All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:12
FACEBOOK’S SECRET PARTNERS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep658
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll expose a secret collaboration between left-wing advocacy groups and Facebook, which gives these leftists leverage over Facebook's censorship policies in exchange for ad revenue.
I'll examine a debate over the efficacy of masks. Author Jonathan Kahn joins me.
We're going to talk about his book, The Josiah Manifesto.
And I'll continue my introduction to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's great work, The Gulag Archipelago.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe.
Same if you're watching on Rumble.
And on Rumble, top left-hand corner, you'll see a little red mark which says join.
If you click on that, you can check out my Locals channel.
This is The Dinesh D'Souza Show.
Mmm. America needs this voice.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The left is organizing an advertising boycott of Facebook.
And that seems a little puzzling at the first glance because, wait a minute, isn't Facebook actively censoring conservatives?
Yes. Isn't Facebook outlawing frank and candid discussion of all kinds of topics that are dear to the left?
You can't challenge election fraud.
You can't challenge COVID. You can't talk about the trans issue in certain ways.
You can't discuss abortion in certain ways.
You can't challenge the orthodoxies of climate change.
So Facebook is in fact enforcing the mantras of the left.
So why would the left be boycotting Facebook?
Well, I think when we look at this, and there's an article in Politico that goes into the kind of nitty-gritty of the boycott, it helps us understand how this stuff works, and it also helps us understand the differences between the left and the right.
Typically on the right, I'll run into someone who goes...
You know, I'm no longer shopping at Target, or I've canceled my subscription to Disney +, as if that by itself is going to do anything to change the behavior of these companies.
In that respect, we're very naive.
We try to organize a consumer boycott, and look, sometimes it can work.
Look at Bud Light, for example.
So, it is possible for things to catch a certain type of momentum, to reach a critical mass, and then it does put pressure on the company.
But guess what? Even in the case of Bud Light, we have to admit, Bud Light hasn't cried uncle.
It hasn't surrendered. It hasn't said, okay, we are very sorry that we did what we did.
Bud Light has sort of dug in, and that means that even though they've taken such a hit, They're sort of hanging tough, which means there have to be countervailing pressures on the other side, maybe coming from their investors, maybe coming from the companies that invest in Bud Light, using pressures of the ESG model, and so on. In any case, my point being that we have on our side very limited success in exercising leverage on these kinds of companies.
So what's happening at Facebook is that they've got a guy on the left, Mark Zuckerberg, who's running Facebook, but even Mark Zuckerberg is not a complete leftist.
In fact, Mark Zuckerberg believes, and he gave a speech in which he said that we need to have more free speech in our society and at Facebook.
And he said, particularly in a democratic society, now this seems to me the common sense of the matter, but it's interesting to have Zuckerberg saying it, because Zuckerberg goes, when you have politicians that are making claims and counterclaims, it's not our job at Facebook to go, this is misinformation, this is wrong, this is hateful.
We don't get to referee the debates occurring in a democratic society.
Well, I mean, you wish that Zuckerberg carried that idea to its logical conclusion.
Why are you censoring really anybody?
In other words, why are you censoring political debate at all?
Because after all, in a free society, it isn't just the politicians who have free speech.
We do too. So this is where Zuckerberg needs to go.
But Zuckerberg isn't going there.
He is a partial defender of free speech.
He's a sort of holdout against the full regime of censorship that the left wants.
And that's not enough for them.
So they've been organizing a movement to create boycotts.
And we'll talk a little bit about the mechanics of the boycotts.
But what I want to highlight is this is what the left is after.
What the left is after is we will assemble a coalition of activist groups and kind of traditional civil rights organizations, groups like the NAACP, the League of United Latin American Citizens.
It's called LULAC. We'll get the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish group headed by Jonathan Greenblatt.
And what we'll do is we will then, together, the activist groups and these traditional civil rights groups, which sort of have the credibility of we're fighting hate, we are protecting civil rights, will go to all these major companies and get them to sort of come in with us.
And together we then go to Facebook and we say to Facebook, listen, You need to let us, the left, set your policies on hate speech and harassment.
In other words, we want to have veto power.
We want to insert ourselves and have regulatory authority in Facebook.
We want you to do our bidding.
And in exchange, we will then call off the boycott.
We will open up the floodgates of advertising.
We will get these big companies that we're able to convince not to advertise in Facebook to start advertising again.
So in other words, Think of what's going on here.
It's a combination of a carrot and a stick.
The carrot is Facebook wants to be...
Facebook is already on the left.
They want to please these groups anyway.
So there's a part of Facebook that is willing to go along with what these leftists want and have censorship.
and that's why we have censorship policies in place.
