All Episodes
Previous Next
July 28, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:04
WHO’S HIDING THE TRUTH? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep631
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, I'll delve into the debate over the Florida history standards regarding slavery.
I want to argue Florida is teaching the plain truth, but if anything, downplaying the culpability of the Democratic Party.
Debbie's going to join me for our Friday Roundup.
We'll discuss favorable treatment for the Biden crime family, the Barbie movie, and strange congressional testimony about UFOs and aliens, and also the newest addition to our family.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple or Google or Spotify, Please subscribe to my channel.
Same with if you're watching on Rumble.
And also on Rumble, there's a little red button that you can click right at the top, and this will take you to Locals.
You can check out my Locals channel.
I hope you'll do that. 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.
I want to talk somewhat in depth about the Florida history standards because the left has made this into a big fight about how slavery is taught in public schools.
Now, Kamala Harris has been raging against a single line in these history standards.
And I talked about the line.
The line basically says that slaves, in the course of slavery, developed skills that were beneficial to them.
So the line appears to be quite...
Accurate and harmless.
And what I mean by that is it's accurate in the sense that slaves performed not just menial labor, carrying rocks or digging in the ground, but skilled labor.
And that means repairing a roof or fixing equipment that broke down.
It required slaves serving as carpenters, as people who made things.
And so all of this is...
Well documented in the record.
Slaves did all these things.
In fact, slaves by and large did all the work.
And what the plantation owners did is nothing more than kind of organized things.
And in some cases, they didn't even do that.
They hired an overseer.
Sometimes the overseer himself was a slave.
Sometimes also a free man.
And the overseer would then deploy the other slaves to do the work.
And all that the plantation guy does is he kind of keeps the plantation records.
This is how many hogs we have.
This is how much meat. This is how much cotton.
And so this was slavery.
So simply to describe this...
Is nothing more than to relay facts.
But somehow, the left is putting a kind of a moral template here and saying, you're implying that slavery was good.
No, you're not implying that slavery was good.
First of all, you're taking one line in what turns out to be a very in-depth and massive set of historical questions, issues, topics, themes.
And this is really what I want to go into.
I've looked more in-depth.
I started out just by looking at the debate over the one line.
And sometimes, even some Republicans are getting sort of caught up in this debate about, did slaves really learn skills, yes or no?
Here's a tweet from Byron Donalds, a very good guy, a Republican congressman from Florida.
And he goes, What's crazy to me is I expressed support for the vast majority of the new African American history standards and happened to oppose one sentence that seemed to dignify the skills gained by slaves as a result of their enslavement.
And then he goes on to say he's blasting the DeSantis people for firing back at him.
And he goes, this is why I'm endorsing Trump.
So ironically, the Trump-DeSantis fight has now gotten mixed up with this sort of business.
And Byron Donalds is saying that he does disagree with that one line.
But again, I think it's a mistake to sort of fall for the trap set by the left.
Yeah, if you want to argue about the one line, you can do it.
But don't let the debate over the one line become the debate over the history standards.
Because after all, this is like taking a whole book and saying, well, I don't agree with one line in the book, therefore let's throw the book out.
No, well, you can argue about the line.
The line is by itself also defensible.
It's certainly not manifestly false.
In a sense, what the left is saying about the line is it's malinformation.
In other words, that's true, but we don't want to say things like this because it might seem to give the impression to someone who's never heard of slavery that slavery offers some positive benefits.
However, I want to go on to argue, and I'll continue this segment as well as the next couple of segments, that the Florida history standards are very comprehensive, very detailed.
And does this mean that the left is completely wrong, that certain things may be left out?
Yes, something is left out.
And guess what's left out?
The full culpability of the Democratic Party.
That's what's left out. So the standards are very good in and of themselves.
They raise a lot of important issues about slavery, and you can see that it is these legitimate issues that the Democrats and the left want to cover up.
So I'll be going through some of these issues, but the general point I want to make is, in many cases, the standards talk about the fact that this was done to the slaves or that was done to the slaves, but what isn't asked is, which party did it?
In other words, slavery wasn't just a sectional fight.
It wasn't just the North and the South.
It was the North and the South, but it was also the Republicans versus the Democrats.
And so, the full culpability of the Democratic Party needs to be italicized, and it is not italicized in these history standards.
Maybe it's there by implication, but it would take a very good teacher to be able to look at an issue and go, ah, that was the Democrats, because the standards themselves don't say that.
The standards talk about the issue.
They don't talk about who are the ones that actually did it.
And so, for example, we have talk about how...
Right after slavery, there was a crackdown on blacks voting in the South.
And it wasn't just a crackdown on blacks.
It was a crackdown on blacks and whites.
Well, who were these whites? These whites were Northern Republicans who were coming South to encourage blacks to sign up to vote and so on.
And groups like the Ku Klux Klan were mobilized by the Democratic Party to suppress them.
So the standards do talk about the suppression, but they don't talk about the party affiliation of the people doing the suppressing.
And so I agree that there's something missing from the Florida history standards, but it's not what Kamala Harris or the Democrats are saying.
It's MyPillow's 20-year anniversary and Mike Lindell has sold over 80 million MyPillows.
Wow! Well, he wants to thank each and every one of you by giving you the lowest price in history on his MyPillows.
You get the queen size MyPillow for $19.98, regular price $69.98 and just $10 more for a king size.
You get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products during this big sale.
The MyPillow bedsheets, the mattress toppers, the pet beds, the robes, the mattresses, the MySlippers, and so much more.
This is the time to just surf the website, try out the amazing products you've had your eye on.
Go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Dinesh to get the amazing offer on the queen-size MyPillow for $19.98 or call 800-876-0227.
The offer comes with a 10-year warranty, a 60-day money-back guarantee, so you have nothing to lose and it's time to start getting the quality sleep you deserve.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com to get the discounts.
Don't forget to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm continuing my discussion of the Florida history standards, which, by the way, don't just focus on slavery, but go beyond slavery to cover Reconstruction, to cover the early 20th century, the rise of segregation,
Jim Crow... The lynchings and then of course the continuing press efforts to produce reform, the Civil Rights Movement, World War II, Brown v.
Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act and so on.
So, I want to highlight some topics covered by these standards to give you an idea that this is not all about, it's not about the one line saying that slaves learn some skills.
That is just a preposterous distortion of what these standards are about.
The Transformation Proclamation freed the slaves who were in enemy territory, and Lincoln admitted this was a war measure.
But the 13th Amendment did do that.
And by the way, virtually all Democrats voted against it.
That's not mentioned in the history standards.
The 14th Amendment, equal rights under the law.
You'd think everybody would be for that.
No, the Democrats overwhelmingly oppose that.
And the 15th Amendment, which is the right to vote, the Democrats overwhelmingly oppose that.
So this is what I mean when I say that the democratic responsibility, the evil machinations of the Democrats who tried to block these amendments is not highlighted as I believe it should be.
Instruction includes similarities and differences between serfdom and slavery.
Now, this is really important because slavery didn't sort of come out of nowhere.
And particularly in the West, slavery grew out of serfdom.
It may also be said that in America, slavery grew out of indentured servitude.
Now, the reason that the left doesn't like all this is because they want slavery to be in a unique category by itself.
If slavery can be equated with serfdom, well, there were...
Really, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of serfs.
Serfdom was widespread, for example, in Russia.
And suddenly, slavery doesn't seem unique to blacks.
It doesn't appear to be purely racial.
And similarly, there were lots of whites who were indentured servants in the United States.
So the moment you say indentured servitude and slavery are on a continuum, you're beginning to blast the democratic narrative.
So you can see what the Democrats want here is they want simplification and They want slavery truly to be, you may say, a black and white issue.
They don't want ambiguity.
They don't even want truth because the truth is in many senses complicated.
Let's continue. Instruction includes the transition from an indenture to a slave-based economy.
Again, if there's a transition from the one to the other, it shows that the early whites, the Irish, the Italians, and others who came as indentured servants, well, most of the indentured servants came from England and from Ireland, that somehow they were, if not slaves, they were something akin to slaves.
There's a very good book about this.
I think it's called White Cargo that talks about this.
Explain the effect of the cotton industry on the expansion of slavery due to Eli Whitney's cotton gin.
This is, again, something the Democrats don't really want to talk about.
Why? Because they want to attack the founders.
Oh, the founders are responsible for the massive expansion of slavery that occurred.
No, the founders are not responsible for it.
Why? Because in the 18th century, it looked like slavery was...
Going down. Slavery was being reduced.
Slavery was on its way out.
Jefferson thought so.
The U.S. Congress wanted to help with ways for that to happen.
They blocked the slave trade.
They set a date, I think 1808, for the ending of the slave trade, all in the expectation that slavery was going to wither away.
But then it was Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin and I'm pretty sure I have the date right, 1793, that gave a huge impetus to the plantations, to the cotton industry.
Suddenly, slavery became immensely profitable, and so there was a kind of revitalization of slavery in the 19th century in the South that was led by a new party that was set up to defend and protect slavery, namely the Democratic Party.
So you can see how here, there's a lot here that young people do need to know, and the Florida guidelines are going in the right direction, but again, They're minimizing, they're not highlighting the role of the Democratic Party.
And case after case, we see this to be the case.
Instruction includes the similarities between serfdom and slavery and emergence of the term slave in the experience of Slavs.
Now, here's another, well, to quote Al Gore, inconvenient truth for the Democrats, which is where does the word slave even come from?
Well, it turns out slavery has existed since ancient times.
It existed in China, in India, in Africa.
American Indians had slaves long before Columbus.
But the actual word slave comes from the word Slav.
And this highlights the fact that all over Europe, there were white slaves.
And they were taken mainly from the so-called Slavic peoples.
And so the Slavs were so commonly enslaved that their name became the word for slave.
But again, the Democrats don't like this.
The left doesn't like this. Why?
Because it highlights that slavery, again, isn't just purely a black issue.
We're talking about slavery preceding slavery going back to the dawn of history, being coeval, you may almost say, with mankind.
And you're talking about the fact that you had white slaves no less than black slaves.
And even American Indians were enslaved for a time.
Although eventually slavery, for reasons we need to go into, became in the United States.
it did become a black and white issue.
Have you heard about the Durban Accords?
This is the greatest threat to the US dollar's global dominance in the past 80 years.
On August 22, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa are expected to announce the launch of a new international super currency fully backed by gold or other commodities.
It's part of a long-term plan to supplant the US and the dollar as the cornerstones of the global financial system.
Well, how can you protect your IRA or 401k from the fallout from this landmark announcement?
Well, you can diversify with gold from Birch Gold Group.
Historically, gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty, which is right now.
Get a free information kit on gold IRAs and decide for yourself if a tax-sheltered retirement account backed by physical precious metals is right for you.
Text the word Dinesh to 989898.
There's a Monumental shift happening among nations that control one-third of the world GDP starting August 22nd.
Protect your retirement savings.
Text Dinesh to the number 989898 and claim your free information kit on gold from Birch Gold.
I'm continuing my discussion of the Florida history standards.
And... And now we turn to the movements against slavery.
Movements that, by the way, were driven based upon Christian motives and ultimately led and mobilized by the Republican Party.
Now again, I don't see this emphasis in the Florida history standards.
They emphasize the abolitionist movements.
And they emphasize, by the way, consistently the role of blacks in driving the freedom movements, the role of blacks in fighting against slavery, the role of blacks in fighting for civil rights.
But the problem here is this, and that is that blacks were in no position to overthrow slavery by themselves.
That's a simple definition.
Brute fact.
In fact, there weren't even that many slave revolts.
It's amazing that when you think about slavery beginning in the United States around 1615 and continuing till 1865, I mean, till the end of the Civil War, we're talking about a period of, what, 250 years.
You would expect that there would be thousands, at least hundreds of slave revolts.
But in fact, you can count the slave revolts kind of on two hands.
And there were no significant slave revolts.
Yeah, there's Nat Turner, one or two others.
But the reason we have these one or two others, the reason we can give the names, is that that's all there was.
So by and large, the slaves were not strong enough to revolt.
The movement against slavery was led kind of by the white man.
And there were two camps.
There was sort of the abolitionist camp, William Lloyd Garrison being a classic example, and the Republican camp represented by Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.
And those two camps are not the same.
And so we hear in left-wing literature these days a lot about the abolitionists.
The abolitionists did this and the abolitionists did that.
But the simple truth of it is that the abolitionists were anti-American.
They were burning the American flag.
They thought the way to end slavery was to get rid of the U.S. Constitution.
They were also pacifists.
William Lloyd Garrison was a pacifist, and so they had the belief that any use of force to end slavery was morally wrong and should not be used.
So you can see, looking back, that that was not the way to get the job done, and in fact, that was not the way the job was done.
Slavery was ended because of the emergence of a new party in 1854 called the Republican Party.
By the way, Frederick Douglass became a leading Republican, later a Republican diplomat.
He was a diplomat sent to Haiti and so on.
So, the point is that it was the rejection of the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison approach and the adoption of the Republican Party's let's prevent slavery from going into the new territories approach.
It was the Abraham Lincoln approach that proved successful and not the abolitionist approach.
Again, is this being taught in schools?
No, not at least in the full way that it needs to be.
The Florida History Standards refer to it.
Instruction includes the relationship between William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass and their respective approaches to abolition.
So there's a hint here that they had two very different approaches, but it doesn't carry the argument all the way which approach prevailed.
Turns out it wasn't the Garrison approach, it was the Lincoln approach.
And then as we fast forward and come to the Civil Rights Movement, Instruction includes how whites who supported Reconstruction policies for freed Blacks after the Civil War, white Southerners being called Scalawags, and white Northerners being called Carpetbaggers, how these people were all targeted.
So yes, there's a targeting of white dissenters in the South who Who are these white dissenters?
By and large, they're white dissenters who are supporters of the newly ascendant Republican Party.
There are white Republicans coming from the North to the South to promote literacy, to promote education, to encourage blacks to run for office.
They get targeted by who?
Again, not just by whites in the South, but by Democrats.
So, the point I want to make here is that the history standards are right as far as they go.
But they're not going far enough in highlighting that this is a party clash.
We're talking about the fact that in the 19th century, the Democratic Party was resolutely pro-slavery.
Then it became resolutely pro-segregation, pro-Ku Klux Klan, anti-Reconstruction, anti-13th Amendment, anti-14th Amendment, anti-15th Amendment.
And so there's a consistent pattern here.
It's not as if the Democratic Party flirted with slavery and then moved away.
No, this was the centerpiece of their agenda.
How did the Democrats achieve the so-called Solid South?
The South was solidly democratic, by and large, from 1900 until the Reagan era.
How do you achieve that? How do you get, essentially, a one-party state in the South?
Well, the answer is the Democrat Party built this through racism.
They built this, by and large, by telling the white man in the South that the way to keep blacks down is to vote for the party, the Democrats, that will do the job for you.
We'll do it through segregation.
We'll do it through racial violence.
We'll do it through lynchings.
And so, all this stuff, for which, by the way, the Democratic Party has never acknowledged.
They've never apologized.
So, when Kamala Harris goes and says that the history standards are leaving stuff out, yeah.
She's right, but not the stuff that she's talking about.
She wants to argue about the one line, but what she's missing is the fact that it's her own party.
This is one reason why academics hate to teach the subject, because if they go into the culpability of the Democrats, a student is going to say,"'Well, sir, aren't you in the Democratic Party?
Why would you be part of a party that did all these horrific evils that you are now claiming to be against?' Why don't you distance yourself from that party?
Put pressure on that party to acknowledge its role.
Maybe the party has changed or maybe not, but whether it's changed or not, it did do all these things.
And to this day, it's trying to avoid the responsibility for doing them.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your remedy.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago and we just noticed a huge difference in our joints.
Nothing short of amazing. The 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 a true believer she can now do the exercises that for several years she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a real 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 three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
The number again to call 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
feel the difference. Debbie and I are here for our Friday roundup. I thought we'd start talking about the the Hunter Biden plea deal that was blown up by Judge Norielka.
She didn't fall for it. She's, I know what's going on and go back to the drawing board. So look, I mean I wish she had said that I'm not having any of it.
She sent the Biden DOJ and the Hunter Biden lawyers back to the table and kind of the negotiating table.
But interestingly, Hunter Biden withdrew his plea deal.
He said, I'm pleading not guilty.
And I think this is all to the good because this agreement, as I'll explain in a moment, but it was a real case of sort of hide the ball.
And they were trying to protect both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
Now, they had to give Hunter enough that Hunter would sign because Hunter had to be okay with it.
After all, he's the one who was, in a sense, taking the blame.
But they had to soften the blame on Hunter.
They did it in a very sneaky way.
But what's your take on all this?
Well, my favorite part of the whole thing is she told him to get a job.
She's like, here are the conditions for your release.
Go get a job. Oh, my goodness.
Now, this guy has, of course, had a bunch of jobs.
Oh, yeah. Bagman.
Basically, I think what she's saying is stop being bagman for the mafia.
Start doing legal work.
Right, right. A real job.
Yeah, but I mean, think about it.
Besides like porn star, what kind of legal work can he do?
He's already done that, in a way.
But unpaid. Yeah, maybe.
You could argue. Yeah, you could argue.
Here's the thing about, let's go into the detail of this Hunter Biden thing a little bit, because here's what's going on.
The Biden DOJ makes an agreement, it's called a pre-trial diversion agreement on the gun charge.
But what they do in this pretrial diversion agreement, they also say that they will not be charging Hunter Biden ever with any criminal charges related to bribery or to the whole Biden family crime scheme racket.
And that is in the pretrial diversion agreement.
So that is not released to the public.
And then what they do is they create this plea bargain that they put before the judge, in which they basically say, you know, we have agreed to make this deal on these charges, but they're hiding from the judge the fact that we also made this other deal, call it Deal A, that we're now importing into Deal B, but in Deal A, this guy's never going to be charged for anything.
And so the judge goes, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You've given me deal B, which incorporates deal A. Show me what's in deal A. Does this mean that Hunter Biden cannot be charged with any crimes for which he's under current investigation?
And the DOJ goes, oh, well, we're not saying that.
And then the Hunter Biden lawyers jump up and go, wait a minute, you are saying that.
In other words, they're referring to the fact that that is contained in the pre-trial diversion agreement.
So they did make a deal.
But what happened is the judge sort of outed the deal by saying that there are hidden aspects of this deal that you're not showing me, and then, embarrassed to save the case, the DOJ goes, yeah, there can be further charges brought in.
That's how this whole thing unraveled.
It's almost like they had a wink-wink handshake deal that was concealed.
Well... And a public deal.
And see, remember, if this had gone through, Hunter Biden would have, in a sense, complete immunity, and the public would never know, because they've never seen deal A. They've only seen deal B. So these people are extremely grafty.
They're very, very crafty.
This family is extremely crafty.
Well, but what I mean is they have an arsenal of lawyers and the DOJ. I mean, they're putting the best lawyers they can get a hold of to now cover up this.
The mafia typically never had great attorneys.
Why? Because they'd find some mafia guy.
My uncle's an attorney, Uncle Vito, and so on.
But these guys take the best attorneys in the country and their job is cover up for the crime family that happens to be sitting in the White House.
Right. Yeah, it's disturbing.
And what's even more disturbing, I think, is, I mean, the son, we already know that he's corrupt and all of these things, but it's the daddy.
You know, he's the most corrupt of them all.
And this whole notion that we're thinking about impeaching him is ridiculous.
It's not we shouldn't be thinking about impeaching him.
We should be impeaching him.
He's been a crook for 40 years.
In fact, what I think makes the whole thing so disheartening and disturbing is that to him, crookedness is politics.
You know, his point is like, why would I become a senator if it wasn't to collect money and put money in my pocket?
So for him, these are the rules of the game.
All that he did while vice president is he escalated to the international scale.
Yeah. You know who's come forward is Jill Biden's ex-husband.
He says that 50 years ago, he was actually threatened during the divorce.
The Biden family was threatening him because they apparently wanted his home.
Jill Biden wanted the house or whatever.
And so he says that all of this doesn't surprise him one bit because he's known of the crime family for quite some time.
I didn't know about any of this, but I can't say that I'm surprised.
I mean, all kudos to Judge Norica.
She figured out what she did was she backed the DOJ lawyers into a corner.
She forced them to say, which, I mean, think if they had said, yeah, we gave this guy absolute immunity.
They never want to say that.
So they're like, no, no, no, no, no, we didn't.
And that blew the whole thing open.
So it's the savvy of the judge that outdid the extreme cunning of the Hunter Biden lawyers and the Biden DOJ. Debbie and I are on a really good health journey, but we still struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber. And lucky for us, we discovered Balance of Nature.
And what better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature.
This is Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies, their star product, made from fresh whole produce.
The produce is powdered after an advanced vacuum-cold process, which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
And this is Balance of Nature's Fiber and Spice, a proprietary blend of fiber and 12 spices for overall and digestive health.
Start your journey to better health right now for a limited time this summer.
Get a free fruits and veggies travel set, plus $25 off your first order as a preferred customer when you use promo code America.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code America.
Yesterday, Debbie and Juliana went to see the movie Barbie.
I stayed home and decided to give it a skip.
Not really because...
Well, I mean, I wanted Debbie to get a gauge on all the stuff that we're hearing about the film.
Now, Ben Shapiro, the Christian movie site called Movie Guide, Candace Owens have been blasting the Barbie movie as a woke film with an agenda.
And on the other hand, the...
And there are people on the left praising the film.
Here is a... Critics hype Barbie as a stunning takedown of toxic masculinity and a master's thesis on feminism.
So, in some ways, there appears to be agreement on the right and the left that there is an ideological agenda here.
But one of the things you were saying is, number one, this agenda was not highlighted in any of the trailers or even the clips that were early put out about the movie.
This is what the movie is all about.
And even when you see the movie, it is kind of sneakily done.
So talk a little bit about the plot of this film.
What is it about? Well, first of all, the reason I went to go see it is because my 23-year-old daughter, Juliana, is absolutely in love with Ryan Gosling.
It wasn't that she played with Barbies as a kid.
Well, she played with Barbies as a kid, and I was informed yesterday that I didn't play with her when she played with her Barbies, which is not true.
I did play with her, but she doesn't remember that.
So, anyway. But she really likes this guy.
She thinks he's just so, like, handsome and all that.
And is he Ken? He's Ken.
He plays Ken in the movie, and she just wanted to go see him.
Not really interested in the Barbie movie, per se, but we went.
Well, here's the thing. When Debbie was like, I don't know much about this movie.
I don't know what to expect. But I listened to this song, which is kind of funny, in which Ken is complaining that in the Barbie world, it's all about Barbie.
And Ken gets neglected and he gets left out and so on.
And you said that the song was pretty well done.
Well, it was pretty well done. It was very funny, I thought.
And I was like, you know, maybe this movie is actually about the fact that he doesn't, you know, that maybe the masculine part of Ken wants to get the first bill, right?
Or whatever. But it turns out that this movie is really all about feminism.
Yeah. And really all about the fact that in the fake world or the imaginative Barbie world, the women rule.
It's all basically every Supreme Court justice, all the doctors, all the lawyers, anybody is a woman.
No men. No men allowed.
So the men are just there for decoration in this world.
You know what, this almost seems to me to be like, you remember that, was it the Black Panther and this imaginary land called Wakanda where blacks run everything, the blacks are the smartest people in the world, everybody else is like, you know.
So what I'm getting at is we've already seen this on the racial stage.
I would call it an inversion of the world, you know, because you look at the world and you see, well, basically, as a continent, Africa isn't doing all that well.
You look at test scores in America, blacks aren't doing all that well.
But the idea is, in this fantasy world, blacks are running everything.
And it's almost like there are a lot of whites who, like, want to at least imaginatively live in that world as well.
And I guess Barbie's doing the same thing with gender.
Yeah, but in the case of Barbie, it actually is true.
You mean in Barbie's world?
Barbie's world, Barbies are the cool thing, right?
To have a Barbie. And you know why that is?
Because men don't play with dolls.
Right. Of course.
Of course. That is true.
I mean, boys don't play with dolls. But when I was little, and you know, I had so many Barbies.
I was quite spoiled as a kid.
I had all the Barbies I wanted.
I had the townhouse.
I had the airplane. I had the mall, everything.
But I always wanted a kin.
Like, Barbie had to have her kin with her, and it was her husband.
And they had to have children.
So I was very traditional.
In my world, Barbie's role was not just about Barbie.
It wasn't just about her being, you know, everything, right?
She was a mother because all of my Barbies had to be mothers.
She was a wife.
All those things, which actually was not addressed in this movie at all.
And so when Ken and Barbie go to the real world, because somehow there's a portal that they open to go into the real world and they become life-size Barbie and Ken.
Ken realizes that in this world, it's kind of run by men.
And he kind of likes it.
And so he takes it back to their world and changes everything.
So that's kind of the battle.
But I really did miss a lot of these, like, apparently, and some of the critics are saying that it's a very woke movie.
Well, Debbie says there was, for example, a trans actor in the movie.
Now, unless you actually follow this closely and know who the trans are, that guy's trans, you know, you might not even catch it, right?
And I didn't catch it because I'm not looking for it, right?
But it was there.
And these critics are talking about it.
And then they're also talking about the gender roles and how, you know, Barbie, when she and Ken are in the real world, she tells these construction workers that are saying some lewd comments to her.
She's like, I don't have a vagina and he doesn't have a penis.
So here you get the extreme kind of sneakiness of the left.
Because, of course, literally speaking, it's right.
Barbie's a doll. She doesn't actually have all her parts.
Anatomy, yeah. And so she's, strictly speaking, saying something that's innocuous and correct.
However, you can see that where the writers are going is they're pushing kind of a trans point.
We have a female that doesn't have female parts.
We have a male that doesn't have male parts.
The implication being that these parts are interchangeable.
Yeah. So, you might think, well, Dinesha, you're reading too much into it.
No, I'm not. Because the writers are putting it there so that people who don't think about these things will be indoctrinated without being fully conscious that they are being sold an ideological line.
Yep. Bank failures, record inflations, pie balloons, mass layoffs.
This is a recipe for economic disaster if your investments are with a typical financial advisor.
But my friend Rebecca Walser is different.
You've seen her on the podcast.
She's a wealth strategist, tax attorney.
She has a global MBA from the London School of Economics.
Rebecca told her clients to get out of equities back at the end of 2021.
She got it right when most advisors got it wrong.
And who had to pay the price?
Well, you as the customer.
Don't let blind loyalty leave you losing money.
Call Rebecca Walser's office today to protect your wealth from the market uncertainty.
Debbie and I did a call with Rebecca's team to talk about our investments.
We're moving ahead and you should too.
Go to friendofdinesh.com to book a call with Rebecca Walser's team today.
That's friendofdinesh.com to protect your investments and your future.
There were some witnesses, three witnesses, who came before the House Oversight Subcommittee to talk about a topic that you almost have to wonder, is this really a serious event or is this some kind of a stunt?
And I say this because there were some people on social media.
We're talking, by the way, about testimony regarding UFOs.
And there were some people on social media saying that this is all a diversion to cover up all the information that's coming out on the criminal activity of the Bidens.
This is a stunt.
This is preposterous.
However, you listened to some of this and you've delved into it.
And you're saying that there is something intriguing and a little different about these witnesses and what they have to say.
So what's different?
Because we've been hearing about UFOs and science fiction, H.G. Wells.
So apparently, and the interesting thing is that Schumer and Rubio are actually on board with this.
They want to know more.
And we haven't had that kind of bipartisan curiosity.
So they're really wanting to know more.
Apparently... One of these guys, he's an Air Force, I guess, F-18 pilot.
F-18 pilot, yes.
So he's Ryan Graves.
Yes. So anyway, he has said that a lot of these guys that see these things, and first of all, when I say these things, I'm talking about an object that they claim is even more technologically accurate.
Advanced than our stuff.
Anything that humans have.
And that anytime they wanted to go public or talk about it, they were like shut down and threatened.
So it's very interesting how, why are they threatening them?
Well, the other thing I found interesting from the testimony is the fact that they were talking about the fact that they appear to have recovered remains, almost like a body of supposedly an alien entity.
And the body, according to the witness, is made of no known remains.
DNA. DNA that define life as we know it.
Now, you know, again, the level of skepticism that we both bring to this is obviously high.
Why? Because there are reports for a long time.
And in fact, you had one for me that really made me laugh.
You picked it up off a radio show and tell me about the report.
So it was really funny. I was listening to this guy.
I'm not going to mention his name, but I was listening to him.
And he had a guest on, and apparently the guest was telling him how he was kidnapped by this alien that took him up to outer space, took him in this UFO, and they took his sperm and then deposited him back down on Earth, right? And they were talking about it as if it was just so matter-of-fact, you know, like, yeah, I went to the doctor and he checked my prostate, you know, kind of like that.
I was like, are you kidding me?
And I just, I thought to myself, what in the world is this person, you know, even...
And there have been reports over the decades where, you know, a bunch of guys are like, you know, they're like at a beer party.
They're drinking out in the field. Exactly.
They're like, we saw, you know, and the Martian came out of the space vehicle and so on.
But here we're talking about an intelligence officer for 14 years in the Air Force.
We're talking about a former F-18 pilot, the guy you mentioned, a retired commander in the Navy who was also a commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 41, the so-called Black Aces.
So these are people obviously at a different, much higher level of credibility.
They're not drunk. They're not drunk.
They're not drunk. And look, there are people who say, this is ridiculous, and it's impossible, and they can't be aliens, and why aren't aliens mentioned in the Bible?
And that has the same level...
This is the same level of argumentative credibility as someone who says, well, why aren't there dinosaurs in the Bible?
Therefore, dinosaurs could not exist.
The Bible doesn't talk about the earth being tens of thousands of years old.
Therefore, the earth can't be tens of thousands of years old.
No, this, I think, is a misreading of the Bible.
The Bible is a manual of God's communication with man, with us.
It is entirely possible that there are other worlds, other creatures.
God may have a completely different relationship with them.
Who knows if He has a different kind of Bible for them?
And there would be nothing that contradicts our Bible.
So, in other words, I think we shouldn't be sort of trying to restrict what God can do, right?
I mean, do you agree with this line of thinking?
Sort of. Sort of. I'm very skeptical about all this.
That it's real. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure if those things that they're seeing is maybe China or Russia, you know, spy satellites.
I mean, I don't know. I don't know.
Could it be that, you know, instead of being afraid of having a war, a nuclear war with China, Russia, Iran...
We should be worried about an alien force out there?
I mean, I don't know. Well, I mean, I just think that you have people who seem to be, well, first of all, they don't seem to have an agenda.
They're not getting anything out of this.
Second of all, they have a level of sophistication that goes beyond ours in being able to determine if we're talking about something that, let's say, another country has built.
Because, look, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force deals with foreign objects, even spy balloons all the time.
They know what those things are.
They can identify them. And you have to realize that these people also know that putting themselves on camera and going before Congress and talking about UFOs, there are a lot of people who think they're nuts.
They are. But you know, I'm wondering, does Russia, China, any other country also do this kind of investigation?
I mean, clearly this isn't just in America.
It Well, I mean, there is this group called SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Objects, which is a worldwide enterprise.
In fact, one of the guys who died in the submersible was on the board.
This is the Pakistani guy, was on the board of the SETI project.
Look, I agree.
I think we should have a high degree of skepticism.
But on the other hand, my skepticism doesn't extend to the point of saying that this kind of thing is impossible.
It is possible, although over time the facts will tell.
Debbie and I have a new granddaughter who's here.
She was born last week.
She's not here. She's not here.
Here, that's right. She's here with us.
She is the newest member of our family.
Born last Thursday.
A week and a day.
A week and a day. She's a week and a day old.
Wow, can you imagine being eight days old?
No. You've only been in the world eight days.
No, and she's a little.
Oh, she's just so cute.
Yeah. Debbie warned me.
She said, Dinesh, you're going to be very smitten.
And I was a little skeptical because, well, over the years, many people have told us, wait till you become grandparents.
You're going to be like head over heels and stuff.
And both of us were a little bit like, huh?
Yeah. We kind of were like, no, I don't think so.
And then we both leave the hospital and we both sort of are smitten.
We both like want to go back like immediately.
And so we know we're giving them a little time to get accustomed to their new family.
Well, the first days are, you know, feeding and basically just once you take the baby home from the hospital, the overwhelming weight of responsibility hits you.
Now, our granddaughter's name is Marigold.
And in fact, Brian here in the studio, we were talking about the name.
He's like, well, that's a very interesting name.
And And it is true.
It's not a common name.
And I thought originally it was just Marigold the flower.
And it's an English name.
It's kind of they decided to go kind of classically English.
Brandon and Danielle did. But then Danielle explained to me that there's a kind of a biblical basis for it.
Apparently the word Marigold comes from Mary.
Mary. And of course, gold, which means shiny, resplendent Mary.
Resplendent meaning radiant.
So, radiant Mary.
And so, it's actually kind of a profound name.
And when I told Brian, Brian was very Catholic, Brian's a deacon, you know, in church and so on.
Brian's like, you've got to explain the name on the podcast.
And so there it is.
It's Marigold Margaret.
Now, Margaret was actually my mom's name.
So there's a family dimension to that.
Marigold Margaret Gill.
Yes, and she's just precious.
She definitely radiates, you know, a beam of light.
She's just so cute.
Well, Debbie's making the point.
Debbie goes, listen, this baby is the cutest baby.
She goes, listen, all babies are cute in theory because they're babies.
They have to be cute. They do cute things.
They have little hands and little fingers and so on.
But you're saying that, and I guess you have some photos that you're going to be showing...
Yeah, so we put in about five photos that we're going to be dropping.
So if you are an audio-only listener, you should actually go...
You may want to watch this one.
You might want to watch this on Rumble or YouTube, whichever you prefer.
And so you can see the photos.
Although we have to be a little bit careful because what happens is, and this happens with people's kids and their grandkids, it's like...
You have to stop what you're doing, pull the car over, watch this on video, and so on.
And other people go, well, that's your grandchildren, not mine.
Yeah, I've been very careful.
I've actually only posted one photo with Danielle on Facebook.
I haven't posted, you know, continuously, because I know that, you know...
You're saying that our goo-goo gada may not be shared.
Exactly, I mean, Other people may not share in the joint.
And at some point they're like, enough already.
But everybody says she's adorable.
I mean, everybody. It's not just, I don't think we're saying it just because.
Well, we're really happy that she's healthy and she's also, at least from very early indications, kind of feisty.
First of all, she has really, you know, expressions, big eyes, and she makes expressions that really make you laugh.
They're really funny. And she also has tremendous energy.
In fact, Danielle said when she took her to the pediatrician, the pediatrician said that for someone just a few days old, she's pretty strong.
At one point, you and I have both done this, we kind of stick our little finger, and she has a pretty good grip.
Yeah, yeah. You know, for a baby.
Yeah. Most babies do, actually.
They do have a pretty good grip.
But what they can do, typically, is lift their necks all the way up, and she can.
Which is kind of interesting and amazing at the same time, because that doesn't come to later.
There are some babies that can, but most can't.
For me, this whole picture is interesting on many levels.
And of course, the focus is Marigold, the granddaughter, our granddaughter.
But it's also, for me, remarkable to see how my daughter, whom I've always thought of as Danielle, and when she was a little girl, we'd call her Little D, or just D. Is now a mom.
So it's a completely new role.
So our role has changed in that we have now entered the ranks of grandparenthood.
But it's also kind of profound to see your kids.
I mean, marriage is a big step.
But having a child is a whole different step.
And you can even see how both Daniel and Brandon, how they relate.
They're both hands-on and they relate really well.
And it just gives you a sort of new perspective on them.
Yeah, I do. And I also think children really, really cause a person to grow up a lot, to mature, to not just think about themselves, think about the future of this child that you've brought into the world and what you're going to do for your child.
And we'll see. Generation Alpha is very gold.
I mean, you think generationally, I would have to say as grandparents, it is also a kind of interesting reminder of our mortality.
And the reason is that very few people live to see their great-grandparents.
We are even, I think, a little bit on...
Because you've got many people who have grandparents, who become grandparents in their early 40s.
And I'm 62, so I'm entering the grandparent stage kind of late.
But I think it gives you a very healthy generational perspective.
So good for the parents, good for us, and good for this new life that has now come into the world.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection