand, the capitalists, and the working man or the proletariat on the other.
And the idea was it doesn't matter if you're English or French or German.
Working men all over the world have something in common, namely the fact that they are exploited.
They're victims. And capitalists all over the world have something in common, that they're exploiters.
And they recognize each other as buddies because they're all jointly exploiting the working class.
And so when Mussolini went to World War I, he noticed something strange.
And that is he noticed that French socialists fought for France.
And German socialists fought for Germany.
And English socialists fought for England.
And Mussolini mused and said, wow, these guys aren't just fighting.
They're risking their life for an idea.
But what is that idea?
It's clearly not the working class.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have working men fighting each other.
It's clearly the idea of the nation.
It's nationalism.
These are people who care about their country.
So Mussolini said that basically class loyalty is important, but it's not the only form of loyalty.
He goes, what if we can build a workers' movement that combines class loyalty with nationalism?
And this was the invention of, you guessed it, National Socialism.
So National Socialism is not a repudiation of Socialism or of Marxism, but rather it's an effort to build a kind of more solid, a more enduring Socialism by combining the allegiance to a class with an allegiance to country.
Let's remember that the official name of the Nazis was they were the National Socialists.
And so what I'm trying to give you here is not just that it's not just an accident of history that these fascists were all on the left in all these different countries.
It's not just an accident that the Nazi 25-point program, which is available online, state control of the banks, state control of churches, state control of education, state control of industry.
I mean, this is not stuff that sounds like Donald Trump.
This is stuff that sounds like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
So, not only did fascism and Nazism have their origins on the left, not only is their ideological platform on the left, but the central concept of fascism, which is uniting the idea of the nation with the idea of socialism, this whole business was done of and by and for the left.
And so, it was only after World War II that when the left realized that it would be completely discredited because of all the murderous actions of the fascists and the Nazis that the intellectual project began, a project of historical revisionism, of historical distortion, of trying to take fascism and Nazism from the left-wing column and moving them into the right-wing column.
This is an exercise of leftist propaganda.
It's been quite successful if you look at the textbooks and look at the things being taught in school, and yet when you look at the evidence, this propaganda is not true, and I'm trying to expose it as such.
I have time in today's podcast just to cover probably one more line.
I've got like seven on my list.
Debbie's like, wait a minute, aren't you going to talk about guns?
You've basically been anchored down on slavery and racism and fascism.
And of course, I meant to talk about gender, but I'm going to let that slide.
And I do want to say something.
I think I'm going to focus on the climate.
Just say a few things about it.
Because here the lie is a very cunning one.
And the lie is that the vast majority of scientists agree with climate change.
Well, first of all, on the face of it, if a vast majority of scientists agree the climate is changing, I mean, you agree the climate is changing, I agree the climate is changing, the climate always changes.
The climate in that sense is like the seasons.
It's not going to remain static.
It's not going to remain identical across the great sweep of time or space.
What is it that these scientists really agree on?
As it turns out, when you look a little more closely and you look at what these surveys are telling you, they're telling you that the scientists agree on nothing more than a principle of science that is known as the greenhouse effect.
So what's the greenhouse effect?
It's basically that when you release carbon into the atmosphere or carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the effect is to warm the atmosphere.
And this is an experiment you can perform in a laboratory.
Just take a cubicle, release carbon dioxide, and you'll notice a warming effect.
That's called the greenhouse effect.
And honestly, there's no disagreement about this.
And so this is what the scientists are agreeing on.
99% of scientists, Dinesh, yeah, this is what they agree on.
And they should agree upon it because it's true.
Now, but this is not what the activists mean when they talk about the climate change agenda.
They're taking something that is true and putting it into something much bigger that is much more dubious, more controversial, and they're saying that because the scientists agree on this, therefore we can take them to agree on all the other stuff that we're talking about.
Now, Here's kind of what I'm getting at.
It could be that, and it is, that if humans release more carbon into the atmosphere, that that's going to have a warming effect.
But how much is that warming effect?
That's not agreed upon.
Over what period of time?
Are there other factors involved?
Are there changes going on, for example, in the sun, in outer space?
Are there other factors occurring on Earth that are outside of human control that also have impacts and bring about changes in the climate?
What is the proportion of man-made changes versus non-man-made changes?
And even if you knew all those things, you might have seen recently that...
That a Republican senator, I think it was Kennedy, Joe Kennedy, was talking to one of the Biden administration officials and he says, you want us to spend this giant amount of money, what, $50 billion?
And what effect is that going to have in changing, reducing global temperatures?
And the guy couldn't say. The guy was like, well, the United States is 13% of global.
He's like, I know, but you're asking us to spend a large amount of money.
Let us know what will this money buy us?
What reduction in global temperature will it produce?
And the guy begins to babble and he backtracks and he essentially refuses to answer the question because he doesn't know.
He has no idea.
There are a couple of ways to respond when the climate is changing in any sense.
And this is true, by the way, even of, you know, seasonal changes.
If I go outside, I notice it's really hot.
I can respond in two ways.
I can say, well, let me try to figure out how to engineer a system to bring down the overall temperature, let's just say in a seven mile radius around me.
It's way too hot.
How do I bring the outer temperature down from, let's say, 95 degrees to 85 degrees?
Or I can say, that's going to be very difficult and expensive if I can even do it at all.
I don't even know a way to do it.
It's much easier for me to take off my jacket and wear a short sleeve shirt and some shorts and some sandals.
In other words, instead of adapting the climate to me, I adapt to the climate.
And so this is a way of saying that there are multiple ways to respond to challenges posed by the climate.
And finally, I want to make the point about, The oceans are rising.
The coasts are flooding.
This is, again, a kind of mantra that we've heard from Obama to John Kerry to Al Gore to so many others.
Biden. And yet it makes absolutely no sense because if it were true, if the coasts were being flooded, and if there was even effective data to show that they're being flooded, you would see property values in the coasts around the world plummeting.
You'd see property values in Miami Beach going down.
Why? Because your property is more endangered.
You're supposed to be moving inland.
So inland properties would go up in value and coastal properties would go down in value, but that's not happening.
And as I pointed out to the students I was talking to at University of Texas in San Antonio, I go, listen, Obviously, the property values aren't going down because the buyers don't believe it, and the sellers don't believe it, and the real estate agents don't believe it, and the brokerage and financial agencies and insurance companies don't believe it.
Really, nobody believes it.
And you can tell that they don't believe it because of their actions.
If they believed it, they would act commensurate with that.
Why isn't Obama selling his oceanfront property on Martha's Vineyard?
How is it that the Bidens have a home on Rehoboth Beach right on the beach?
The oceans are not rising, the coasts are not being flooded, and that is why real estate values on the water have not only remained constant, but in many cases continue to go up.
▲
Export Selection