But why isn't the censorship even more than it is?
Because of course, Facebook isn't totally willing.
And there are certain people at Facebook, and apparently Mark Zuckerberg is one of them.
More than the other people around him, he wants to maintain at least some vestige of free speech on Facebook.
And the left is like, listen, we need to put the pressure, the clamps on Zuckerberg to make sure he relents, to make sure he gives in.
So we'll put enough financial leverage that Facebook is, we're going to hurt their numbers, we're going to hurt their stock prices, and maybe where persuasion doesn't work, pressure will.
So this is how the left successfully operates and it's a lesson that we can certainly learn from.
Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't stop with my pillow.
He also created the Giza Dream bedsheets.
These sheets look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is, of course, crucial for our overall health.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft and breathable, but also extremely durable.
And Mike's latest deal is the sale of the year.
For a limited time, you get 50% off the Giza Dream sheets, marking prices down as low as $29.98, depending on the size.
Go to MyPillow.com and a promo code Dinesh that you'll find not only this amazing offer, but deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the robes, the slippers, the MyPillow 2.0 mattress topware, the MyPillow kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
Here's the number to call, 800-876-0227.
Once again, it's 800-876-0227, or you can go to MyPillow.com to take advantage of this offer and get the discounts.
you need to use the promo code which is D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm continuing my discussion of the boycott at Facebook.
Now Facebook's been around, it's now called, the parent company is now called Meta, but people still of course use the term Facebook.
A little different than Twitter where really they have rebranded completely to X.
And so although we can colloquially say Twitter, what we really mean is X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
But Facebook's been around a decade and a half.
It's never had a boycott of this kind.
And you might expect, as I say, the boycott to be coming from the right, a boycott against the entrenched regime of censorship.
But no, the boycott is coming from the left, and it's because the left has leverage with these major corporations.
Corporations like Coca-Cola, like the Ford Motor Company, like the global conglomerate called Unilever.
And so this is what the left has been doing.
They have, and this is a process that has taken them a couple of years to organize.
It shows you that these boycotts aren't just, hey, you know, five of us are going to create a website.
We're going to say we're going to boycott a particular company.
No. What the left does is they bring a lot of coalition groups together.
They bring activist groups.
They meet with liberal billionaires.
They make sure that they have money to file lawsuits when necessary.
They demand meetings with the corporate executives.
And it's pretty interesting from this Politico article, Facebook has been having meetings with these groups and trying to assuage them and saying, basically, hey, listen, we are censoring.
We are restricting hate speech.
We are being, quote, good people.
Good citizens, if you will, of the diversity marketplace.
But the left is like, that's not enough, because guess what?
You are allowing Trump to say things that we thought you should ban him for.
I mean, think of what the left is trying to ban the voices of its own political opposition.
This is really what's going on.
It is a vicious anti-democratic campaign masquerading as a protection of democracy, as if to say that democracy is only safe when people are allowed to say, quote, true things or provide accurate information as defined by one side in the debate.
Who is the arbiter of accurate information?
Who gets to classify things as disinformation or misinformation?
The answer is the very leftists who are pressing for censorship.
Now, for people with a little sense of history, there was a time when the left was censored, and then the left was all about free speech.
Remember the Berkeley free speech movement on campus, for example.
But now the leftists realize we have the power, we have the leverage, we have an in with the corporations, And so we can go to Coca-Cola and they will meet with us.
We can go to Ford Motor Company.
And in some cases, what the left does is they use, I would call it, corporate clients.
So the left doesn't have direct leverage with Unilever because it's a global conglomerate.
But guess what? Unilever bought Ben& Jerry's ice cream.
So Ben and Jerry's decides, we'll take a strong stance in favor of censorship.
We will make a complaint against Facebook, and then we will go to our parent company, Unilever, and see if they will go along with us.
So again, you see the way that the left is working inside the system and through the system and with the system at the same time that it's sort of bucking the system, or at least bucking the system, at Facebook.
Now, Now, the left realizes that Facebook ultimately is an advertising site.
When we look at companies, we often don't realize, like, where does the money come from?
Think, for example, of a movie theater.
Where does the money really come from?
What business is a movie theater in?
Answer, movie theaters are kind of in the real estate business.
By that, I mean that they have a facility that They need people to come to that facility for some purpose, and the purpose could be anything.
But the truth of it is those people pay a tariff called buying a movie ticket to come and sit in that seat for a certain duration of time.
So even though the product being sold is movies, hypothetically, it could be anything.
Let's say people just wanted to come and sit in a theater and have drinks and chat with each other for two hours and they were willing to pay 12 bucks and buy some drinks and popcorn to do that.
Movie theaters could still exist and do that and not show movies at all.
So similarly, when we think about Facebook, the real business that Facebook is in is this advertising.
It collects data.
It has all these people, visitors, who are on the site, similar to sitting in a theater.
And while these people are on Facebook, Facebook can subject them to advertising for which it gets.
That's where the money comes in.
That's why you have a free account on Facebook.
You don't have to pay a monthly fee to be on Facebook because Facebook is making its money another way.
And the left knows this.
And so when the left exercises power, what they do is they find pressure points where they can apply leverage.
What does Facebook care about?
Yard cares about its social reputation, so let's work on that.
What else do they care about?
Their ad revenue, because that, of course, affects their stock prices.
It affects the net worth of Mark Zuckerberg.
He's one of the richest men in the world because the stock price of Facebook has gone up so dramatically over time.
If that stock price begins to go into a tailspin, a nosedive, now, no one is saying that this existing boycott has already had that effect or even has the prospect, but you can see that the left is at least applying Pressure where it counts.
And to me, this is interesting in and of itself, but it also shows us that we, on our side, need to use the influence we have, and we need to use the influence we have by thinking psychologically, what is going to make a difference to Bud Light?
What is going to make a difference to Target?
What are the connections we have individually, institutionally, organizationally, operationally, that we can Exercise a certain kind of sway over the behavior of these corporations and digital platforms so they will give us a better hearing and perhaps, even as they often do with the left, do their bidding.
I'm sure you'll find a way.
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.
Join Debbie and me. Start your journey to better health right now.
Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
You'll get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code AMERICA. Again, the number to call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
Get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code AMERICA. There's a clip making the rounds on social media.
You may have seen it already.
And it is Michael Smirconish of CNN interviewing Anthony Fauci.
Now, the reason this clip is interesting is because, well, of what Smirconish says to Fauci, and also it's important that he says it on CNN. You can envision this happening on Fox, but then, first of all, Fauci is more willing to go on CNN or MSNBC. He knows where he's treated with kind of god-like reverence.
But Smirconish, in this case, doesn't do that.
In fact, what he says...
To Fauci is, hey, there's been this Cochrane Review.
Cochrane is a kind of organization that collects data from epidemiological studies and so on.
And this is a comprehensive review that was led by an Oxford epidemiologist named Tom Jefferson.
And Tom Jefferson had said very bluntly, there is just no evidence that masks...
Make any difference, full stop.
So masks don't work.
And Tom Jefferson is saying that this is the result, not of one study, not of two studies, but a comprehensive review of all the academic data that is out there.
Masks simply don't work.
And so Fauci is asked directly about this by Smirconish.
And Fauci goes, yeah, but there are other studies.
So Fauci here is engaging in a certain type of deception because the Cochrane Review is not in itself one study.
It's a review of reliable studies.
And yet Fauci is saying that there are other studies.
Now you're like, wow, are you saying, Fauci, that there are Other collections of data that were not considered in the Cochran Review that this Tom Jefferson guy did not take account of that showed that masks do work?
Fauci doesn't name a single of these studies.
Instead, he makes a sort of distinction.
He says, well, yeah, even though the studies show that the effect on the pandemic...
Is low, or as he puts it, not strong, or as I put it, negligible, or even zero.
Nevertheless, Fauci goes, for individuals, masks do work.
So whether or not masks work sort of societally, they work individually.
Now, this is a very odd thing to say.
And an enterprising journalist named Marianne Damacy went back to Thomas Jefferson and said, hey, went back to Tom Jefferson, I should say, or maybe his name is Thomas Jefferson, and said, hey, what do you think of what Fauci told Michael Smirconish on CNN? And this is what Tom Jefferson says.
He goes, so Fauci is saying that masks work for individuals but not at a population level?
That simply doesn't make any sense.
I mean, think about it. Let's just say we have a population with 10 individuals.
Individual A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Now, masks work for A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Well, guess what?
They're going to work for the population.
If you do a study and masks are working with every individual or a large number of individuals, that means that masks will help you.
Help reduce the spread of the pandemic.
And that's what the studies would show.
So Jefferson is saying that Fauci is engaging in a kind of non sequitur, which is somehow pretending that masks can work at the individual level.
They work for the individual, but they don't really work for the epidemic.
They don't really work for society at large.
And then Jefferson continues.
We're talking, by the way, of the Oxford epidemiologist, Tom Jefferson.
He goes, and he says there are other studies.
But what studies?
Jefferson goes on to say that the point of the Cochrane Review was to distinguish between studies that were bogus.
For example, studies that don't use a random sample.
Studies that don't undergo the kind of scientific rigor that qualifies them as serious studies that need to be included.
So he goes, there were some kind of...
Half-baked studies that were done early on.
And he goes, our job was to sift those out because they're not reliable.
They cannot be accounted upon.
And Jefferson goes on to say, it might be that Fauci is relying on trash studies.
Trash studies. So studies that are really trash.
They're junk. Many of them are observational.
So in other words, you look at a guy with a mask and you go, hey, listen, I can't see how a virus, or at least having some sort of a mask on your face, is going to have some protection.
Forgetting the fact that viruses are microscopic.
They're so tiny.
It doesn't matter if there's a small hole in a mass.
The fact is, and it may be difficult for your finger to get through, but certainly a virus can get through.
He goes, some are cross-sectional.
Some actually use modeling.
So modeling is when you don't actually study people at all.
You come up with models or hypotheticals, or you come up with sort of mathematical schemas.
That's what a model is.
And he goes, that is not strong evidence.
And, um, now, interestingly, Fauci himself had earlier stated at the very beginning of the pandemic, this was in March of 2020, he said, quote, right now in the United States, people should not be walking around in masks.
That's Fauci, end quote. And then Fauci changed his mind, and he acted like he was changing his mind in response to data.
Well, you know, we scientific people change our minds when the data comes in.
But Tom Jefferson goes, there was no data.
There was no new study.
There was no evidence.
When Fauci claimed that he changed his mind, he just changed his mind.
It's more likely he changed his mind based on politics than any new data.
Fauci had said, quote, when facts change, I change my mind.
And Jefferson goes, what facts change?
There were no randomized studies, no new evidence to justify his flip-flop.
That is simply not true.
And then as a closing point, Tom Jefferson makes what I think is the strongest point of all.
He goes, listen, Fauci could easily have run a trial.
He could have looked, for example, at two groups of people, one group of people wearing masks and one group of people not wearing masks, and if those groups are sufficiently large to constitute random samples and valid samples, You could have then just compared the one with the other.
And Cochran goes, and Tom Jefferson goes, but he could have done that study.
In fact, it was his job to do that study, but he never did that study.
And that is a very damning indictment of one Anthony Fauci.
Debbie and I had a New Year's resolution to lose weight and thankfully PhD weight loss came to the rescue.
You can see the results when you see me and or Debbie on the podcast.
Debbie's lost 24 pounds.
I've lost 27. We are both now at the weights we want.
We are on maintenance. The program is based on science and nutrition.
No injections, no pills, no long hours in the gym, no severe calorie restriction, just good, sound, scientifically proven nutrition.
It's so simple. They make it easy by providing 80% of your food at no additional cost.
They tell you when and what to eat, and guess what?
You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder, Dr. Ashley Lucas, has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition.
She's also a registered dietitian.
She helps people lose weight and, most important, maintain that weight loss for life.
So if you're ready to take the step of losing weight like Debbie and I have, call PHD Weight Loss and Nutrition.
Here's the number, 864-644-1900.
You can also find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
Again, the number to call, 864-644-1900.
A few weeks ago, my wife Debbie passed along a book to me that is called The Josiah Manifesto.
And I have the author of that book, Jonathan Cahn, on today.
He leads a group called Hope of the World, which is an international outreach.
He's also head of the Jerusalem Center, Beth Israel, which is based in New Jersey.
He's a seven-time New York Times bestselling author.
And the book we're talking about, The Josiah Manifesto, The Ancient Mystery and Guide for the End Times.
Jonathan, welcome to the podcast.
It's really good to have you.
I gotta say this book was a bit of a mind twister for me, and I say that because it adopts a sort of form of analysis that I think, for me and probably for many other people, is somewhat unique.
It looks at ancient texts, notably the Bible.
It looks at mysteries in the ancient texts, and it uses them as a kind of guide or key to understanding things happening in the world now.
Can you talk a little bit, before we dive into the content of the book, this sort of unusual approach of taking scripture and using it as a lens for the present?
Yeah, yeah, that's a great question.
Well, first of all, I mean, God is the God of the past, present, and future.
He's the God of ancient times, and the same God just is alive right now in time and space, in history.
And it actually says, the Bible says that these things that were given back then were given for us as examples or patterns, depending how you interpret that.
So the thing is that the first book I ever wrote, Dinesh, was The Harbinger.
And that was the signs that I started seeing what was happening.
And the same signs were in the Bible in the last days of Israel were appearing or manifesting in America.
And so the thing is that it's not that, you know, it's there.
I mean, once you see it, it's kind of hard to argue away from it.
It's like, wow, okay, it follows it.
Because listen, God is the God who weaves everything together.
I mean, time, space, history, all that.
So it shouldn't, on one hand, I mean, yes, and I'm actually really blessed with your reaction, because on one hand, it is like I'm the first one to say, whoa, you know, this is kind of mind-blowing or mind-bending, but at the same time, we should expect that, because, you know, he's also the God of prophecy.
So every event is linked to his fabric, the fabric of his sovereignty.
So, yeah, so that... That's how it opened up.
And the other thing, Dinesh, is I wasn't looking to do that.
What happened is I was standing at ground zero at the very beginning before I wrote a book, and I saw an object, and then I looked in the Bible, and then everything started unfolding.
That's how the harbinger came. So everything's been like that.
I never try to make it.
It's just like, okay, whoa, it's there, and then the next piece comes, the next piece, and the next piece.
I mean, in a way, it makes a lot of sense because it seems that the Bible, it couldn't have been merely a sort of historical artifact where we look back into ancient times and go, well, that's the way the Canaanites lived and that's the way things were 2,000 years ago.
The reason for us having a Bible now is that God uses the Bible as a sort of a mechanism to speak to people in all times and all places, correct?
Yes. Yeah, that's a great way of putting it, because that's pretty much what we read the Bible for that reason.
It's truth, and truth doesn't change.
You know, examples change and things, but they apply.
And if they didn't apply, exactly.
Why? We wouldn't be reading it.
So if that's the case, it's got to be the case in every way.
So yes, I have to use that, Dinesh, because that's a great, you know, actually a great point.
Well, let's dive into this.
And I'm going to sort of jump around a little bit, but I think these things all tie together.
And you make them, you bring them together, I think, like a fabric very well in this book.
Let's start with this idea of Moloch.
And I suppose this is connected also with the ancient idol that was called Baal or Baal.
And talk about the association of Moloch and Baal with the notion of child sacrifice because, hey, that's a topic that you can kind of see is relevant to our time.
Yeah, interesting because the Josiah Manifesto actually came from when I finished the book before, which is called The Return of the Gods.
And that is exactly that, and this kind of follows that, that when Israel turned away from God, the Bible says they turned to other gods.
And some of the primary gods was one called Baal, or we know him as Baal, the other as Molech, the one they offered up their sacrifices to.
So the Bible says when they turned away from God, they started offering up their children.
This is not like an exception.
This is a pagan, basically, foundation.
I mean, human sacrifice, child sacrifice was all over.
So they started doing that.
Now, the thing is that when you...
And this I kind of began in the Return of the Gods is that when America started turning away from God...
In its own way, started turning to these same things.
And so one of the things that happened is at the end of the 60s, early 70s, we started offering up our children in the form of abortion.
You know, when people look at the power, they say, well, you know, you have, you know, they, you know, how can you compare?
Well, Israel offered up thousands of its children.
We have offered up over 60 million.
So in the end, it's, you know, to God, it's the same thing.
So this is our kind of deep sin.
And the other thing is that Jeremiah, one of the things in the book, I open up where Jeremiah is looking over the Valley of Hinnom, where they're offering their children.
And he gives a prophecy, basically, that destruction is coming, or what you have done to the children is going to be done to you.
That's also a law. You cannot shed the children's blood without it coming back.
And so that kind of really sets the stage of something that's been happening in America that is pretty uncanny when you look at the parallels.
Let's take a pause when we come back more with Jonathan Cahn, the book, The Josiah Manifesto.
By the way, the website, hopeoftheworld.org.
We'll be right back. If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your solution.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago now, but what a 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.
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 exercises, planks, push-ups, and so on.
For a long time, she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor's been a big game-changer for her, her aunt, other members of her 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 the software.
The number again to call, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com I'm back with author Jonathan Kahn.
We're talking about his book, The Josiah Manifesto, the full subtitle, The Ancient Mystery and Guide for the End Times.
Jonathan, let's pursue this idea of a Close connection.
I mean, between ancient child sacrifice and, you know, Debbie and I were in Israel.
We've seen the sites where, you know, you had tunnels and rivers flowing with blood.
So we know that that happened and it happened right there.
And you're saying that, hey, how abortion is not all that different.
It's a different time.
It's a different place. And maybe to some degree the motives are somewhat different.
But nevertheless, it's the same thing.
But then you said that there is a punishment that comes sort of with that.
Let's talk about what that punishment is.
Yeah, and it's not saying it has to be in the same way at every time.
However, the Bible very clearly says that if you shed the blood of your children, it will come back to you.
You take life, life will be taken.
And one of the forms that when Jeremiah prophesied this, He uses the Hebrew word, which means literally great plague, or you can translate it as a massive pandemic in our case.
But the fact is, that's one of the ways that it came on Israel.
And so then you have that, and the other kind of principle in the Bible, one of the principles, is that of the Jubilee, and that is that every 50 years there is kind of a reversal.
Now, this can be a blessing, but it could also be a restitution.
And so, here's the thing.
When did America begin, when did we begin killing or shedding the blood of our children on demand?
Well, it happened not, it wasn't 73, it was 1970.
That's when it entered America.
And so, you go to the 50th year of the Jubilee and that comes to 2020.
When something happens, when now this form of death comes to America, which is in the form of COVID or this pandemic.
And also, and by the way, it's not just America.
The entire world has killed more children in this generation than any other.
But America was central in this.
But it gets kind of stunning because when you look at it, the day that abortion first made its initial entrance in the land, that was when the bill came up in the New York legislature, and the day was January 20th, 1970. You go 50 years later, it takes you to January 20th, 2020.
That's the anniversary. Anything happen?
That is January. That's the exact date that the plague of COVID actually officially began in America.
That's patient zero on that day.
And then the other thing is when you look at, Dinesh, remember the day, it was in the middle of March when everything fell.
And we all got shut down, locked down.
Trump went on television.
We were quarantined that day.
It's called the day that changed everything.
It was March 11th. Go back 50 years, March 11, 1970, anything happen.
March 11, that's the day that abortion actually began on American soil.
And as you go through this, it's like everything matches.
I mean, that's just a little taste of it.
But another thing is, is that where did it, how did it come in?
How did abortion come in in that year?
It came through two gateways.
One was New York. The other was Washington State.
That's how it came to the continent of America.
50 years later, this plague comes to America.
How? Through Washington State and New York.
In fact, if you got COVID, the genetics on the virus pointed to the two gates where America began killing its children.
And I'm just going to throw in one last thing because there's so much.
I'm just going to show one last thing about this part.
And I thank you for your patience here.
But the thing is that when you ask the question or when Jeremiah brings it up, Could it match the blood of the children?
And then what happened? Well, how many children were killed in that period from 1970 to Roe versus Wade?
It was 1.3 million.
50 years later, you have another three-year period.
It's that of this plague.
How many were killed? 1.3 million.
Struck down the exact same number.
I mean, these are very interesting kind of...
As you say, they're very close.
These numbers run very close.
We're not talking about very rough approximations.
We're talking about kind of a striking similarity, right?
And to draw the lesson very clearly, I think what you're saying is that it is not wrong to think of COVID as a kind of...
Divine accountability for the global, certainly American, but the global sin of abortion.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, you know, we say this all the time.
You cannot kill 60 million children, or in the case of the world, over a billion children, and not have consequences.
And this happens to be one of the consequences.
Now, this is not saying that everybody who got it, in the same way with Jeremiah, You know, everybody was subject to everything that happened.
Nevertheless, it's exact.
I mean, the dates are exact.
I just gave a few. There's a lot more.
The dates are exact.
The numbers are right there.
The places are that, you know, New York was the center of COVID when it happened.
I mean, which is also the center of abortion in America.
I mean, you know, you can't ignore it.
You ignore it at your peril, but it's there.
Well, you made an important qualification, which I do want to stress.
You're not saying, of course, that, gee, if somebody got COVID, they are a horrible sinner and that they have likely had an abortion themselves.
It's not like that. You're talking really here about judgment visited on a whole society and maybe even on the whole world.
Yes, just as Jeremiah said.
Because, you know, Jeremiah went through what the people went through as well.
Just as Lincoln said when he said, will every drop of blood that was shed by slavery be matched by a drop of blood by the sword?
But, you know, it was a civilizational judgment and a wake-up call.
Let's take a pause.
When we come back, a final segment with Jonathan Cahn, the book, The Josiah Manifesto, website, hopeoftheworld.org.
Hey guys, I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
It's going to be one of the key venues to watch my new film, Police State, which comes out in October.
I post a lot of exclusive content on Locals, content that's often censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
I also do a weekly live Q&A every Tuesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern. No topic is off-limits, so this is a chance to interact with me directly.
And I've uploaded a bunch of cool films to Locals.
Documentaries, feature films, my films, films by other independent producers.
2,000 meals is up there.
And as I mentioned, a new film coming out in just, well, next month.
And I'll be giving you the inside scoop and providing a lot of additional footage just on Locals.
Hey, if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch all this content for free.
So check out my channel.
It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
I'm back with author Jonathan Cahn.
We're talking about his book, The Josiah Manifesto, a book that is full of sort of arresting ideas and insights.
And I want to pick up a slightly different one, Jonathan, that you talk about.
Well, I guess it is connected because in some ways the guy...
Right.
Right. Right. Trump doesn't really seem to be the kind of guy I would expect, for example, my pastor to be.
You know, you got this guy and he seems to be carrying out an attempt to restore our society, make America great again, get rid of some of these moral scourges, and yet you look at his own life and people go, I don't know. But you say that there's a biblical parallel for even that.
Let's talk about that. Yes. Yes, that's why it's so cool to have the paradigms.
And that is this. When you look at Trump, and there actually was a figure in the history of Israel, when Israel was falling away from God, God raised up a man named Jehu.
Jehu was wild.
He was unpredictable.
You could not say he was a man of God.
We don't know if he was a man of God.
We don't know. We know he was God's man.
We don't know if he was a man of God.
And you look at Trump, not only that, the personality is the same, too.
You never knew what he was going to do.
Jehu starts a race to the throne.
The Bible describes it as an insane or mad race.
Well, Trump, the same thing.
When Jehu is heading to take power, he makes an alliance with the religious conservatives of his land.
So does Trump, of course. He actually makes a partnership with one of them.
So does Trump. Then he comes head-to-head, face-to-face with the nation.
This is Jehu, the nation's former first lady.
And that's the final showdown.
And so Trump, the nation's former first lady, it was...
I mean, and in the ancient case, it's actually Jezebel.
I'll just throw this into this.
And that is that when you look at even the times that they're on the national stage, you know, Hillary Clinton was on the national stage with her husband for 22 years from governor to president.
Then she was in Washington for eight years, then 12 as the Secretary of State, and then two years running for president.
It ends up being 14 years. So it's 22 years with her husband, 14 years in a row.
Look at Jezebel. She was there for 22 years with her husband, and then 14 years on her own.
Same exact thing. So without just going...
Now, so they have a showdown.
Everybody was saying Hillary Clinton was going to win, but the paradigm in the Bible says, no, Jehu is going to rise.
So Jehu said, now, this is also controversial territory, but that's what we do.
And I'm not condoning what happened on January 6th.
I'm not getting into that part.
But, interesting...
Because even that, there's a paradigm.
Because Jehu, at one point, he calls for people to come together in the capital city.
He calls for them to come.
There's a great capital building.
His people surround the building.
Then at one point, they enter into the building while proceedings are going on.
It's kind of a siege of the building.
And so, of course, we have January 6th follows all that.
But interesting, because at the end of that week, Dinesh, the Capitol Police gave the numbers of those they actually arrested on site.
And it made headlines. They said, we've arrested 80 people on site.
80, 80. Well, in the Bible account of Jehu and the Capitol building, or Temple of Baal, actually, it gives a number.
How many people went in?
It says 80 people.
Same number.
And the thing is, and this is, you know, actually in the Bible, it's the Temple of Baal, which is linked to the killing of children.
And on that week, another agenda took over the Capitol, which was for the killing of children.
Trump, whatever you think of Trump, listen, the fact is, he was responsible for putting three votes into that Supreme Court, and the last one was by one vote that Roe v.
Wade was overturned. You know, when Jehu rises, the Temple of Baal falls to the ground, if you look in the Bible.
Well, our Temple of Baal was Roe versus Wade.
It allowed for the killing of children.
And yet, it was the modern-day Jehu who was responsible by God's sovereignty for pulling down that Temple of Baal.
I mean, two things strike me as we close out here, Jonathan.
One is that, look, I mean, I think it's very interesting that you do this kind of close examination.
You look at numbers.
You look at dates. You do the math.
But even if someone goes, well, that's a little bit of a stretch, the general point, which is that God doesn't necessarily use messengers who are all deeply pious, that God uses messengers who are sometimes extremely surprising choices, and He elevates them and they play an important role in God's plan.
It seems to me that is inarguable.
That is clearly true in the Bible.
But the question I want to kind of leave you with is this, we don't get this kind of analysis typically in church.
You know, in other words, very often pastors do readings and priests do readings from the Old Testament, and they draw some kind of generic lesson for your life, like fidelity, but they don't try to say, what is this telling us about our time?
And they don't march unafraid into interpreting it, but you do.
Do you think that the church is holding back too much and not going in this direction and bringing the Bible sort of to life by applying it to the world today?
Yeah, I believe very much so because, you know, first of all, there's a reluctance among many, unfortunately, among many passengers.
First of all, many are afraid to deal with the issues.
Many are afraid because of the price they think.
But we have to. If we don't, what are we here for?
We have to. The Josiah Manifesto and also the other king, Josiah, who was a righteous king, that actually gives us the pattern.
The ultimate thing is it's leading to what is the template?
How do we live now? Radical for God, revolutionary for God.
That's why I called it a Manifesto.
We are to be a radical people.
And this is our day.
And if the dark is getting darker, we cannot be silent about the Word of God or the truth of God.
We have to be even stronger and brighter.
We have to shine. This is our hour.
You know, a lot of believers, Dinesh, are praying, I wish I lived in Bible times.
We're in Bible times.
These are the same issues.
We have to live the same way.
That's why I wrote them. That's the reason for the Josiah Manifesto.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks so much, Jonathan Cain.
Once again, the website, hopeoftheworld.org.
This has been a really very, there it is, a very interesting conversation.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Dinesh.
a pleasure. Thank you. I'm continuing my introduction to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's great work, The Gulag Archipelago. And by the way, this is the version that I'm using. You can find it on Amazon or Barnes & Noble. It shows a group of captives or prisoners, political prisoners, trekking through the snows
of Siberia.
And the word gulag, let's start there, because gulag has now entered our vocabulary very similar to a word like holocaust.
And think about holocaust.
It defines a particular event, not just a generic event, but a specific event, which was, of course, the incineration, the murder of millions of Jews.
Well, the gulag, in the same way, has a specific connotation.
It refers specifically to the millions, actually tens of millions, Probably something around 40 to 60 million people who were imprisoned, tortured, in many cases murdered, in a massive network of prison camps stretching across the vast Soviet Empire.
Across the entire Soviet Union there were prisons and prison camps in places that you would not even really expect.
And Solzhenitsyn was the first person to fully document the vast extent of this, and he did it with a kind of precision and believability and specificity that made it impossible to deny.
Many people think that it was Solzhenitsyn's publication of the Gulag Archipelago that began to turn the mind of Europe and America, of the West, strongly against the Soviet Union.
So it helped to create the intellectual formation of what We're good to go.
Now, many people know the Gulag Archipelago.
They know the title. They know that Solzhenitsyn wrote that book.
But they know the title better than they know the book.
They haven't read the book.
Or if they have bought it or picked it up years ago, they typically skimmed a little bit of it.
And I kind of know why.
It's because Solzhenitsyn, because he is such a kind of A serious guy, a guy who wanted to document something in exhaustive detail, he does so over 1,800 pages in three volumes.
That was the original, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3.
So when Volume 1 came out, it was a big success.
Volume 2 did well, but didn't sell as much.
Volume 3, the least of the three, because it was just more and more and more and more.
So difficult for people to read.
That's the first problem.
And the second problem is that Solzhenitsyn is a Russian, and he's deeply immersed in Russian and Soviet history.
He knows this stuff like the back of his hand.
He goes into it sometimes in some detail, and so the detail can be kind of prohibitive.
It would be like people in other countries reading American history, but at a level of particularity that you're like, wow, did I really need to know this?
So reading the Gulag, in a way, you learn a tremendous amount about Soviet Russia.
But the advantage of the abridged version, of course, is that it removes some of that kind of tedious and unnecessary history, which is kind of more than a Western reader needs to know.
Now, the book is a little hard to read.
Some of the passages that we'll go over over the next few weeks are gruesome.
I mean, it is unbelievable that a whole society was turned into a prison camp in this way.
And even to this day, I think there's not a full knowledge, and there certainly has not been a full accountability.
In fact, sadly, there's been virtually no accountability.
Many of the people who ran the Gulag, well, of course, some of them died as time went on, but others simply transitioned to the new Russia.
No more communism? That's okay.
KGB officers who now become industrialists, in some cases become billionaires.
So think of it.
We had a tremendous accounting after World War II and the Nuremberg Trials and accounting of the crimes of the Nazis.
Where is the corresponding accountability come for the crimes of the Soviets?
Answer? It hasn't.
In fact, the message following the Cold War, not just in Russia, but also here, was, let's move on.
Let's not worry about who won the Cold War.
Let's not worry about all the atrocities that occurred.
It's time to sort of close the book on Soviet communism and, in a sense, pretend like it never happened.
Well, this is why we need Solzhenitsyn.
We need him as a kind of recorder and documenter that, hey, you know what?
All of this happened.
And the fact that we try to forget about it, or we want to forget about it, doesn't make it go away.
All those people were still tortured.
They were still killed.
And second, Solzhenitsyn's point, which I mentioned yesterday, which is that even though the Soviet regime passes away, the threat of tyranny doesn't pass away.
That is ever-present.
That is, in fact, embedded in the nature of man.
And we have to be, those of us who love freedom, that love liberty, have to be constantly vigilant against it and vigilant against it in our own society where we're beginning to see, if not the gulag, at least the early dark shadows of the gulag.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection