All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:42
THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep770
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, the Biden regime tells us the Russians are coming and I'll tell you why I am not trembling.
I'm a little more scared about the people who are warning us than about the Russians themselves.
Author Larry Schweikart joins me.
We're going to talk about globalism, the World Economic Forum and what the globalists have up their sleeve this time.
And I'll continue my discussion of the case for Douglas, part of Harry Jaffa's book, Crisis of the House Divided.
Hey, 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.
The big news of the day is that we are hearing from Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor.
We're also hearing from some in Congress, and it's confirmed by the Biden, other authorities and the Biden regime that the country has apparently been alerted to a new, quote, national security threat.
Now, the threat is unspecified.
Apparently, it's something that was announced by Congress or from Congress.
There are meetings that are going on today between representatives of Congress, of the Senate, of the administration to discuss this threat.
There's been a little more information about the threat.
It is apparently a serious threat, they say, but it is also not immediate, so it probably has to do with the capacity of some other hostile nation.
And what is remarkable is that, first of all, it's odd the threat is unspecified.
What is it? We don't know for sure.
Now, there's been some reporting that it has to do with Russia and Russia being able to deploy weapons in space.
Well, first of all, that's not new.
The space, the idea of putting weapons in space goes back to the early, well, the research goes back to the 70s, but Reagan in 1983 announced the Space Missile Defense Initiative, so-called SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative.
The Russians were working on that even then.
The Russians have ICBMs.
They can deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles through the air, through space, if you want to call it that.
So if they can do it now, shooting them out of silos or out of submarines or out of bombers, what is the radical difference that is created by launching them from a space platform?
But the truth of it is we aren't even sure that that's what it is, that this so-called threat is that.
It could be something else.
It could be something to do with China or Russia deploying weapons maybe in Venezuela or in Cuba.
It could be the space-based weapons either China or Russia, although AP Associated Press claims that it is Russia.
It could be Iran getting closer to the bomb.
That would probably be the least surprise.
But from the reporting so far, it is Russia.
It's Russia. The Russians are coming.
And interestingly, I think in an earlier era, people would have freaked out.
They would have demanded to know what's going on.
What measures should be taken?
Do we need to go down into shelters?
Remember all that from the Cold War and from the nuclear era.
But now, part of it is, I think, because of the way social media is, but part of it also is that we have been lied to so often by our own government that sort of nobody trusts them.
Nobody even knows that this is true.
Lots of people are saying, and I don't blame them, they're saying, hey, look, this is coming up, first of all, when the Ukraine aid package is in trouble.
And of course, there are many people, including Mitt Romney, including Liz Cheney and others who are like, yeah, we got to get this money to Ukraine and so on.
It's a good old, let's fight them over there.
Let the Ukrainians do the fighting.
We'll just give them the money and the weapons so we don't have to fight over here.
We've heard all this before.
It's all tediously familiar.
And quite honestly, we are so over it at this point.
And so the convenient timing, almost as a way of boosting this package, putting pressure on Mike Johnson, eh?
The Senate has now gone along with this.
You gotta do this because, remember, we're now facing this new threat.
But because of this, people are like, eh...
We're not really on board.
Here's David Sachs commenting on X. Putin is the new COVID! An invented panic to justify stealing our money.
That very pithily summarizes what I'm saying.
And here's Jesse Kelly.
He goes, you don't get to politicize every agency, get them to warn us endlessly about white supremacy, terrorism, and then wake up one day and scream, the Russians are coming!
Um, the Russians most likely are not coming.
Most likely this is some kind of a scam by Jake Sullivan.
By the way, this is one of the perpetrators of the Russia hoax.
This is the guy who helped to cook it up, in fact.
Uh, and so, I don't think this is the guy who can be, can be believed at all.
And, um, And so here you've got this threat.
And again, remember what I said a day or two ago, that first they tell us that Russia is weak, that we got this from Tom Tillis and from others.
Oh yeah, the Ukrainians are really pummeling them.
Ten Russians are dying for every Ukrainian.
Ukraine is on the verge of victory.
On the other hand, Russia is invincible.
Russia has all this new technology.
Russia is putting missiles in space.
So on the one hand, Russia is unbelievably weak and little Ukraine is like pummeling them to the ground.
On the other hand, Russia is like infinitely strong.
So these people will say anything to extract cash out of our pockets.
That's That's what puts all of us on our guard.
Here's Julie Kelly. The national security threat is coming from inside the building.
It's like the horror movie.
You know, the guy's inside the house.
Yes, I agree. In fact, watch Police State if you haven't.
That is more scary than anything that the Russians are doing to us.
Why? Because the Russians right now are not doing anything to us, but our police agencies of government are.
Who's more likely to come banging on your door?
The Russians? Or Christopher Wray and his goons?
The answer is Christopher Wray and his goons.
Now, we have an imbecile in the Oval Office, and this guy, this guy whose brain is a scrambled egg, has his finger on the nuclear codes.
Isn't that a national security threat?
Isn't there a real possibility that this lunatic could set off a world war?
I mean, it's not merely a national security threat.
It's actually a threat to the whole world.
And it's a threat posed by our government because they have this ventriloquist puppet in the White House who doesn't even know exactly where he is.
That scares me a lot more right now than Vladimir Putin.
Again, don't get me wrong, Putin is a thug.
He has his own ambitions.
I wouldn't like to be living under Putin's regime.
I mean, Tucker Carlson says it's really nice over there and so on, but it's a thuggish regime.
There's no question about it.
The subways may be clean and the grocery stores may be inexpensive and people may be living orderly lives.
But I don't have any illusion that your rights are not secure in Russia.
And they're not secure here either.
In different ways, there are...
We are no longer a free country.
This national threat is also being whipped up at a time when the Biden regime is trying to get Congress, the House in particular, to amend the FISA law.
The FISA law is going to expire, and the police agencies of government are going to need warrants to spy on Americans.
So what does Congress have to do?
The good news is nothing.
Just don't do anything, and the law will expire.
So needless to say, the government is trying to put everybody in a frenzy so that the law is renewed, allowing the US government to spy without warrants on US citizens.
And according to Jake Sullivan, quote, he says that he does not think that the Fourth Amendment, quote, serves the interests of the United States.
So in other words, what he's saying is that this key provision of our Constitution, one of the bulwarks of our rights, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, He goes, we need to be willing to dispose of that.
We need to have laws against that, laws that put limits on that.
And again, I think that this so-called national security threat is aimed at stampeding us.
Going back to COVID, going back to 9-11, notice that in every case there's a stampede.
Give up your rights right now.
Give up your money right now.
And all of it is based on exaggerations or lies.
By the way, the latest lie in this regard concerns Trump.
And the allegation that Trump is somehow urging Russia to bomb our allies.
This is a complete distortion of what Trump said.
Trump was talking about NATO.
And Trump said that he was negotiating with the European countries.
And the European countries said, hey, if the Russians want to bomb us.
Aren't you going to come to our rescue even if we don't pay our NATO dues?
And Trump was like, no.
Look, we have a collective security arrangement.
Everybody has to pay to be part of it.
It's kind of like you want to be part of an insurance scheme for the government or for an insurance company to pay if your house gets caught on fire.
And then you say to the insurance company, well, what if I don't pay my dues and there's a fire?
And the insurance company goes, well, then we're not going to rebuild your house.
So that's not the insurance company trying to set fire to your house or urging that your house burn down.
It's a form of negotiation in which the insurance company is making clear that part of the way that you guarantee your own protection is you sign on to an agreement and you pay your dues.
So Trump was talking about this negotiation in which he is being frank with the Europeans and saying,''You want some protection?
We're going to pay, but we also need you to pay.'' And this is being twisted very deceitfully into Trump is calling on the Europeans to...
calling on Putin to attack Europe.
So... All of this is a way of saying, don't be fooled.
There's a very high degree of skepticism that is called for.
A skepticism that I would not have thought necessary in dealing with our own government, but regrettably, that's where we are now.
I think we all know it, and we just need to take with a big grain, maybe not even a grain of salt, maybe a spoon of salt or a bucket of salt, this idea that the Russians are coming.
I'm not trembling.
Every day when I wake up, look in the mirror, and a little part of me says, you know, thank you, PhD, weight loss, and nutrition, because they're the guys who got me here, and Debbie also.
So are you ready to lose weight? Just not sure where to start?
I mean, I understand. Debbie and I were right where you are a year ago.
So let me tell you why we chose PhD, weight loss, and nutrition, and why I so highly recommend their program.
First, Dr. Ashley Lucas has her PhD in Chronic Disease and Sports Nutrition.
Her program is based on years of research.
It's science-based. Second, the program starts with nutrition but is so much more.
They know that 90% of permanent change comes from the mind.
And they work on eliminating the reason you gain this weight in the first place.
There are no shortcuts, no pills, no injections, just solid science-based nutrition and behavior change.
And finally, probably most important, I lost 27 pounds, Debbie lost 24.
We haven't gained the weight back.
Why not?
That's because PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition has a lifelong maintenance program.
So if you're ready to lose weight for the last time, keep it off.
Call 864-644-1900 to get started or you can go online at myphdweightloss.com.
Do what I did, what hundreds of my listeners have done.
Call today, 864-644-1900.
There's a lot of global instability out there at At home, abroad, elections in Taiwan, North Korea on the brink, Iran increasing its aggression, now a new national security threat.
So how have you sheltered your savings and investments from potential major setbacks to the economy?
It's not too late to diversify an old IRA of 401k into gold and Birch Gold Group can help you to do that.
As opposed to many other investments, gold thrives in terms of economic upheaval and uncertainty.
It is an important part of diversifying your savings.
It's part of my savings strategy and here's how Birch Gold can help make it a part of yours.
Birch Gold will help you to convert an existing IRA of 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold and it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
Just text Dinesh to 989898 for a free information kit.
No obligation, only information.
With an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, thousands of happy customers, I encourage you to arm yourself with the knowledge of diversification through precious metals that you can get from Birch Gold.
So text Dinesh to 989898.
Claim your free information kit and protect your savings with gold today.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast a new guest, and I say this with some regret because I've known Larry Schweikart for, gosh, years now, and I meant to have him on, but it hasn't happened, so better late than never, and Larry is...
An author, he's a film producer, he's a tenured college professor, he's written best-selling books, including a really important series called A Patriot's History.
We're going to talk about the latest, which is A Patriot's History of Globalism, Its Rise and Decline.
You can follow Larry on X, at Larry Schweikart, S-E-H-W-E-I-K-A-R-T. Larry, welcome to the podcast.
Belatedly, thanks for joining me.
Great to have you.
And we're going to talk about globalism and get into the meaning of globalism, a little bit of the history of globalism, and the question I have for you about whether globalism is in decline with...
But before we get to globalism, let's talk a little bit about globetrotting.
Tucker Carlson was in Moscow, interviewed Putin, apparently interviewed maybe Snowden and Tara Reid.
But he also posted a video of him in a grocery store.
And he was sort of buying groceries and noting that, hey, it's really nice over here.
Things don't cost that much.
People seem to have a really good standard of living.
And then again, you have Tucker in the subway.
He's like, what a beautiful subway.
Ambience is very civil.
What did you make of all this?
I know some people on the left are saying that this is a kind of fellow traveling journalism similar to what leftists used to do a century ago with regard to the Soviet Union.
And so this represents a naivete, a foolish naivete on Tucker's part.
What's your take? So now leftists are concerned about all of the reporters in the 1920s who denied the Great Famine and all the rest.
Now they're concerned. But, you know, it's interesting.
You may recall we had a MiG pilot defect sometime in the 60s.
He went over to Japan and then he eventually came over to the United States.
Of course, they watched him very closely, but they would take him out to shop at grocery stores.
And he thought all the grocery stores were set up That certainly this wasn't the way the average Americans lived.
That was staged by the CIA, right?
And we're getting the same kind of pushback from leftists today.
Oh, this must be staged.
Oh, this can't happen.
The Russian people can't possibly be prosperous or happy.
Well, of course they are.
And poll after poll in Russia, I know it's Russia, but poll after poll says they kind of like Putin.
They like the job he's done.
Crime has declined by 50% since he took over.
Poverty has almost gone away.
The abundance levels increased dramatically.
So they really don't want to believe this.
And you know, Dinesh, something came to me as I started looking both at the book on globalism and just thinking about it in general.
When did the left start to hate Russia?
They began to hate Russia in the 1990s when it ceased to be communist.
Remember, the left loved the Soviet Union as long as they were communist.
Mikhail Gorbachev was just the most brilliant guy in the world.
But once they became capitalist, or you could argue oligarchist, whatever word you want to use, all of a sudden Russia's the enemy.
Russia's the bad guy. We can't trust anything Russia says.
We were having US senators go to Russia and tell us how wonderful things were under Reagan.
So, I mean, you see that it really came about because Russia is no longer communist and no longer holds out that beacon for communism in the world.
I mean, what an excellent point that is, Larry.
And, you know, I suspect that there is a political motive here, which is that, look, if the Russians are living okay and living pretty decently, that means that these great sanctions that were supposed to bring Russia to its knees, introduce mass impoverishment, really put pressure on Putin, are obviously not working all that well.
So that's one part of it.
Well, they're working very well, but not on Russia.
They're working very well on Western Europe.
Which is having gas shortages, energy shortages, having to restrict its consumption in a lot of ways.
And of course right now, as part of this kind of globalism theme, the farmers there have had enough.
And they rose up in Brussels and actually forced a policy change in Brussels.
They're rising up today in Spain, blocking a key port there.
Farmers are mobilizing in England and Ireland.
So don't get the farmers mad or you ain't going to eat.
Wow. Yeah, absolutely right.
Well, the thing about it that struck me about watching the video about the subway was that it's not the architecture because some of that's old.
In fact, some of it may even precede communism as far as I know.
But it was the...
It was the orderliness of everything.
It almost looked like America circa 1958 or 1962.
People are well-dressed.
Every third guy isn't 300 pounds.
You don't have homeless guys sitting around.
Nobody's grabbing your umbrella and beating you over the head with it.
Nobody's shouting slogans at you.
So the serenity of it, the sort of decency of it, I think is really even more important because some people are replying to Tucker and saying, in effect, well, you know, the GDP of America is three times out of Russia or, you know, Russians don't make as much money.
But the point is, even if you make more money, but you live in one of these dilapidated cities, you still have to deal with the carjackers, you have to deal with the muggers, you got to deal with the homeless, the addicts.
So I think Tucker is striking a chord here, maybe even more than he intended to.
Yeah, I mean, that's a great point.
You remember that back in the 2016 campaign, President Trump got in a lot of trouble for calling American cities S-holes, if you'll remember that.
And he was talking about the airports and the condition of the airports and the subways.
And my son went to London not too long ago and said, well, it was safe, but it smelled like urine and vomit, you know?
And this is the same way in almost all of the Western capitals, you're going to be running into militant jihadists.
In America, you're going to have to be dealing with Hamas protesters everywhere.
So it really is an issue, and it's now exacerbated by the influx of millions upon millions of illegal criminal aliens who are just pouring across our border.
It's a true invasion, and very brightly, governors DeSantis and Abbott have been shipping these people to the dark blue cities, especially Chicago and New York City, which is becoming a massive problem, especially for the Democrats in those cities.
Because they are already wedded to the policy of an illegal criminal invasion and now their own mostly black residents are really getting ticked off that all the resources are suddenly going to these illegal criminal aliens and not them.
And it's driving a major wedge in the Democratic Party.
I call it the second of two civil wars in the Democrat Party, the first being Hamas versus Israel.
They can't win either, and President Trump benefits from both because he's had the same policy for seven years.
Close the border. Very interesting.
Larry, let's talk about, we're going to talk about globalism, and there's another story in the news I want you to comment on, and this is the discovery of something that we knew about in its outline, but there are more details being provided about the fact that, well, at least...
The way it was publicly reported before, it seemed like the left had contended that foreign intelligence agencies came to the U.S. intelligence agencies and told them that Trump was sort of pussyfooting around with Russia.
This is something they would need to look into.
So you got the idea that the tip-off came from our allies abroad, maybe from the...
The Brits or from others.
Now it's coming out from reporting by Schellenberger and others, Michael Schellenberger and others, that it's the other way around.
The US police agencies are using their leverage, and they're going to the Australians, they're going to the Brits, and they're saying, we got a job for you.
We want you to help us spy on the Trump campaign.
So the responsibility is at home.
And I think this is very significant because we're even now hearing from Jake Sullivan and others about, you know, an unspecified national security threat we all need to worry about.
And I'm thinking, yeah, we have a big national security threat, and it's right there in the police agencies of the government themselves.
What's your take on this? Yeah, that's absolutely right.
And Dinesh, I'm sure you know many people like this.
People I know on Twitter and other places are just furious because they have been saying this and proving it with documents for four years, five years, six years.
They've been out there, and now all of a sudden Schellenberger comes out and goes, oh!
Guess what? This came from the CIA. Well, we all knew that.
We knew that a long time ago.
So I don't know why it's suddenly getting traction, but it is a fact that our biggest threats right now are coming from the FBI and the CIA. That the FBI refuses to investigate any of these trans shooters.
Refuses to investigate any of the real terrorism going on in America and focuses almost entirely on Catholics and white nationalists and all of those terrible moms for education, people like that.
So the CIA especially is out of control.
And go to my other book, A Patriot's History of the United States.
The CIA has been wrong in almost every major call for the last 60 years.
They're never right.
They missed Castro's rise.
They missed the overthrow of the Shah in Iran.
They missed 9-11.
They missed WMDs in Iraq.
Every time they have a big call, they blow it.
And we should not entrust either of these agencies with any power at all.
And of course, they came up right before two crucial votes, one on reauthorizing the FISA bill in the House and the other on the Ukrainian aid bill to say, oh, the Russians now pose some threat.
So, it's kind of interesting going back to your first comment on Tucker.
On the one hand, they're trying to make us believe the sanctions are working at Russia's this poor backward country, and yet on the other hand, they're so innovative they can put nukes in space when we can't.
Unbelievable. Let's take a pause.
We'll be right back with Larry Schweikart.
We're going to talk about his book, A Patriot's History of Globalism.
Mike Lindell and the employees of MyPillow want to thank my listeners for all your continued support.
Thank you.
They're having an overstock clearance sale right now and for the best prices ever when you use promo code Dinesh.
And also, you get free shipping on your entire order.
Get 50% off the MyPillow 2.0, that's the pillows, also on the brand new flannel sheets that just came in.
Get six pack towel sets for only $29.98.
Take advantage of the free shipping on larger items like mattresses, mattress toppers, 100% made in the USA on sale for as low as $99.99.
Everything is on sale from the brand new kitchen towels to the bath towels, the robes, the dog beds, the blankets, the couch pillows, and so much more.
So check it out to get the best specials ever.
Go to MyPillow.com.
Use promo code Dinesh or you can call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Get free shipping on your entire order while supplies last.
There's nothing worse than hearing about people living in pain.
That's why I want to tell you about Keith from Washington and his relief factor story.
After years of activity, from college football to running a martial arts studio at age 51, Keith's body felt like it was wearing out.
So he gave relief factor a try.
Keith says he now has, quote, Little to no pain in my knees and highly reduced neck pain.
He's feeling so much better.
He even pursued a second-degree black belt, so quite a story.
And you know on a personal note that Relief Factor has worked for me, for Debbie, our family, our friends, Mike here in the studio.
So if you're living with aches and pains, you don't have to.
See how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, could help you feel and live better every day.
To get started, try this.
It's the Relief Factor 3-Week Quick Start Kit.
It's only $19.95 and comes with a feel-better or your money-back guarantee.
So what do you have to lose?
Visit relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. The number again, 800-4-RELIEF. Or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
I'm back with Larry Schweikart.
You can follow him on social media, on X, at Larry Schweikart, S-C-H-W-E-I-K-A-R-T, the book, A Patriot's History of Globalism, Its Rise and Decline, forward by Stephen Bannon.
Larry, let's talk about globalism.
You, in the book, outline a kind of history of globalism, focusing on the key waystations of globalism.
Can you tell us a little bit when globalism even became an idea and then talk about the institutional expression of globalism?
Give us a kind of rapid-fire tour through history.
Well, if we don't want to go back to the Tower of Babel, we can start in 1814 with the Congress of Vienna.
Which is, they really believed that Europe was the globe.
To them, that was the globe.
And the monarchs came together after Napoleon was ousted and tried to set up a better Europe.
And of course, all the people thought that they were going to institute democracies.
And then many of the people attending the Congress of Vienna realized halfway in, we're not doing that at all.
We're reinstituting all the older monarchies.
That failed. The next really big one was the Versailles Peace Conference with Woodrow Wilson, where, again, the diplomats this time sought to establish world order and, you know, world peace, as they say, world peace, and they moved millions of people around from one country to another.
No regard for ethnicity or language or heritage, just moved people from Poland into Germany, Germany into Czechoslovakia, and whatever.
And, of course, that failed within 20 years.
That broke down very quickly.
The next really big one was the United Nations after World War II. And what's interesting about that is that the scientists this time took the lead in having created the atomic bomb.
They then said, we are the only ones who are really qualified to oversee atomic energy and control of atomic weapons.
And that lasted about six months.
Until the people said, no way, we don't really want to trust you with this.
We'd rather have it in the hands of the government.
Meanwhile, the UN went on with a Bretton Woods conference to set up an international monetary structure based on the dollar.
This was the longest lasting of any of their efforts.
Largely because the U.S. made a tradeoff in which we agreed to protect the world trade lanes with the U.S. Navy and, if necessary, the Army.
And in return, most of these other countries, the non-communist ones, would agree to free trade to one degree or another.
And that has lasted right up to the last decade when it started to fall apart.
Because of one main reason, the American public is sick of footing the bill for all of these foreign wars and for a massive military needed to maintain this.
Then, of course, the last two are medical globalism that we saw with the COVID pandemic, and the most recent is climate change globalism using the celebrities to try to control attitudes about climate change.
All these have failed to one degree or another, and so that kind of leads us to the last chapter, which is the decline.
Now, it seems to me that whether it's the WHO and medicine, or whether it is the idea of having a currency controls, or whether it is the idea of, I think Woodrow Wilson's phrase was, making the world safe for democracy, if I remember.
Underlying all of this is the notion that the world is one place, that we are all, I suppose, on the one hand individuals, and maybe we have this sort of attachment to local attachments and attachments to countries, but we are also global citizens.
And then we hear phrases like international law.
And I'm always taken a little bit aback by these kinds of things because it always raises in my mind the question, well, we have international law, but who's the legislature?
Who makes those laws?
And who are those people who make those laws accountable to?
Who elected them?
We don't have world elections, and yet we seem to have international laws.
So, is it the case that this is...
I mean, there are a lot of people who think, well, this is just a small group of people who are, like, trying to run the world and see everybody else as a peasant.
Who are the globalists and what do they want?
Yeah, that's a great question.
I started off the book by looking at what different scholars said about what is globalism.
It's usually governance by elites of some sort, whether they are monarchs or whether they're world leaders or some sort of unelected leaders like Klaus Schwab and his false prophet there, Noah Harari.
But I also went into Twitter and I said, hey, what do you guys think?
Constitutes globalism.
And it basically came down to the same thing.
Rule by elites over the common man.
And so it's interesting that I think they know they're in trouble.
They're meeting here recently at Davos.
Its theme was rebuilding trust.
That's a chore right now.
Nobody trusts them. And you could see that by the fact of who did not attend.
None of the world leaders attended, except for the guy from Argentina, Millet, who went in and read him the Riot Act.
The Prime Minister of England didn't go.
The President and Prime Minister of France didn't go.
Italy didn't go. Obviously, Biden didn't go.
Putin didn't go. Xi didn't go.
So the list of those who were not at Davos tells you a lot about how much its power has declined I mean, I thought, to me, the interesting line that sort of jumped out of Davos and symbolized the whole thing is it was somebody, I think, from the UN, a female representative, and she said something to this effect.
She said, from the podium, she said, well, you know, we're all the elites of the world here representing various organizations, communities, countries, and she says, we trust each other.
We believe in the academics who are here.
We believe in the climate experts who are here.
But she said, but then we all go back to our own countries and nobody trusts us over there.
So doesn't that in a way encapsulate what you've just been saying?
Is this the crisis of globalism that essentially the actual globe has checked out?
Yeah, very much so.
I mean, there's no denying that the globe is more connected than ever through communications, phones, the internet, other kinds of devices.
Transportation is better than it ever was.
But on the other hand, there is a massive movement, a really important movement.
And we're seeing more of whether you want to use the term conservative or populist leaders like Maloney in Italy, the guy in Hungary, Orban, Millet in Argentina, Netanyahu was just returned, Slovakia just had elections that moved more populist,
Estonia moved more populist, there were some seven or eight elections about three weeks ago in Europe and every one of them moved in the more populist And so the significance of this is that the people had enough.
And I think probably if you had to look at one thing that kind of turned everybody against these elites, it was COVID, where you had 82% of Americans took the first vax, only 50 took the second vax.
The latest poll showed less than 2% will ever take another China virus vax.
Wow, really telling.
This is a great book, Larry, and I recommend it highly.
It's called A Patriot's History of Globalism, Its Rise and Decline.
I've been talking to Larry Schweikart, and you can follow him on X, at Larry Schweikart.
Larry, thank you for joining me.
Thanks, Dinesh. How are you feeling these days?
I feel great and one of the reasons I feel so good is because I take this balance of nature fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy to take. They have an amazing story of how this product was developed by Dr.
Douglas Howard. It's right there on their website.
Balance of Nature receives over a thousand success stories every single month.
They have hundreds of thousands of customers who have purchased billions of capsules of their fruits and veggies over the past 20 years.
The products are gluten-free, they're non-GMO, they contain no added sugars or synthetics, so I think if you're looking for something to make you feel better naturally, you should definitely give Balance of Nature a try.
In fact, order today.
Whether you order online or call direct, You've got to use promo code AMERICA. You'll get a special offer of 35% off.
So here's the number, 800-246-8751.
Use discount code AMERICA, or you can order online, balanceofnature.com.
When you use the discount code, you'll get 35% off.
Again, the number to call, 800-246-8751.
I'm continuing my discussion of the case for Stephen Douglas.
This is part of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Harry Jaffa's book, Crisis of the House Divided.
And one of the key issues before the Civil War was the Mexican War, the war over Texas.
And this occurred in two parts.
First, the Texans, or as they were then called Texians, broke away from Mexico because they had come into Mexico under the promise of the 1824 Constitution, which offered a lot of regional autonomy and rights.
But then a dictator, Santana, came to power in Mexico and essentially abrogated the 1824 Constitution.
So the Texans basically said, the Texians, we're out of here.
But that didn't mean that Texas became part of the United States.
Texas actually became a free country, its own republic.
And it was that way for nine years from 1836 to 1845.
And then there was a territorial dispute between Texas and Mexico over where the Texan southern boundary lay.
And essentially, the Mexicans said the Texan boundary is at the Nusis River.
And the Texians said, no, our boundary is at the Rio Grande.
And this is what set off the Mexican War.
Now, this is where the United States got involved.
And this was also part of an annexation of Texas.
Texas now becomes part of the United States.
And so when the United States wins the war, defeats Mexico, U.S. troops are in Mexico City.
All of Texas, all the way down to the Rio Grande, the current border, now becomes part of the United States.
Now, interestingly, there was a partisan fight in the United States about Texas.
The Democrats were largely in favor of the war and in favor of Texas joining the Union.
Now, let's remember the Democrats are also by and large the pro-slavery party.
When I say that, it needs to be moderately qualified.
The Southern Democrats are rabidly pro-slavery.
The Northern Democrats are more of the Stephen Douglas don't care if slavery is voted up or down.
But by and large, they prefer living in free states.
And of course, the free states don't have slavery.
But the other party is the Whigs.
The great leader of the Whigs, well, it's originally, there's Daniel Webster, later it becomes Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, young Abraham Lincoln is a Whig.
And the Whig party is very skeptical of letting Texas into the Union.
Why? Because Texas has slavery.
So Texas joins the Union as a slave state and thus tips the balance a little bit, or quite a bit, toward the slave side.
Now, for this reason, many people, Lincoln included, but also Daniel Webster, basically believe that America doesn't need to be from sea to shining sea.
America should not keep expanding its own boundaries.
Why? Because Webster, like Young Lincoln, is concerned about freedom over here.
They're concerned about keeping America the land of the free.
And they think if you keep expanding, not only do you get slavery, as in the case with Texas, but you also get alien people with different mores and they may not have the same civic attachment to liberty that we find of the people already in the United States, the people who adopted the U.S. constitutional system.
So for to sum it up for for Daniel Webster, making the U.S.
bigger is essentially making freedom smaller.
Making the United States bigger is, in a sense, pro-slavery.
It's helping slavery.
And it's also undermining the habits of liberty in the United States.
For Douglass, it's the opposite.
Making the United States bigger is a good thing, and Douglass saw it as an expansion of freedom, an expansion of opportunity, not only because it involved pushing the physical boundaries all the way.
Even Douglass didn't see it would be ultimately all the way to California.
Douglass was just like, let's get more, let's get more.
And at some level, Douglass also wanted, and he envisioned, although he didn't advocate invasion, he thought it possible that Cuba...
El Salvador, the sort of Central American countries, maybe even some South American countries would ultimately join the United States, I mean physically become part of the United States, and you'd have a giant, well, empire of liberty, a giant U.S. empire in which the principles of American constitutionalism would be projected largely across the North American, perhaps to some degree, the South American.
This was Douglass's, you know, Very ambitious vision at a time when the Whigs were like, nah, I don't see it.
The Whigs were very hostile.
So the reason I'm telling you all this is it's important to remember that Douglass' domestic policy, popular sovereignty, let each state or let each community, let each territory decide for itself if it won slavery, was connected with Douglass' expansive...
As Douglas saw it, pro-American foreign policy.
Now, for Daniel Webster and for the Whigs and for Henry Clay, they thought it was more pro-American to keep America a modest size.
and let's just be an example to the world and not try to push our own boundaries further.
And for this reason, the Whigs misjudged the Texas War.
They thought the Texas War would be popular in the South because, of course, Texas was coming in as a—would join as a slave state.
They didn't realize that the Texas War, the war over Mexico, over that part of Mexico that became Texas, That war was extremely popular across the country, even in the North.
And that's why the Whig Party went down to a big defeat.
In the elections in the middle of the 19th century, and the Democrats were the party in power.
In fact, the Democrats were the party in power really leading up to the Civil War when the Republicans really won for the first time in 1860.
Now, for Douglass...
Douglass saw the need for this American empire because he saw Europe as a continent defined by monarchy, feudalism, superstition, and oppression.
So the principles of liberty, Of upward mobility.
Now, both Lincoln and Douglas were strong believers in upward mobility.
In fact, both men had, in a sense, come from very little.
Douglas, although he was very famous at the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he had worked his way up.
He had come up through, you could say, ethnic politics in Illinois, and as a result, become a great man.
Lincoln started out splitting rails, working on a steamboat, and Then working as a kind of lowly lawyer, drafting covenants and documents and arguing small cases in court.
So Lincoln was a guy, the log cabin story that Lincoln represented was a story that both Lincoln and Douglas could identify with.
But Douglass put that story into the lives of the new immigrants.
He saw the new immigrants coming from Ireland, coming from Scotland, coming from other parts of Europe.
They all were sort of rags to riches.
They all had the opportunity to make something of themselves as Douglass had and as Lincoln had.
And so for Douglass...
And you have to sort of here put on the glasses of the 19th century.
You have to sort of look and see what's happening around the world.
Remember after the collapse of the French Revolution, which sounded a lot like the American Revolution, but ended in a terrible tyranny, the terror, and then who takes over?
The French Revolution collapses and Napoleon takes over.
you may say liberty or the project of liberty in France.
And while there were some revolutions in Europe, 1830, 1848, none of them really brought about the spread of constitutional democracy or of liberty or of upward mobility.
Even in Great Britain, where you did have elements of free trade, there obviously, England was a capitalist society.
Great fortunes were made in England, but let's remember, England had and still has, although it's diminished now, a very rigid caste system.
A very rigid class system, I should say.
The English don't have caste per se in the Hindu sense, but they do have a stratified class society.
In fact, at one point, I think it was George Orwell who described himself as upper-lower middle class society.
So, for Orwell, there's a middle class, and there's a lower middle class, and he was in the lower middle class, but he was in the upper part of the lower middle class.
So, Orwell doesn't just look at society as the rich, the middle class, the poor.
There are so many gradations, and they're reflected in the way you walk, the way you dress, the way you speak.
So, it was the English Prime Minister Disraeli who once said, Now, Disraeli meant this, he's not advocating it or praising it, but he is accurately describing it.
He says, look, we have a highly stratified society in which even though there's wealth accumulating, the wealth is going to established people.
And if some guy starts at the bottom of the ladder, chances are you're going to find him at the bottom of the ladder when he gets old and when he retires.
So, as Douglass and Lincoln look abroad, Douglass goes, we don't want that.
We don't want to go the way of Europe.
Even though Europe has made advances in so many areas, it's scientifically advanced, and of course Europe is littered with giant and beautiful monuments, Douglass goes, those monuments are a reflection of the past.
Europe was great at one time.
In the ancient times, maybe in medieval times when they built cathedrals with gargoyles, Europe now is defined by oppression, by superstition, by monarchy, and the United States represents a break with Europe.
We are creating a different kind of society.
Notice here how Douglass is echoing the American founders, the Novus Ordo Seclorum.
So I want to emphasize here that in making the case for Douglass, we've got to realize that there are a lot of things in Douglass that resonate with us even now.
There are a lot of things in Douglass that if, let's say, Reagan were to listen to them, he'd be like, I agree with that.
I agree with that. And so you can see why Douglass had a big following, as did Lincoln, because Douglass himself was also attached to ideals.
Ideals that I think at the end of the day are not as great, not as noble as the ideals to which Lincoln was attached.
But nevertheless, that doesn't mean that Douglass was a low and petty man.
It doesn't mean that his ideals were ignoble.
They were noble in themselves, even if they didn't, in a sense, reach the highest level of nobility.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection