All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:15
MAO IN AMERICA Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep665
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll consider an article arguing that diversity and critical race initiatives represent Maoism in America.
Debbie joins me for our Friday roundup.
We're going to talk about Biden impeachment, Romney's electus interruptus, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's trial, and the Democratic candidate who likes to make porn videos with her husband.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, or watching on Rumble, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
The times are crazy. In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Sometimes in the Friday episode of the podcast, well, of course, I do the roundup with Debbie, and that's coming up.
But I also like to take on topics that are a little more weekend-y, by which I mean topics that are broad, maybe a little more theoretical topics that are not necessarily plucked right from today's news.
And I want to talk about American Maoism.
Now, Maoism, of course, a reference to Mao Zedong, the longtime dictator of China who dragged China into a police state, ultimately died.
And then Chinese reforms really couldn't begin until Deng Xiaoping took up the leadership in the late 70s.
And so Mao created a phenomenon not well understood in this country called Maoism.
And that's really what I want to talk about. There's an interesting article that is in New Discourses, and it's written by a friend, James Lindsay, a very good analyst of this topic.
And Lindsay makes the point in this article, he begins by talking about intersectionality, and that's maybe jumping the gun a little bit, because intersectionality itself comes out of critical race theory, It comes out of the whole diversity movement.
But what does it mean?
Well, the idea of intersectionality was popularized in the 1980s by a legal scholar named Kimberly Crenshaw.
And what Kimberly Crenshaw said was that Look, it's one thing to be a victim of racism if you're, let's say, black.
But what if you're a black woman?
In that case, you're a victim of racism and sexism.
And that's not just one plus one, because it's two intersecting types of hardships.
So you can see how Kimberly Crenshaw develops this idea.
She, in effect, gives an analogy.
I suppose it's similar to that you're on the highway and you're hit by a car.
That's racism coming one way.
But let's say you're also hit by a car coming the other way or from the other direction, and that's sexism.
And so, Kimberly Crenshaw's point is that that is a completely different experience.
It's a double accident, if you will, happening to you.
And so, her point is that oppression can be multiplied.
It isn't just coming in one direction.
It can come from two or even more directions.
And of course, this is the origin of the notion that I'm oppressed because I'm black.
I'm even more oppressed because I'm a female, so that makes me a black female.
I'm even more oppressed because I've got one leg, so I'm a black one-legged female, and on and on it goes.
I'm gay and so on.
So all of these oppressions begin to merge.
And the person who claims the top, or maybe I should say the bottom rung of the totem pole, is the person who has the most claims to this intersectional type of oppression.
Now, most people, of course, don't know any of this.
They don't think like this.
They've never heard the term intersectionality.
And therefore, says Kimberly Crenshaw, you need to have your mind kind of open to it.
And this is the beginning of the phenomenon we call woke.
You're woke or you're awakened to this notion that you are not an individual experiencing life the same as everybody else.
You've been dealt a deck of cards the same as the rest of us.
No, you are a member of all these groups.
You belong to the black ethnic group.
You belong to the female gender group.
You belong to the gay transgender group, and so on.
And so, this is a kind of warmed-over Marxism.
Now, other people have noticed this before.
They've noticed that Marxism was really about class.
It's about the rich and the poor, the working class that are the victims, and then the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie.
they are the oppressors. Marx defined the key division in society as being between the workers and their employers, the proletariat on the one hand and the capitalists on the other.
What this new philosophy does, this new progressivism, this intersectionality, this critical race theory does, is it takes the class issue and it substitutes a whole bunch of But in this case, it's not just one divide.
It's multiple divides.
And that's why it's possible to be oppressed from many different directions.
Now, James Lindsay goes on to say that this stuff that Kimberly Crenshaw was talking about in the 1980s Is itself derived from the 1960s, when people like Angela Davis, there was apparently something called the Combahee River Collective, a sort of radical group of black feminists.
And they got together in the 60s, and they wanted to identify their situation as distinct.
Again, they didn't want to be just thrown in with the black men.
We're all victims of racism.
So they sort of came up with this idea that we're black feminists.
We're fighting for liberation on two independent fronts.
And so you can see here the origin of the idea of intersectionality.
So the point is that this goes further back.
And then, says James Lindsay, it goes even further back than we think.
In other words, we tend to go back to the 60s.
We might even go further back to Herbert Marcuse, who was a member of the Frankfurt School District.
This is a guy who made his reputation, really, in the 40s and 30s, before that, but came to America in the 1960s, taught at places like Berkeley, and taught also, I believe, in San Diego.
But, says James Lindsay, the root, the tap root, the original root of all this is in China, and is in the Maoist movements that go further back, And we're driven by Mao Zedong.
I believe Mao Zedong came to power in 1949.
So by looking at Maoism, you now begin to realize that all of this is, in a sense, American cooked.
But the original recipe comes from China.
We are dealing with Maoism in America.
Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't stop with just the MyPillow pillow.
He created also the Giza Dream bed sheets.
We have these all over our home.
We love them. The sheets look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is 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 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, enter promo code Dinesh.
There you'll find not only this great offer, but also deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the MyPillow robes, the mattress topper, the kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
The number to call, 800-876-0227.
Once again, it's 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code DINESHDINESH. I'm continuing my discussion of Maoism in America.
This is James Lindsay's article on intersectionality.
The article is called Intersectionality is American Maoism.
And this kind of Maoist aspect of it is not something I knew a lot about, which is why this article is very interesting.
It talks about the fact that...
That Mao invented a kind of identity politics.
This was not something that was peculiar to America.
Mao gave identity politics its own meaning, now admittedly in the Chinese context.
What Mao decided to do was to take the old Marxist category of the rich against the poor, but that didn't really apply to the Chinese situation very well for the simple reason that virtually everybody was poor.
So Mao couldn't make the bad guys be the rich, Because there weren't that many people who were rich at all.
Even people who owned land were poor.
There were people who owned businesses where the businesses were really small.
It made it kind of insane to go and say that some guy, for example, who's cultivating and selling rice is some kind of an oppressor.
I mean, how are you going to persuade anybody of that if that guy can barely feed his family?
So Mao basically said, look, Chinese people are divided into two.
The people, the people, and the enemies.
So right away you're seeing the emergence of a new distinction.
So the people are the socialists and the communists.
And also peasants and laborers who are sort of allied with the CCP, with the Chinese Communist Party.
And also progressive people.
So in other words, someone can be a student or a lawyer, but if they're enlightened, if they follow the doctrines of the Communist Party, if they're fellow travelers of the Communist Party, they're seen as reformed.
So they may not be a member, if you will, of the people originally.
It's almost like you join the people through conversion.
Now, who are the enemies of the people?
Well, that was a pretty long list for Mao.
And it was people who, first of all, opposed the Maoist revolution in the first place.
They were seen as supporters of the old Kuomintang or Guomintang.
Anyone who was a sympathizer to movements to resist Maoism, they're the bad guy.
So, political enemies.
Landlords. Anyone who owned land is an enemy.
Rich farmers, who were sometimes called kulaks.
And then everyone else who is seen as a counter-revolutionary.
A counter-revolutionary is just some guy, not even necessarily an opponent of the Maoist revolution, but someone who refuses to go along.
Someone could say, well, listen, I don't oppose you, but I'm just not going to cooperate with you.
I'm going to be indifferent. I'm going to stay out of it.
No, you become a counter-revolutionary.
So either you're in or you're out.
Either you're a member of the communist-slash-socialist team, or you have to be targeted.
You have to be smashed.
You have to be, if necessary, extirpated or killed.
So Mao cultivates a campaign of hate against these people.
And he does it in the name of unity.
So this is the irony. And we see this with the left in America today.
It's an irony that on the one hand, they're always talking about unity.
We need to all come together.
And at the same time, they're always demonizing their opponents.
So this is what...
And the point is that this is not alien to intersectionality.
It's not that you've just got an ideology that happens to have people who are hateful.
No. Hate is, in fact, the doctrine itself.
Hate is a mechanism in which you divide society, in which you create the necessary enemies, the ones that you want to be enemies, and then you have to crush them, you have to control them, you have to put them down, all in the name of this sort of harmony and all in the name of equality.
Now, we don't have exactly those same phrases here.
People don't talk about harmony necessarily or equality, but they do talk about equity.
And they do talk about, they don't use so much unity.
The new phrase in America is inclusion.
So... I think what James Lindsay is getting at here is that identity politics in China had a Chinese accent.
It used a Chinese vocabulary.
It identified enemies within Chinese society.
In fact, apparently, according to Lindsay, Mao originally created 10 identities for people.
Five were considered black or bad.
I mean, it's interesting the association here, black with bad.
And five were considered red or good.
So, the good identities are identities allied with communism, and the bad ones are ideologies against it.
And people and their children, their grandchildren, are all classified according to this system.
You either fall in the good camp or the bad camp.
And the focus of Maoism was on the youth.
I think that's what makes it a very interesting parallel to today.
The idea was we have to indoctrinate the youth and turn them into Maoist revolutionaries.
We have to make these young people informers.
We have to make them willing apparatchiks.
Now, there will be holdouts.
Mark realized that. And he goes, we've got to constantly badger those people.
We don't necessarily have to arrest them right away.
We have to constantly hound them to do better.
To claim that these are people living in a sleepwalking state, they need to be sort of roused from their dogmatic slumber.
In other words, they need to be woke.
They need to be awakened to the reality of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
And we need to apply constant pressure.
In fact, education itself is defined as a form of pressure.
So we're seeing here in America an attempt to create a similar cadre of Of youthful revolutionaries who will then fan out into American society and transform society from the ground up.
So it wasn't that Mao preferred the ground up to the top down.
His point is we need to do both.
We need to apply pressure from above and we need to have pressure from below.
And to this degree, a lot of things that are being done today in the name of race and gender and transgender and inclusion are nothing but a sort of Hybrid, aversion, a mutant form of American Maoism.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your remedy.
Debbie and I are proof of this.
We started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago and 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 love it.
They order more.
They become regular customers because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer.
She can now do exercises, pushups, planks, and so on, that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a big 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.
Number again to call, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. Debbie and I are here for our Friday Roundup.
And typically, we'll just talk beforehand about a couple of topics that we want to talk about on the forthcoming weekend podcast.
But this morning, Debbie's like, I got to tell you about this rather unusual dream that I had.
Now, I got to tell you, Debbie's kind of a very imaginative dreamer.
She has the most elaborate and far-out dreams.
These are, compared to mine, My dreams are very prosaic.
Like, usually I'm, like, searching for a bookstore.
I can't find it. The whole dream, I'm just walking around looking for it.
And finally, I either find it or I don't.
So then I relay the dream to you and you're like, that's it.
That's really boring. That's really boring.
Right. So tell about your latest dream.
Yeah. So mine are always action-packed.
Yeah. And sometimes on the bazaar.
On the bazaar, yes. This one was a little bizarre, but only, and I'm not really sure what, why.
Maybe it was sleeping on Mike Lindell's MyPillow pillow.
I don't know.
But it was really funny because, as you know, we have pretty much every item that MyPillow sells.
But the one thing we don't have is we don't have the travel pillows, right?
And I don't know. I didn't know he had a travel pillow.
So I don't know if he has a special going on on them or not.
And so this is totally not an ad for that.
But the funny thing is we get on this, we get on a plane.
We're going somewhere, probably somewhere international.
I'm not sure. We get on the plane, you know, we're like getting comfortable and everything.
And all of a sudden I hear this commotion, you know, like at the cockpit area.
You know, when you walk in.
And it's Mike Lindell, and he has all these pillows with him.
And I'm like thinking, no, that he's not really going to bring us those pillows, is he?
Sure enough, he comes, he finds us.
Hey guys, look what I got!
You know, and he hands me one, he hands you one, he hands, you know, Danielle one, Juliana one, because the family.
And I was like, oh my goodness, what are we going to do walking with our luggage and this big pillow that we have now?
So it was just super weird and funny.
Well, we've talked about the way how dreams really work, because there have been all these theories about dreams, and we'll get to our topic in a minute, but theories about dreams, that dreams are somehow prophecies of the future, right?
If someone has a dream that a large object fell on your head...
You somehow think, I better watch out because a large object is going to fall on my head.
But it's now, I think, understood that dreams don't work like that.
They're not prophetic in that sense.
But what happens is you have all this knowledge in your brain.
And when you go to sleep, the control that your will typically has over your brain is released, is loosened, right?
Yeah, but I wasn't thinking about my pillow travel.
Well, but when you say I wasn't thinking, that is partly your will, exercising.
I'm going to think about this. I'm going to solve this problem.
I'm going to deal with this plan.
But when you sleep, your brain is still active, but it's sort of like it doesn't have a driver anymore.
And so it sort of cobbles together these scenarios.
I think that's really what dreams are.
I don't know if I'm providing a theory that's rivaled to Freud's or what.
Yeah, I'm not sure. But let's talk about your reaction.
You haven't talked about, I have most of this week, about the impeachment inquiry.
Peach 46! Peach 46!
Which you did come up with.
That's a really good one. Yes, thank you very much.
Well, of course, the funny thing is that this impeachment actually warrants an impeachment.
It actually has high crimes and misdemeanors.
Misdemeanors. Misdemeanors.
You mean as contrasted with the due Trump impeachment.
Exactly. And the funny thing about it is that the media is like, oh, yeah, really?
Really? Show us the evidence. Why weren't they doing that with Trump when it actually did warrant it?
No, in fact, it was the opposite.
When it was Trump, they acted like this.
Oh, open and shut case, right?
This has immense gravitas.
You never heard people say things like, well, impeachment is a very serious business.
Removing a president from office who has been duly elected should not be undertaken lightly.
No, they were like, oh no, you know, he made a phone call.
Let's get him. And then after January 6th, yeah, he said peacefully and patriotically, but after all, some people did go into the Capitol and they were Trumpsters, so let's go get him.
Yeah. And you're saying this time you're dealing with corruption in the most classic meaning of the term.
Yes. I mean, and not only that, but I mean, it's bordering on just downright...
I mean, it's selling out the country.
Selling out the country.
Right. Not espionage.
What am I looking for? Well, it's bribery.
It is treason.
Treason. That's it. It's treason.
I mean, it really is. It's a treasonous act because he really is selling our country.
For cash. For cash.
And it's a lot of cash.
I mean, it's been documented now that over $20 million, and that's a conservative number.
That's only the amount documented so far.
When the full investigation is completed, who knows what that number will be.
All this is money that has flowed from Russia From China, from Kazakhstan, from Ukraine, from multiple foreign entities, each with their own interests, and flowed into the Biden account or accounts.
So, this is really indisputable.
The only thing that is waiting to be fully fleshed out is Joe Biden's precise level of knowledge and full degree of involvement.
But all the circumstantial facts come Come on, man.
Yeah, the guy was fully knowledgeable.
Yeah, he knew. He may have a little dementia, but I think that even...
Well, the dementia's now. Yeah, exactly.
We don't know. This was when he was vice president.
We're talking about the Obama years.
He didn't have dementia then, for sure.
So maybe his dementia's playing into the role of...
I don't remember doing that. Maybe it's a little too convenient.
The meeting. I don't really know if I was there.
In fact, I think while that meeting was going on, I was with Martin Luther King.
Ha, ha, ha. Fruits and veggies and fiber are all essential for your health.
Debbie and I are on a good health journey, but we still struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber.
And lucky for us, we discovered Balance of Nature, and there's no 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 in a capsule, so easy, 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.
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, that's balanceofnature.com or you can call 800-246-8751.
Code America.
Mitt Romney has decided that he is not going to be running for re-election.
And now, this has been brewing for a while.
The question, will Romney run?
Honey, you and I were in Utah.
Many years ago.
It was before COVID. It was really before COVID. Yeah.
And it was... The reason I know that is because I didn't go anywhere during COVID. That's right.
You went into complete seclusion.
Not available. No one here by that name.
So, in any event, we were in Salt Lake City, I think it was, for a conference.
There were a lot of Latter-day Saints, Mormons there.
And we were like, guys, I mean, you kind of put Romney in there.
Are you still gung-ho about Romney and...
We started getting a tremendous mouthful, and we realized that the Mormons are turning on Romney big time.
His base has totally collapsed.
So this guy has been sort of running on borrowed steam for a while.
I think he's realized that he has no constituency left.
But what I find really interesting is that, you know, if...
Even in retirement, he is unable to produce a kind of honesty about it.
Oh! But guess what?
I don't really have a party anymore.
They don't want me, and quite honestly, I don't really want them.
So it doesn't make any sense for me to run anymore.
I'm running on a different track.
I mean, either I should go do my own thing or do something else, and that's why I'm doing it, because this just hasn't worked out.
And I found myself kind of like, I was once the head of this party, and now I'm not even invited to the party.
I'm standing alone in the street in the rain.
So that would be an honest account of why Romney's not running.
But instead he gives a completely different account.
What is his account? His account is that, you know what, I'm 76 years old.
I need to give a youngster the opportunity for new leadership because I'm just getting too old.
And not just I. American politics.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So in other words, instead of talking about his problems, there's a broader phenomenon in America, and it's called gerontocracy.
Gerontocracy is the rule of the ancient.
And so he's like, Biden's too old, Trump is too old.
It's almost like he's going down, he wants to take a couple people with him.
But the thing about it is, if his polls look better, right, and if he thought, I'm going to be re-elected, you better believe he'd be in his 80s and in the Senate.
I mean, that wouldn't even be a thing, right?
I mean, we've talked about this before.
Look at Dianne Feinstein.
Look at McConnell. I mean, you have these aged fossils hanging in there.
Ugh. And again, there's nothing wrong with getting old, but the point is, at some point, you need to have some dignity.
You've got to realize that you're passing into the sunset.
You shouldn't, in your 80s, and I'm talking about everyone.
Both sides. Both sides, yeah.
That, you know, in your 80s, you're not, my mom's 87.
She's very, very sharp, but I can't see her.
Running a country or...
I mean, even running the classroom that she used to teach in.
No, no, because you do slow down.
You do slow down not just physically, but you do slow down, you know, emotionally, mentally, every which way.
And, you know, this last little episode with McConnell proved that, right?
I mean, he was like, he spaced out, and then they're, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, that was normal. That was totally normal.
Really? What did they say? I think they say it was dehydrated.
Something like that. But I mean, a 50-year-old doesn't really get dehydrated like that and stop talking.
Forget who they are. Who am I? Why am I standing here?
Wait, am I really a senator?
Yeah. So really, you know, these people...
And while maybe some of them have done some honorable things, they do need to retire, I believe.
But anyway, that was his excuse.
Romney is... I have no doubt.
I mean, he's a decent guy.
Yeah. And I think what happened is he...
Was the product of a Republican Party that was, you know, the party of people with, you know, toothbrush mustaches and umbrellas.
The party of the business owner.
And not to mention, he was a part of the party that would, like, bend over and let them...
You know, take him, right?
Because that's actually what happened, and why I was so frustrated when Romney was running against Obama, and he just let him have everything, like, during debates, like, didn't argue about anything.
He thought it was, he was too gentlemanly to throw up.
Well, why are you in the ring, then?
Oh, my gosh. You get into the ring, and there's Obama.
Oh, no, wait, it's the black man. I can't throw a punch.
And so here's Obama.
And Obama wasn't the best puncher, to be honest.
I mean, he had a certain kind of sly sophistication to him, a patina of urbanity.
But Romney had so many points that he could have made, but his point was like, it's almost like, I'm too good to say this.
I'm not going to make this black man uncomfortable.
Yeah, I'm not going to go there.
I'm going to just like, you know.
And not to mention, you know, when I was, I took my Obama film to the Romney people and showed it to them and I said, look, I've even tested this film with independent voters.
It will have a volcanic effect if you get it out to independent voters whose names and addresses you have.
But they absolutely would not even hear of it.
They wouldn't do it. And this just shows that when you And that would have been such a good movie.
I mean, a lot of people, even without the Romney camp, a lot of people saw that movie.
And it showed you an Obama that was completely different from the Obama that he was showing you, Obama himself.
And it did it with documentary evidence.
And a lot of times I was using Obama's own voice.
The evidence was indisputable and still they wanted nothing to do with it.
But that was Romney. Vladimir Putin called the U.S. dollar's drop in dominance objective and irreversible as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa formally agreed to use local currencies, their own currency, in trade instead of the U.S. dollar.
It's the first shoe to fall.
As demand for the dollar weakens, the buying power of the dollar weakens.
That's why Birch Gold Group is busier than ever.
Investors and savers like me are looking to harness the power of physical gold held in a tax-sheltered IRA. Debbie and I buy our gold from Birch Gold and you should too.
We trust them to help us diversify and protect our savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
You'll get a free information kit on gold.
With thousands of happy customers, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, you can count on Birch Gold to help you navigate transitioning an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
As the U.S. dollar continues to receive pressure from foreign currencies, digital currencies, central banks, arm yourself with information on how to protect your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898 and claim your free information kit now.
The impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is in full swing.
The prosecution, the house managers who are pushing for impeachment have completed their case.
And today, the defense is launching its counter initiative to make the case on behalf of Ken Paxton.
Now, you thought that the case was wrapping up because you had seen so many segments of cross-examination where Busby, the attorney for Paxton, was cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses.
And I thought the defense was already done.
Yeah, you thought they were done.
But we have, even from just taking the prosecution side alone and not considering yet everything the defense is going to put forward, I'm kind of amazed at what a weak case it is.
And I'm a little amazed that they brought it forward and put it on public display because for those of us who frankly don't know the details of the workings of Texas or what they're saying even happened in the Attorney General's office, you would think that there would be more there there.
Well, and even this whole thing of, like, bribery, right?
When they showed that they were saying that he had gotten a new kitchen, new countertops, all of this.
And then they go back and they go, did he really get new countertops?
They show videos of his house, and he's got the same countertops.
Nothing's been changed. Nothing's been altered.
So the idea that these fictions could have been put out there, and who's putting them out there?
Obviously, the people associated with the prosecution.
They put it out there, and when it comes time to prove it, and this is really, I think, the thing that struck me the most, is Busby is drawing out, and he's a very skilled attorney, I have to say, but he brings out, you know, you went to the FBI with evidence of corruption, didn't you?
Yes, I did. Well, what evidence of corruption do I have?
Oh, well, not really.
Well, I had a lot of suspicions.
Well, you had suspicions, but do you have any proof that this man had done anything?
No, not really.
And you outlined to another guy, you've outlined in your memo several possible scenarios for prosecution.
Do you have evidence to validate any of these scenarios?
Oh no, I was merely outlining many possible roadmaps to...
So it's almost like these guys are sitting there thinking there's seven ways we can...
It reminds me of the left and Trump.
There's seven ways we can get this guy.
None of them hold any merit.
And the really interesting thing, and it happened with Trump as well, is these people that are supposed to be his inner circle are all actually conspiring to get him.
That is a striking...
You know, with Trump... That's right.
With Trump, first of all, he had a lot of insider enemies.
But still, it is a left versus right.
It's the Democrats going after Trump for the most part, with the help of some never-Trumpers.
But with this, you have a largely Republican Texas delegation from the House, and the Senate of course is also Republican.
But it looks like the Democrats have a hand in this, but they would not be able to pull it off on their own.
They're relying on Republicans to do in a Paxton.
And these Republicans, as I've told you before, in the way Texas politics works, they are very much...
I don't know if I would necessarily call them rhinos, but they are establishment, and they don't like outsiders.
They don't like people that make waves, and apparently he made a lot of enemies.
And so because of that, and because he won re-election when all of these smear campaigns against him didn't work, I think that they were like thinking, you know what, we're going to get them one way or another.
So they're using the same lawfare that the left is using, in this case, to pursue impeachment.
And you also told me something interesting, which is that in the U.S. Constitution, there is criteria spelled out for impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors.
You have to have actually done something, and it has to be this, that warrants you're being impeached.
Apparently, in the Texas Constitution, there is a power to impeach, but it's not specified.
It's not. Right.
Right, right.
It's a little bit, I wonder, it almost seems like that is a little bit of a flaw in the Texas Constitution.
Oh, it definitely is.
It definitely is.
It's essentially saying it can be a political hit.
I mean, and that's the thing is I hope the Texas Senate sees that for what it is.
And that is, it's a vendetta against a man that made a lot of enemies and people mad at him.
And so this is what it really is.
I think part of it also is that they see Paxton as somebody who goes out on a limb.
And this goes back to the Reagan years.
I remember in the Reagan years, you'd describe somebody, usually somebody who's like on the front line, and the Republicans who are establishment types would be like, oh, you know, he's a fire breather.
Oh, he's a spear chucker.
In other words, as if this guy is some kind of barbarian, whereas they, safely in the back ranks of the fight, are somehow the real stronghold.
The principal. Now, I admit, and I've said this before, I mean, we need the establishment.
We even need the rhinos.
I don't want to kick the rhinos out of the Republican Party because it makes the Republican Party smaller and weaker.
So-called rhinos are still Republicans, even if they are, quote, in name only.
But I do think this Paxton thing, the more I look at it, the more it seems distasteful.
It seems like, and look, some of the things Paxton has done are distasteful, but not impeachable.
Right. And his constituents elected him, okay?
Maybe they didn't all know about all of this.
That's why. But that is politics.
And it was out there, to be honest.
It was out there. And he won anyway.
So, you know what?
Let him serve his term.
If he decides, you know, this is just too much, too nasty, too whatever, I'm not going to run again.
Or conversely, he runs again and the people still don't get her.
Exactly. Still don't care.
Or they decide, yeah, we care.
Whatever. But it's not the Texas House and Senate responsibility to take out a man that we the people elected.
Without grounds. Chief Division Council and DOJ have approved a no-not breach.
We want the subject to be on display.
Doing the walk of shame, full visual impact.
Any questions? Are we becoming a police state?
Government told American citizens they couldn't go to church on Sunday.
For the first time in my life, I'm saying to myself, am I going to get a knock at the door?
FBI warrant! Come to the door now!
The Patriot Act and FISA were used against Donald Trump.
These individuals have commissioned the biggest propaganda play in U.S. history.
They don't go after the people that bring the election.
They go after the people that want to find out what the hell happened.
We don't need to have a crime.
What we need is a person to look at.
And then we go find out what crime you did.
FBI! Our focus is shifting.
Our main priority as a bureau is going to be domestic terrorism.
It really paints anybody who's right of center.
If you're a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, they define you as radical.
These are anti-government.
We have freedom of religion and freedom of peace.
Violent extremists, and they must be dealt with.
We can do anything we want.
There's this remarkable story about a woman who is running for the Virginia House.
She's a nurse practitioner.
Her name is Susanna Gibson.
She's running against a Republican named David Owen.
And it's turned out that she has been live streaming on a porn website performing sexual acts with her husband.
The crusher is that when this came out, it was actually reported by the Washington Post of all people, she becomes super indignant and says, I'm only being criticized because I'm a woman, and she calls this, quote, the worst gutter politics.
So, now, when I decided to include this segment, I told Brian here in the studio, obviously we need to show some clips.
No, we don't. We need to have...
Well, we need to show the audience what are we talking about.
What did this live streaming actually involve?
But Brian is like, no, we're a family show.
That's right. We can't do...
And you agree, evidently.
I totally agree. All right. Well, what do you make of this bizarre situation?
There's a... Well...
I mean, first of all, the Virginia legislature is close.
The Republicans have a narrow edge in the House, 50-46.
The Democrats have a narrow edge in the Senate.
And it's a prized state.
It's a very important state.
Yeah. Well, in true fashion, she blames her shenanigans on the Republicans.
I mean, that is in true fashion because that happens every time.
And so, basically, she is blaming her opponent on the discovery of this...
I mean, it says here in this article on CNN that Gibson's attorney, Daniel P. Watkins, says that sharing the videos violated the state's revenge porn law.
So they're making it sound like the political opponent, the Republican, is not only engaging in gutter politics, but he might have broken the law.
Now, the poor guy goes, listen, I... I've only found out about this from the Washington Post myself.
So the Washington Post reported on this.
And look, when you're talking about so-called revenge porn and all this kind of stuff, you're talking about, let's just say, an estranged husband and wife, right?
Or ex-boyfriend.
Or ex-boyfriend. And you happen to have some nude pictures or you happen to have some incriminating videos and you decide, listen, now that we're no longer together, I will put those out on social media.
Which, i.e. the word revenge. Yeah, and that's a whole different thing.
Here, you've got this couple that are live streaming their sex acts.
Apparently, they were taking money. They were taking tips.
Tokens, apparently. One token.
No, more. Raising money for a good cause was what they were saying.
Yeah, so it's sort of like, you tell us what to do, and we will perform that sex act.
And for me, it is stunning that somebody who has that kind of a life thinks, well, guess what?
I think I need to run for the legislature.
I'm going to run for politics now.
Right. In other words... Because nobody will ever find that out.
I mean, maybe she's inspired by the perversions of a guy like Biden.
She goes, listen, if that guy is such a...
Or Hunter. Or Hunter Biden.
She goes, man, I mean, this has obviously now become a staple of American politics at the highest level.
Who's going to care? My sex videos are with my husband.
Big deal. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, very...
And the thing about it is, apparently she did this, like, for a while.
And think of this.
She's a nurse practitioner.
Her husband is a lawyer.
They're not exactly hurting for money.
And they're not exactly that.
I mean, this is the kind of thing...
Let's say she didn't run for office, right?
Don't you think the hospital would call her in and go, Listen, you have patients who are coming here.
You're the nurse. They go, Wait a minute.
Didn't I see that woman in the porn video?
Yeah. I mean, it reminds me of that scene when we were at the airport, you and I, we were going somewhere and we had a security guy with us.
I think at the time of the...
Yeah. And we were walking through the airport and the security guy who's with us, he points to somebody and goes, there's Ron Jeremy!
And Debbie and I were like, together in the same voice, we're like, who's Ron Jeremy?
And the guy was like, oops.
And he was oops, because apparently Ron Jeremy is this well-known male porn star.
But how would you know that?
Unless you were sort of a regular aficionado.
I don't know. I don't know. But it's extremely funny.
And so, anyway, but maybe, you know, her constituents and her audience...
Yeah, I don't know.
I doubt it. I mean, we're talking about suburban Virginia.
Yeah. So you might even have people on the progressive side and maybe even people who don't have a problem by itself with this, but it's a whole different...
It's kind of like saying, I don't have a problem with people with their spouse making a sex video, but I don't want that to be my schoolteacher of my kid.
Or my congresswoman.
Yeah, exactly. Or my state representative or whatever.
Exactly. Exactly. Or even necessarily someone that you hang out with in social companies.
So I think that, and she knows this because, think of it, she's not defending herself.
It'd be one thing if she came out and went, well, yeah, I made all these porn videos.
You know, share them around.
We look great. We're just being affectionate with each other.
No, she's deleting them and trying to hide.
Yeah, and she's like, there's no line.
They won't cross to silence women when they speak up.
How is she being silenced?
Is this porn video speaking up?
Yeah. Not to mention, I mean, she is kind of belittling herself to do something like this.
And so now she's crying foul, really?
I mean, the Republican is taking a dignified position.
In fact, he goes, listen, I found out about the videos on Monday when the Post story came out, quote, like everyone else.
And he goes, I'm sure this is a difficult time for Susanna and her family, and I'm remaining focused on my campaign.
So what he's saying is, I'm not addressing this issue.
Yeah. She may have to deal with it with regard to the voters based on what's already come out, but I'm not the guy who...
This is actually very Republican behavior, right?
Of course. Because, quite frankly, if it was me, I'd be sharing the videos very widely.
Well, I mean, to point out, this is my opponent.
This is what she's up to.
She may be better staying in that business than this business.
Politics. Since the United States is slowly, I hope not inexorably, because there are things we can do to block it, moving in the direction of a police state, it is very helpful for us to read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, which we're doing together.
We're in the opening chapter dealing with arrest.
And one of the points that Solzhenitsyn makes is that they come to arrest you, and most people go submissively.
They go, I won't say eagerly, but they go, in a sense, without putting up any resistance.
He says a submissive sheep is a find for a wolf.
And here's Solzhenitsyn.
The submissiveness is also due to ignorance of the mechanics of epidemic arrests.
Very interesting phrase, epidemic arrests.
Solzhenitsyn means mass arrests.
Arrests have become almost like an epidemic.
They're occurring all over the place, and people really don't know what's driving them, who's behind it, and what reason.
Well, it turns out there's really no reason, but arrest is a tool of social coercion.
I'm now going to read it. By and large, the organs, meaning the government, had no profound reasons for their choice of whom to arrest and whom not to arrest.
They merely had overall assignments, quotas, for a specific number of arrests.
These quotas might be filled on an orderly basis or wholly arbitrarily.
And listen to this.
In 1937, a woman came to the reception room of the NKVD, the government office, to ask what she should do about the unfed, unweaned infant of a neighbor who had been arrested.
They said, sit down, we'll find out.
She sat there for two hours, whereupon they took her and tossed her into a cell.
They had a total plan which had to be fulfilled in a hurry, and there was no one available to send out into the city, and here was this woman already in their hands.
I mean, I find myself ruefully chuckling at this.
But you get a sense that at some point the police state is so out of control.
And, you know, this is a kind of a warning a little bit to Democrats and leftists in this country because they always think, oh, we can have a police state and guess what?
It's going to be really targeted.
It's going to focus on those MAGA Republicans.
We're going to get those guys.
We're not even going to go after all Republicans.
There are going to be Romney Republicans, McCain Republicans, McConnell Republicans.
We'll protect those guys. We're going to have a very surgical police state for our deadly enemies.
But Solzhenitsyn's point is, well, that may be in phase one.
Have you thought about phase two, phase three, phase four?
All right, let's keep going.
Universal innocence also gave rise to the universal failure to act.
Maybe they won't take you.
Maybe it will all blow over.
A.I. Ladiensky was the chief teacher in a school in remote Kologrev.
In 1937, a peasant approached him in an open market and passed him a message from a third person.
Aleksandr Ivanich, get out of town.
You are on the list.
But he stayed.
He thought to himself, after all, the whole school rests on my shoulders.
And their own children are pupils here.
In other words, the children of senior government officials are pupils here.
How can they arrest me? Several days later, he was arrested.
Not everyone was so fortunate as to understand at the age of 14 as did Vanya Levitsky.
Every honest man is sure to go to prison.
This is the kid talking, a 14-year-old.
Sure enough, they put him in when he was 23 years old.
The majority, writes Solzhenitsyn, sit quietly and dare to hope.
So hope is a virtue, but hope is not a good thing when it becomes the enemy of realism, when it becomes the enemy of recognizing the true state of affairs.
It's kind of like saying you've got gangsters surrounding your house, they have their guns drawn.
I hope that there will be a positive outcome.
Well, to the degree that you're sitting there hoping you might be not acting.
You need to be on your cell phone.
You need to be sounding the alarm.
If your home has an alarm, you need to be making a noise.
You need to be drawing attention.
You need to do everything you possibly can to address the situation in front of you.
But, says Solzhenitsyn, quote,"...since you aren't guilty, how can they arrest you?
It's a mistake." They are already dragging you along by the collar and you still keep exclaiming to yourself, it's a mistake.
They'll set things straight and let me out.
Others are being arrested en masse and it's a bothersome fact, but in those cases there's always some dark area.
Well, maybe he was guilty, but as for you, you are obviously innocent.
You still believe that the organs, the government, are human logical institutions.
They will set things straight and let you out.
So this is the delusion that tends to seize the honest person's mind who ultimately has a trust in things.
Oh, I trust the FBI. Well, the FBI is a law enforcement agency.
They go after the mafia and bad guys.
Why would they be coming after me?
It must be some mistake.
And so this is the mentality, the psychology that Solzhenitsyn is, I think, brilliantly outlining here.
Why, then, should you run away?
And how can you resist right then?
After all, you'll only make your situation worse.
You'll make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.
And it isn't just that you don't put up any resistance.
You even walk down the stairs on tiptoe, as you are ordered to do, so your neighbors won't hear.
So this is a point by Solzhenitsyn that I think is very subtle and very damning.
It says ultimately that you become, you the arrestee, become an accessory to your own arrest because you don't even take the minimum steps, even though your situation is desperate, even though self-interest and even survival, it's almost like the antelope is now cornered.
But the antelope maybe could still make a dash for it.
Maybe it could be rescued by other members of the herd.
But the antelope decides, no, I think I'll go along with the cheetah because there's got to be some mistake.
The cheetah's not after me after all.
I'm going to be able to get out of this.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection