All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
47:17
THE MONEY TRAIL Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep702
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This podcast is brought to you by Dr. Kirk Elliott, PhD.
In an uncertain economy, if you're looking for wealth management solutions and financial advice, go to KirkElliottPhD.com and make an appointment today.
Coming up, I'll outline the process of making a movie like Police State.
Author and researcher Peter Schweitzer was featured in the film.
Join me to talk about how the Biden regime targets its political enemies and also about new information about the Biden money trail.
I'll also explain why YouTube, Google and Facebook are all censoring the Nashville Trans Shooters Manifesto.
If you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google or Spotify, 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.
I'm D'Souza.
I'm a filmmaker.
You can stream it, by the way, on any device, including your TV or big screen TV. But we're getting some questions about people saying, well, how do I do that?
And so we're putting up on the website.
It should be up today.
It is just a set of instructions about how to stream it to your TV. And it's actually a few simple steps if you have any kind of a smart TV experience.
You can stream from Salem Now.
You can also stream from Rumble.
And of course, I understand. It's a very good experience.
If you want to round up the family, you'll watch it on an evening or even on a weekend.
It's nice to have it up on your TV and watch it as a movie that way.
So, the streaming instructions are going to go up to the website, which is policestatefilm.net.
You should just kind of scroll down a little bit.
You'll see, want to stream it to your TV. And click on that and it will take you to the instructions to do so.
Now, DVDs.
The unfortunate fact is that we're not being allowed to sell our DVDs through Amazon or through Walmart.
With 2000 Mules, by the way, we were selling them through Amazon.
Apparently, at some point, they sort of discovered that, and then they blocked us.
Think about it. A massive corporation selling all kinds of stuff, almost an infinity of products, but they will single out our product and say, we can't sell it.
Now, arguably, in the case of 2,000 Mules, you could say, well, that was a banned topic.
Well, police state is not a banned topic.
And yet, they won't let us sell it.
And neither will Walmart.
And that means we've got to sort of invest in a parallel economy of conservative companies that sell these products and support and encourage those companies.
So, we are selling our DVDs through Salem Now, which is Salem Media Corporation, and also through Shopify.
That's our direct way of selling to you.
Welcome to my show!
This is such a simple gift, and if you're giving it to family or to friends, they'll thank you for it, because it's entertainment for the holiday season.
I'm not saying it's going to be...
It's not comedy entertainment in that sense, but look, lots of people watch horror movies for entertainment.
Lots of people watch scary movies for entertainment.
This is all those things, but it's also highly informative.
And look, it's very compelling as a movie.
Everyone who sees the movie testifies, this was so good as a movie.
I've never had a single person go, I wish I never watched it because it's just so scary.
In fact, on the contrary, when something is true, you want to be informed.
You want to know what's going on.
You actually want to be equipped.
And this film equips you like nothing else.
Really, I think the power of the film is that it provides a new comprehensive interpretive framework to make sense of all the things that are happening around us, including things that have happened subsequent to the film.
The release of the Nashville Trans Shooter Manifesto.
How does police state help you to understand that?
Well, very simple. Police states have allies and the trans people, including the trans shooters, believe it or not, are allies of the police state.
They're ideologically allied.
And so what does the police state do?
It goes right to work to hide the manifesto.
The police state's been putting out the narrative that the enemies of the police state, namely patriots, Christians, Republicans, those are the bad guys.
So we want all information that seems to suggest that those are the guys we need to watch out for.
And the trans are the victims.
These are the people who, you know, remember KJP, the press secretary?
Yes, we are very worried about the trans.
The trans are the people who are being targeted.
So, when it's a trans shooter who's targeting other people, it's like, that is very inconvenient information.
It's an inconvenient truth, to use a phrase made famous by Al Gore.
That's why they suppress it.
So, that's just one example of how the police state...
lens, the police state framework, is a good way to get a wider and deeper understanding of what's going on in the country. In some cases there are facts in the film that you're like, well I knew something about that but I didn't know all the stuff you guys presented and moreover now you're showing me how all of this fits together. Once again the website, the kind of one-stop shop to check out the film, watch the trailer, see the latest statement from
President Trump about the film and also stream it or buy DVDs is PoliceStateFilm.net you Debbie and I are on a really good health journey, but we still struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber, and those are a requirement.
Now, 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 to take.
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, it's balanceofnature.com or call 800-246-8751.
Get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code AMERICA. Guys, I'm really pleased to welcome back to the podcast our friend Peter Schweitzer.
He is an author.
He's a researcher. He's president of the Government Accountability Institute.
He's also host of a weekly podcast called The Drill Down.
He's a New York Times bestselling author with multiple bestsellers under his belt.
Most recently, the number one New York Times bestseller called Red Handed.
Peter, welcome to the podcast.
It was also, of course, great to have you in the movie.
And one of the themes that you talk about is the political targeting by the Biden regime.
Now, just recently, we've seen...
A new stash of reports from Jim Jordan at the Government Oversight Committee about the intense coordination between various aspects of the government, not one or two agencies, but dozens of them, working hand-in-hand with non-profits and hand-in-hand with the digital platforms, creating this elaborate process Regime of censorship.
It seems that this is a bottomless pit and every time you dig, there's a more elaborate network of colluders to be found.
Yeah, no, I think you're right, Dinesh.
And congratulations on the film, by the way.
It's really a remarkable accomplishment.
So well done.
I was glad to be a small part of it.
But you're exactly right.
And here's the thing.
What we've seen is an evolution in America from the national security state.
That began, say, 20 years ago, focusing on the so-called war on terror.
And the idea was we are going to look for, obviously, military ways to defeat them, but we're also going to look for legal ways and other ways to sort of defeat the enemy and their messaging.
They called it lawfare, for example.
Well, what's happened is a lot of the techniques that they used to use against domestic terrorists and Islamic extremists in the United States...
They are now using against political opponents, people that are running for the same political office as them.
And that is what we've seen in the large expanse of the national security state, which is dominated by the deep state, which tends to be aligned with the Democratic Party.
And so we're seeing that in full force.
We saw that in the 2020 election when it came to a lot of the merging of the apparatus of private companies, I'll put that in quotation marks, like Twitter, which were essentially doing the bidding of government agencies like Homeland Security.
But now it's even become larger than that.
Jim Jordan is revealing that there are other government agencies involved.
They were targeting specific people like Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House.
And this is where you see the merging of the government with large corporations, or what you could potentially call corporatism, which is, of course, what Benito Mussolini created and what essentially became fascism.
We're not there yet, but this is the first sort of dipping of the toe into the water.
We're now kind of ankle-deep, maybe knee-deep, And we may be fully submerged pretty soon in a situation where there is a merging of the two interests, and that is, I think, the alarm bells that need to be going off right now.
Where do you think, Peter, does the motivation come from on the side of the digital platforms?
In other words, it's very understandable that the government would be like, not only do we have this immense direct power, but now if we can work through surrogates and get the private sector to do our bidding, all the better for us.
But you would think that a lot of the guys who started these digital platforms, people like Zuckerberg, came out of a quasi-libertarian tradition where they were, we want a free internet, we want to basically be our own pioneers, we want to open up the information This was a lot of their rhetoric and I assume sincere going back a couple of decades.
How do you think that they kind of got into this kind of ugly bedfellows relationship with the government?
No, that's a great question and I think a very important question.
To me, it's a two-word answer.
Regulatory power. If you're Mark Zuckerberg, yeah, you started Facebook.
You had sort of this libertarian view, the Wild West of the World Wide Web.
You're creating and building this company.
Where is Mark Zuckerberg today?
He runs a massive corporation that has a lot of regulatory concerns before the federal government.
If he wants to acquire another large company, that may need regulatory approval.
If there are issues of communications that occurs on his platform, he could potentially be in violation of federal law as it relates to anti-terrorism legislation, etc.
So there are so many regulatory things that these large companies have to abide by.
They want to stay on the good side of the cop, right?
If you live in a city where there's all kinds of rules, all sorts of things that the police can do to essentially fine you or to throw you into jail, you want to make sure you're on good terms with the cops.
And so when the cops come and tell you, hey, we need a favor, we need to do this or that, you're going to do it because it's going to Get you favor or currency with that regulatory apparatus.
So this is a huge problem.
No large company can avoid it.
No medium-sized company can avoid it.
And if they want to grow, their entire business model is based on massive growth.
Getting new subscribers, building new platforms, new capabilities.
That's oftentimes going to require some kind of regulatory approval, and you want to stay on the good side of the regulators.
I think that's a big part of the motivation.
We'll be right back with Peter Schweitzer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, his latest book, Red Handed.
Last month, the G20 announced it welcomed discussion of the effects of implementing central bank digital currencies in their countries.
These digital currencies could allow the government to track every purchase you make.
They could even allow officials to prohibit you from purchasing certain products or easily freeze or seize part or all of your money.
In essence, they enable the government to control your finances.
Concerned Americans are diversifying their assets into physical gold with the help of Birch Gold Group.
If you want a physical asset held in a tax-sheltered retirement account, you should call Birch Gold.
Debbie and I are customers.
We buy our gold through Birch Gold.
But find out for yourself.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
They'll send you a free information kit on gold.
Here's the easiest way to become a Birch Gold customer.
If you have an IRA or a 401k from a previous employer, Birch Gold can help you convert it into an IRA in gold and you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
Claim your free information kit on gold and call Birch Gold because if digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to fall back on.
I'm back with author and researcher Peter Schweitzer, president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Peter, you were saying that one of the motivations for these digital platforms to play along with the government is they want to stay on the good side of the very people who are regulating them.
And I think that the broader lesson maybe that can be drawn just from that single example Is the way in which to establish a regime of, let's not even say totalitarianism, but just social control, you don't need everybody to be a tyrant, or even a mini-tyrant.
You can get a lot of people...
Whose motives are very human.
In other words, I want to get a bonus.
I want to retire with a pension.
I want to keep my company out of trouble.
I want to stay on the good side of the people who are making the rules.
And so, as a result, a relatively small number of bad guys who are in strategic positions can, if they're clever, move the levers of power to get a lot of other people involved.
I think that's exactly right.
And look, especially for a businessman, most of these people that started their tech companies started it because they wanted to build a business.
They had a vision. They want to make money.
They see themselves in the money-making business.
They may have other agendas, but that's the prime one.
They don't want that interfered with.
So I do think that you are correct.
That's a huge part of the motivation.
I do also think, though, with some of these tech entrepreneurs, especially those that are enormously successful, those worth tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars, there is also, with some of them, I would argue, this sort of touch of hubris.
There's this notion that they are more than businessmen.
They're visionaries. They built these successful companies and they now believe that their expertise or their skill Can morph into larger social questions and issues.
And what you see is guys like Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, who will, frankly, say things pretty positive about China and the manner in which China does things.
They'll talk about how efficiently things are done in China.
They'll talk about the fact that, well, things just get done more quickly in China than they do in the United States, and they say that with admiration.
And of course, we both know that the reason they get done more efficiently in China is because there aren't things like property rights, like individual rights, like an independent judiciary.
So it's this classic call.
We know it from Greek mythology.
The desire of people to believe that they should have power over other people.
They have the answer to the larger questions.
And I do think that sense of hubris has sort of appeared very With some of these tech leaders.
And I think that's part of the motivation as well.
I've made my fortune.
Now I can shape my own society and I can do it by effectively cooperating with the government to do so.
I mean, one of the sources in the film, in police state, is a Google whistleblower named Zach Voorhees.
And he made the point that now when you look at the Google documents, the internal documents, they talk about the fact that Google is in a position...
To program human beings.
So in other words, human beings are now a kind of software, if you will.
And the way that you program human beings is you control the flow of information that goes into their heads.
And the Google search engine, far from being a way of empowering you and me, Peter, so we become the people who are searching for information that we want, we don't realize that we are now the subject of a Google experiment to control the information that goes into our heads and by controlling the inputs...
Presumably controlling the outputs.
I mean, what could be a kind of a more, I wouldn't even say amusing because there's a pathetic aspect of this idea of a company completely losing sight of what its kind of practical, you know, good goals could be and instead setting themselves up as some kind of architect of the future of the human race.
Yeah. No, I mean, imagine the hubris that goes into that.
I mean, Dinesh, you and I have known each other for a long time.
I can't imagine if I came to you and said, hey, Dinesh, I have this plan.
I want to kind of reorganize human beings and rearrange them.
I think you'd come to me immediately and say, you know, Peter, what are you talking about?
No individual should have the power and has the insight and the ability and should engage in that kind of behavior.
And yet nobody in Silicon Valley seemingly is raising these questions with these titans of industry.
So it is scary, it's real, it's not science fiction.
They talk about it openly, they talk about the singularity, the sort of merging of computer minds with human minds.
These are very real things.
And all of this moves in the direction of what?
A liberal and free society?
No. It all moves in the direction of a controlled society dominated by a few with the control of the government.
And that's why we have to constantly be vigilant.
And why I think the film is so important in highlighting to people what is actually happening.
It's happening to people you may not know, but it's going to start happening to you and your family in sort of ways that none of us ever predicted would actually happen.
We'll be right back with Peter Schweitzer, president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Mike Lindell just keeps on introducing great deals.
He's featuring the new My Towels.
Now, save 50% on the six-piece towel set.
Regular price, $59.96.
But now, for a limited time, only $29.98 with promo code Dinesh.
Debbie and I have Mike's My Towels all over the house.
We love them for ourselves.
But we also love to get them as Christmas presents.
Very practical. Good idea for you to think about.
My towel six-piece set includes two bath towels, two hand towels, two washcloths.
These towels are amazing.
The long staple length of the Sherpa cotton fibers makes them very soft because of the long fibers.
They can wrap around each other more easily, creating a smoother and softer fabric, softer the touch without the lotion-y feel, and also super absorbent.
So, take advantage of the 50% off on the six-piece towel set.
Call 800-876-0227, the number again.
800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm back with our friend Peter Schweitzer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, his latest book, Red-Handed.
Peter, you know, you're talking about this technological hubris, and I've been doing a series on Solzhenitsyn on my podcast, and early in the Gulag Archipelago, there's a scene where a woman is approached by a friend of hers Who says, go to the train station right now and get out of town because you're on a list.
They're coming to get you.
And the woman is like, oh, I can't go right now.
I have to go home and pack.
And so she heads back to her apartment in a hurry.
And sure enough, they're waiting for her at the apartment.
She gets arrested.
She's led away.
And then Solzhenitsyn kind of makes this remark.
He says, well, you know...
How sad that she didn't listen and go straight to the train station.
Had she done that, she could easily have disappeared into the vastness of Mother Russia.
They would never have found her.
And I was thinking about all this because it occurred to me that that wouldn't be true today.
Today they'd find her real fast.
They'd be tracking her phone.
They'd have all kinds of surveillance of her getting in the train at the station.
They would know where that train is going.
And so technology...
Which is, in some ways, an instrument of liberation can also become, can it not?
And the Chinese are doing this.
Maybe say a word about that.
A real tool of a kind of tyranny that maybe even the Soviets could not have dreamed of.
Yeah, no, that's right.
And here's the thing.
Technology development in the United States...
In the 90s and 2000s in the internet space and computers was really done by a lot of small firms that were growing very rapidly.
Microsoft, for example, Google, we know those names.
Today, a lot of that research, the groundbreaking research, is being done by firms or by researchers who are funded by large corporations.
In other words, it's become less decentralized and more centralized.
And that is something that should give us great fear, because when it's more centralized, it can be more controlled.
It can be dominated by certain actors.
And to your point...
A lot of the new technologies are sort of a totalitarian's dream.
They allow you to track what you're seeing, track what you're doing, control what you're seeing, determine what you're going to be influencing, control the temperature in your home, make it cold, make it hot, control the lights, control every aspect of your life.
And what we're being told is that this is being done in a way that's going to benefit you.
This is for your good.
And I would just argue that's generally what totalitarians argue.
They never come to people and say, we're going to do all of this to you because we want to control you.
The initial appeal is always, we're doing this for your own safety and security.
And that is what is being told us a lot of times by these major companies.
This is the Chinese approach as well.
They have a so-called social credit system where you get scores for doing good things.
It's always presented in a positive way.
We're not trying to control people.
We're trying to encourage good social behavior.
Who's against good social behavior?
So the Chinese model really does have an effect here because, again, some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley have an admiration for how China has done things.
Yeah, they don't necessarily like the treatment of the Uyghurs.
They're concerned about certain aspects of human rights.
But the overall model of a social credit system, the overall model of smart cities that track everything you do and see, that has a lot of appeal to them.
So this fundamental question that we have been debating as humans for thousands of years is the future towards individualism and liberty, or is it towards a totalitarian tyranny that wants to control our lives?
Technology, I would argue, is tending to lean in the direction towards tyrants, and we need to make sure that it's not wedded to the state.
We need to make sure that it's protected and developed in a way that actually enhances individual liberties, and I'm not very confident that that's happening right now.
I mean, it almost seems like in every case, the origin is promising.
So, for example, the internet is very promising at the origins, and then it gets steered in this nefarious direction.
Similarly, when new forms of money began to develop, you know, cyber currencies and crypto and so on, a lot of people thought, well, this is a libertarian dream because now suddenly the government is not the sole people issuing the currency.
In a sense, you can have all these private forms of currency and trade, but then again, when you start talking about central bank digital currencies, now you have authorities in a kind of a central office who are able to have all kinds of financial control over you simply because they control the digital currency.
So you're saying we need to guard against the centralization of power because it can be, it can lead to a tyranny more terrifying than any we've seen to date.
Yeah, no, I think you nailed it.
I mean, there is this co-opting of technological development.
I mean, in my mind, technology in general is neutral.
I mean, you know, we split the atoms, so you get nuclear power, you also get atomic weapons.
Atomic weapons can be used for good, it can be used for bad.
Technology can be neutral.
It's how does it get co-opted and how does it get steered and who actually controls it and how do they control it?
And we are in an era, Dinesh, where there is widespread, I would argue warranted, distrust in the United States of how the government is handling our affairs.
And in that context, the government is now saying, okay, we need to regulate artificial intelligence.
I think we do. The problem is, I don't trust...
I trust the federal government to regulate AI in a way that moves us away from individual liberty and more towards central control, because that tends to be the senator gravity of government in general.
So we need to be vigilant about this.
I think that's why the film is important.
That's why so much of the research and work that's being done in this area is important, because it doesn't happen Quickly, where it's noticeable.
You use the illustration of Solzhenitsyn on an individual level.
You're on a list.
They're coming to get you.
Guess what? Most people are not going to get somebody whispering in their ear, they're coming to get you, they're undermining your freedoms.
It is going to happen quickly.
Quickly and slowly and in a way that people aren't even aware.
And the fear is that it's going to happen and then it's going to be too late to actually repair the control that they've established over us.
We'll be right back with Peter Schweitzer.
We all know that aches and pains come with getting older, but it doesn't mean you have to accept it.
That's why I want to tell you about Leah from Ohio and her relief factor story.
Now, one Sunday, Leah was sitting on her couch in so much pain, she was literally in tears.
That's when she decided, let me try relief factor.
In just eight days, she found relief.
She continued to get, in her words, better and better.
A daily drug-free supplement could help you feel and live better every single day.
To get started, try the Relief Factor 3-Week Quick Start Kit.
It's only $19.95.
Comes with a feel-better or your money-back guarantee.
Visit relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. Again, it's 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
I'm back with Peter Schweitzer, President of the Government Accountability Institute.
Peter, you have been perhaps the most indefatigable researcher and tracker of the Biden money trail.
You were on this topic long before all these House committees were looking at it, and yet they keep digging and digging.
And for a long time, the kind of Progressive line of defense of the Bidens, well, initially was that he doesn't know anything in the Biden families in the clear.
Then it moved to, well, Hunter Biden was probably trying to leverage his dad's influence, but without his dad's knowledge or participation.
Then it became, well, yeah, clearly the dad had knowledge and did participate, but this was out of just affection for his son.
He was not involved in his son's businesses, and of course money wasn't flowing directly into Joe Biden's accounts.
But now it seems that we are perhaps at the fourth base in which at least some money is flowing directly into Joe Biden's account.
So not only that, but it seems to be flowing with a little bit of camouflage.
You've got this rather suspicious loan repayment that seems to appear at the bottom of every check.
But there seem to be no original loans that need to be repaid.
So can you talk about the significance of the latest findings and where this is likely to lead?
Yeah, no, I think the fact that Joe Biden's getting direct money from his brother, it's kind of a classic, I would argue, money laundering approach, which is, you know, Chinese entities pays Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden pays James Biden, James Biden pays Joe Biden all within a very short period of time shows that Joe Biden personally profited from this.
Now, I've always held the view, Dinesh, that that's not the most important aspect of this because if you look at the federal bribery statutes, actual law, it doesn't matter if Joe Biden personally got paid.
It's enough that his family members got paid in exchange for policy, and I believe that's what happened.
But this is a significant development because it shows, again, yet another example of how they have shifted the goalposts, but the ball keeps going in the goal.
It doesn't matter how they try to adjust or shift the debate.
Their position has been proven wrong, and I think that we are headed for A very specific case of the impeachment of Joe Biden.
The committee released these numbers, and we now also know that the chairman of the committee, James Comer, has said that he is planning to subpoena perhaps a dozen or more people in this case, that he's going to subpoena James Biden.
It was even floated that he might subpoena Joe Biden.
So this story is not going away, and I think if you look at the recent New York Times poll that shows Donald Trump up in these swing states, these five crucial swing states, some of the crosstabs in that polling shows that in those states, a clear majority of people, in some cases by 20 percentage points, believe that Joe Biden profited from his family's business deal.
So this is not just the debate in Washington, it's actually affecting voters' attitudes towards Joe Biden as president.
So what you're saying, Peter, is that despite the intense media rationalizations, the attempt to sort of cover up for the Bidens, the information is still getting out.
Yeah, this is grounds for some optimism.
I mean, we've been very concerned about the control of information by the government, but this shows that despite that control, I certainly hope so.
Peter Schweitzer, thank you very much.
Really appreciate you joining me.
Thank you. Guys, I'd like to invite you to become an annual subscriber to my Locals channel, and if you do, you get the film Police State for free or included in your subscription.
I post a lot of exclusive content at Locals, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
At Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday, that's tonight, 8 p.m. Eastern, no topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded a bunch of cool films to Locals, documentaries, feature films, mine, and also films by other independent producers.
2,000 Mules is up there, and you know about my new film, Police State, you'll be getting the inside scoop on Locals.
As I mentioned, if you're an annual subscriber, all this content you can scream and watch for free.
So check out the channel.
It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride again.
It's dinesh.locals.com.
Now that the first pages of the...
Nashville Trans Shooter Manifesto is out.
It's very revealing to see the reaction from different quarters, and that's what I want to talk about in this segment.
So let's look at the reaction from the mayor.
The mayor of Nashville is very upset that this information is out.
You'd think there'd be a public right to know.
You'd think that the information should have been out from the very beginning.
But obviously the mayor is one of those guys, along with others, who've been concealing the information.
And they don't want it out.
And they don't want it out, as you'll see in a minute, because of what it says.
They would have put it out themselves if it had said something different.
But if the Nashville trans shooter had said, as a trans person, I'm violated every day.
As a trans person, I face all this discrimination.
As a trans person, my life has become unbearable.
This is the suffering of the trans.
No, no, no. Then they would be like, look, see, we drove this person over the edge and society is responsible.
But that is not what the manifesto says.
So the mayor has begun an investigation to find out who leaked it.
Now, one of the interesting implications of beginning this kind of investigation, of course, is it kind of in a sideways manner confirms the authenticity of the manifesto.
Because, after all, if it wasn't the real manifesto, then you wouldn't have to investigate who leaked it.
It's not the real thing.
Well, evidently, it is the real thing.
And that's also been confirmed by the local Fox News division in Nashville.
Okay. Now, the media is sort of ignoring it, or at least trying to ignore it.
There's been very little mainstream news coverage.
As far as I know, nothing on the networks.
I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
sort of dead silence about it for the same reason.
They too in a sense don't want their readers to know what's in the manifesto.
Again because it is the content of the manifesto that is proving to be the problem for the left.
It completely overturns the left's narrative.
It shows that the threats are coming from the trans side, not if you will from the Christian side.
And remember the propaganda we've been subjected to, let's back up here.
In colleges and universities, in the media, we have been getting, you could call it, you know, woke ideology and democratic talking points.
And what is this woke ideology?
That the evil people in the world are the white people, they are the males, they are the Christians, they are the people who have privilege.
And now we turn to the trans manifesto and we discover that this is exactly why this trans individual went and shot up that school.
Because according to this trans activist, there was a need to kill the whites, and kill the males, and kill the Christians, including Christian kids, and kill the little kids with privilege.
So, another way to put it is that the woke ideology is the theory and the mass shooting is the practice.
Now, that is not a message that the media wants to cover.
That is not a message that the mayor wants, the Nashville mayor wants out there.
And guess what? That's not a message that the digital platforms want out there either.
And so, YouTube takes the segment down.
Google is blocking searches of it.
If you go into Google right now and you type in trans shooter manifesto, you'll get like no results or we're not showing you anything.
And YouTube even basically says that they're telling Steven Crowder, we want to know that your team reviewed your content and we think it violates our violent criminal organizations policy.
What? What?
Who's the violent criminal organization here?
Is it Steven Crowder? No.
It's obviously...
You've obviously had a mass shooting.
Now, you know, this YouTube stuff, the hypocrisy of it is just blatant.
If the guy was a white supremacist and he put out a white supremacist manifesto, it would be all over YouTube.
It would be all over Facebook.
Far from suppressing it, they would be promulgating it.
Because why? Because it fits...
The democratic talking points.
It fits the woke narrative.
That's the heart of the matter, that here you've got the clear proof that you've got domestic terrorism being perpetrated from the left by a trans ideologue against young people, against Christians, against whites.
You just have to look at some of the phrases in the In the manifesto itself, want to kill all you little crackers.
There you go. That's a white slur.
And it goes on to talk about the fact that these are people of privilege.
And then essentially the trans shooter says, I'm hoping to kill as many of them.
There's even a kind of a gruesome outline of this is my daily routine.
I'm going to get up at so-and-so time, have breakfast at so-and-so time, get my weaponry at so-and-so time, head to the school at so-and-so time.
The shooting itself is going to be very brief, and it's all going to end in a kind of orgy of violence.
And all of this was thought through, laid out, written down.
And yet, until now, they've been trying to keep it from us.
We're now in a new chapter of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and this chapter is called The Blue Caps.
The Blue Caps. Who are the Blue Caps?
Well, these are the guys who run these prison camps.
They are the officials.
It's the network of people who keep the prison industry going.
And Solzhenitsyn now wants to turn to, who are those guys?
He begins with a very interesting account of Alexander II, who's one of the Tsars.
The Tsars, of course, were the Russian rulers before the Bolsheviks, the communists, took over.
He says that Alexander II, the Tsar surrounded by revolutionaries who were to make seven attempts on his life, interesting detail of Russian history here, once visited the House of Preliminary Detention in Sherpalernaya.
He goes, this was a kind of a czarist prison.
In fact, it was the ancestor of one of the huge prisons that's now, that's continuing under the Soviet system, says Solzhenitsyn.
And why is the czar going into this prison?
Well, he says they ordered, he goes in there and he orders them to lock him up in solitary confinement in cell number 227.
He stayed in it for more than an hour, attempting thereby to sense the state of mind of those he had imprisoned there.
So the Tsar, as it turns out, even though he's a tyrant, he is an authoritarian ruler, he actually is a humane guy and he's like, I'm locking these people up for opposing me in some cases for trying to overthrow me.
and then I'm sticking them in this prison, but what is the experience of that like?
I don't really know. So I'm going to go to the prison, and I'm going to tell them to lock me up for a little while, so I can at least sort of sit in that room and go, okay, well, this is what I'm sentencing people to.
Then says Solzhenitsyn, but it is impossible to picture any of our interrogators right up to Beria, Beria is the chief of police for Stalin, wanting to slip into a prisoner's skin even for one hour, or feeling compelled to sit and meditate in solitary confinement.
He says they would never do that.
Why? What Solzhenitsyn is getting at is that there is something about the prison industry in communism that makes it inhuman.
The Tsarist system, even though it was oppressive in many ways, had a human element to it.
You had a guy at the head of it, and he recognized, I do have this absolute power.
But you know what?
I should make some effort to identify, not just with my subjects, but even with the people who I'm going after, even the people I'm having logged up.
Now, Solzhenitsyn backs up to say that you've got all these people who are prisoners in the Gulag, and he says of them, he says, every former prisoner remembers his own interrogation in detail.
Remember, Solzhenitsyn has gotten his information for the Gulag Archipelago by interviewing in detail more than 200 prisoners.
And it's from those that those detailed accounts form the backbone of this great work.
And so he says, every former prisoner remembers his own interrogation, remembers how they squeezed him, what foulness they squeezed out of him, meaning they brought lies out of him.
They remember all that.
But then he says, but oddly enough, he does not remember even their names, let alone think about them as human beings.
So if you ask the prisoner, okay, you are interrogated for eight hours a day by this interrogator, what was he like?
What was his name? What did he look like?
What was his mannerisms?
Did he curse?
The prisoner remembers the details of the interrogation, but sort of can't place the interrogator.
They become at some point...
Totally faceless.
Very interesting. It's that human memory is kind of working on these prisoners, Solzhenitsyn says.
They don't have a good grasp of who their interrogators really are.
In fact, perhaps what it is is that they are being treated in such a subhuman way, it's difficult for them to even see the interrogator as a human being, and consequently, you remember nothing about them as a human being.
Solzhenitsyn continues, their branch of service, whose branch of service?
He's talking about the blue caps, the people who work in the prison industry, does not require them to be educated people of broad culture and broad views, and they are not.
Their branch of service does not require them to think logically, and they don't.
Their branch of service requires only that they carry out orders exactly and be impervious to suffering.
So those two things are worth focusing on for a minute.
Carry out orders exactly.
That's the way bureaucracies are.
It's the interrogation begins at 6 a.m.
It should not end before 11.
Well, what if the prisoner confesses at 10.30?
That's okay. He's assigned to be interrogated till 11.
Keep going. Maybe you'll get some more things out of him.
This is the exactitude, bureaucratic exactitude.
I saw kind of a comic version of it myself in a small way when I was in the confinement center.
They'd give me instructions.
Some of them made no sense.
I would point that out.
They were like, well, let's do it anyway, because that's what it says over here.
And we recognize it's stupid.
They wouldn't actually admit it, but I could tell from their eyes that they did recognize it.
And so follow orders exactly.
And the other point, even more important, be impervious to suffering.
So think about that. Think about the way in which when you become deliberately indifferent to suffering, and it's actually not that hard to become that way. Why? Because you're seeing it every day. It becomes at some level, it's tragic in the beginning, and then it's a little less tragic but still unfortunate, and then it's perhaps not even unfortunate but still at least a little bit depressing to watch, and after a while it's like, well, I saw it yesterday, I've seen it a thousand times.
This guy's writhing in pain.
Big deal. You know, I'm still hungry.
I'm going to have to get out and get lunch very shortly.
So imperviousness to suffering becomes a hallmark of not only this police state, but also our own.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection