All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:27
WHO ARE THESE DEMOCRATS? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep912
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, Debbie and I are going to discuss the Democratic Party.
We hear very often from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and others, the Democratic Party isn't what it used to be.
The Democratic Party has departed from its roots.
But what are those roots?
Debbie and I are going to dive into the Democratic Party from its beginnings, going all the way back to the 19th century.
We're going to trace those roots of the Democratic Party and answer the question, who are these Democrats?
Hey, listen, if you're watching on Rumble or YouTube, listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
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.
Who are these Democrats?
This is the, well, this was the subtitle of our film, Hillary's America, which came out in 2016, but it's a very appropriate header for the podcast today and for the weekend.
Debbie and I thought we'd dive into the Democratic Party and try to answer the question, is this a party that began in a sort of a decent way in the early 19th century, had an impressive and glorious history through the 19th century, was elevated by FDR,
And LBJ even did pretty well under the Clintons and only then sort of took a dark turn.
This is the underlying premise of a lot of rhetoric that you hear today.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., this isn't the party of my father and his brother.
It's not the party of JFK and it's not the party of RFK.
Now, to a degree, we obviously agree.
But the larger narrative is something that I think Debbie and I want to examine and want to question, and we're going to devote pretty much the whole podcast today to exploring this in some detail.
Let's remember that this is a trope, this idea of the Democratic Party having changed.
You know, I didn't lead the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.
There's a lot of people who say something like this, and so did Ronald Reagan.
Reagan, in a sense, began as a Democrat.
He was attached to the Democratic Party.
His own father, Jack Reagan, worked for the New Deal.
He worked as part of the New Deal administration.
And so, Reagan saw the Democratic Party of FDR as the party that helped to defeat the Nazis, helped to pull America out of the Depression.
So, the Democratic Party was kind of Doing a good job until it made a turn.
Obviously for Reagan, the turn wasn't in the 21st century.
It wasn't Obama.
It was much earlier.
And so as early as 1964, Reagan gave his Goldwater speech and basically said, the Democratic Party has left me.
But think about it.
There's something a little odd because Reagan says it in 1964.
Robert F. Kennedy says it in 2024.
So, you know, basically for more than half a century, people are saying the same thing.
The Democratic Party used to be okay and then it left me.
So all of this raises the question, did the Democratic Party at some point And I know that some people don't like to even say the word Democratic Party.
They chastise me.
They're like, Dinesh, it's the Democrat Party.
This is a case where... I say that?
Yeah, WWE says this.
This is a case where I don't like to get caught in this kind of nomenclature.
You know, similar to people say, Dinesh, America is not a democracy.
It's a republic.
Yeah, it is a republic, but, you know, it's a constitutional republic, and embedded in that constitutional republic is, in fact, a democratic system of government.
So calling America, for example, a democracy understanding that we mean a constitutional democracy, I don't think is that that big of a deal.
But!
No, but it's because the left uses it a lot.
The Democrats use it all the time.
Well, I think what people are upset about is the conflation between the name Democratic Party and a democratic, small d, system of government.
We do have a democratic system of government.
Yeah, but what I mean is that the Democrats never call it a republic.
They never want to say it's a republic, probably for the same reason, that we don't want to say it's a democracy.
Well, you're right.
The Democrats don't like to say it's a Republican.
Why?
I think here's the reason.
They don't like the idea of the Senate.
They don't like the idea of the Electoral College.
They want to push us toward a popular vote.
So to them, the word democracy is essentially nothing more than the popular will of the people.
Whereas for Republicans, It's important to note that, yeah, we're a democracy, but not in the ancient sense.
We're a representative democracy.
And we have all kinds of deliberative filters that slow down the democratic process, including a Supreme Court that can knock out democratically passed laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution.
So the Constitution functions as a kind of supreme law above, if you will, democratic decision making.
So this is what you're getting at.
Yeah, yeah, and that's why I think it strikes a chord with a lot of Republicans.
They're like, remember Dinesh, we are a republic, and we are, and the Democrats don't like that.
So I think that that, it's a little nuanced, you know, going back and forth, but I think it's important to note that they hate that because they do want, at the end of the day, they want mob rule.
The reason I somewhat resist this sort of, let's call them the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party.
Imagine the Democrats go, we're not gonna call you the Republican Party anymore, we're gonna call you the Republic Party.
It'd be odd, right?
Because we get to name ourselves, we call ourselves Republicans, we're the Republican Party, so everyone's expected to use our name for our party.
And so for this reason, almost a certain kind of customary deference, I do that.
But let's focus on something that is Seemingly not directly related to our topic of today, but I think it is related, and that is the recent decision in Venezuela by the government to use the courts and go after the people who ran against Maduro.
You and I know that was a corrupt election with massive shenanigans and we're not in the minority here.
Pretty much the whole world thinks that.
The State Department thinks that although they're not doing anything about it.
This was an illegitimate election that's put an illegitimate regime, that has kept an illegitimate regime in power and yet They're following a certain playbook in going after the people who questioned the election, calling them election deniers, claiming that they need to be investigated and prosecuted.
Well, the Attorney General just issued a warrant for Gonzales' arrest.
Is Gonzales the guy who ran against Maduro?
Yes, yes.
So this was the hand-picked guy representing Maria Corina Machado, who was not allowed to run.
Who will probably also get arrested.
And so they're going after these people as election deniers.
That's right.
And you were like, this morning, you were saying to me, you're like, don't people see the parallels?
They don't.
It's crazy.
I think they do, though.
See, I think that... Now, it could be that there are certain rank and file... Well, we see the parallels and conservatives see the parallels, but the left never talks about the parallels.
Why?
I think that they don't talk about the parallels because they do see them.
In other words, see, let's put it this way.
The State Department, the Democrats, the pundits, they've been saying that the Venezuelan election is illegitimate.
So if now they say there's an illegitimate regime in Venezuela, and guess what?
It's going after its opponents.
It's trying to demonize them.
It's making legitimate questions that they're raising about the election seem illegitimate.
They're trying to lock up their opponents.
Which is exactly what we're trying to do here in America.
They don't want that parallel.
So as a result, they keep mum, they keep silent.
Not because they don't know, because they do know.
Think of it, if they really didn't know it, they would be indignantly denouncing what's happening in Venezuela and writing articles about why it's not the same as what's happening in America.
Not the same, all caps.
But they don't do that, right?
Have you seen a single article?
Because it is the same.
And so that burden of proof is so high for them and the parallels are so glaring that they've got to... See, this is a case where it's... I call it the argumentum ad ignorantium.
The argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience.
So we don't say anything.
We just hope the ordinary American is so mind-numbingly stupid that that guy will go, we really oppose the stuff that's happening in Venezuela!
They're trying to lock up the opposition!
With no application of that principle here.
Right?
Yeah.
No, it's like we're living in a parallel universe, really.
I mean, it's just bizarre to me.
It really is.
And you know that for years, decades, I've been saying this non-stop.
No one listens, but I've been saying it for a long time, that the parallels are so incredibly similar that, you know, it's almost like Venezuela is a little microcosm of America.
Well, the reason this is so important, I think, is because, and the reason we talk about Venezuela probably more than we do about, let's say, other tyrannical regimes, is it's not just because you're from Venezuela.
The reason is this.
The Venezuelan model is the one that we are importing.
Yeah.
Not any other model.
We're not importing the Chinese model.
There might be some elements, social credit scores, we need to worry about those coming here from China.
We're not importing the Soviet model.
We're not importing directly the Cuban model or the North Korean model.
But the Venezuelan model, which is tyranny masquerading as democracy.
Exactly right.
Rigged elections masquerading as rule of law.
Censorship.
All the ingredients.
And so for years, in fact, we've got a little bit... I've got to make a little bit of a confession here because you had outlined seven or eight parallels.
At least.
Yeah.
And then in the movie Trump Card, I...
The two of us talked about this and we also had other people in the movie talking about the parallels to Venezuela.
The theme was socialism.
How is Venezuelan socialism similar to our socialism?
And I was like, because you had voter fraud on the list.
Yeah, and we actually did a segment in the movie that was cut from the movie.
Because you're like, that's not, that's not a parallel.
Right.
This was prior to 2020.
And I was like, let's, because I wanted the parallels to be obvious.
Yeah.
In a sense, that parallel was, was anticipatory.
Yeah.
Meaning it was almost a forecast of what was to come.
So had we put it in, it would have seemed eerily prophetic.
But I didn't know the future.
I was talking about things that have been done in the past.
Because as you know, I knew Katherine from, Katherine from True the Vote.
Katherine Engelbrecht from True the Vote.
I met her in probably, what, 2010, around there, and I was involved with voter fraud back then, so I knew that was a parallel because we had seen it in Texas, and we knew that it was prevalent in America.
And then little did any of us know that there would be such a dramatic escalation of the fraud in 2020.
Are you feeling overwhelmed by the increasing cost of health insurance?
Have you had enough of not having control over your healthcare dollars?
Introducing ShareRite.
It's healthcare done the right way.
At ShareRite, you're not just a number, you're part of a caring community.
And forget about paying excessive premiums.
With ShareRite, you stand to save 30-50%.
Compared to health insurance.
So think about what you could do with all those savings.
But it's more than just savings.
ShareRight ensures you have access to the care you deserve precisely when you need it, from routine checkups to unexpected emergencies.
With ShareRight, your health care is their top priority.
So empower yourself today.
Take control of your health care costs.
Visit ShareRight.org slash Dinesh.
Learn more, see how much you can save.
Visit ShareRight.org slash Dinesh.
That's ShareRight.org slash Dinesh.
For healthcare done the right way.
You asked and my pillow listened.
They're finally bringing you the most requested offer ever right now.
You can get the queen-size premium MyPillow.
This is their best-selling, most commonly used pillow.
It's for just $19.98.
MyPillow is made with patented adjustable fill.
It adjusts to your exact individual needs regardless of your sleep position.
It helps keep your neck aligned and holds its shape all night long so you get the best sleep of your life.
But that's not all.
There are good deals all around.
Get the six-piece MyPillow kitchen or bath towel set, just $25.
The brand new mattress topper, as low as $69.98.
The famous MyPillow bed sheets, as low as $25 and so much more.
Here's the number to call, 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
When you use promo code Dinesh, you get big discounts on all the MyPillow products, including The premium queen-sized MyPillow, only $19.98.
That's the lowest price ever, so don't delay.
Order today.
Go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Debbie and I are doing our Friday roundup, and our theme for today is the Democratic Party.
Who are these Democrats?
In other words, what we're trying to get at here is the underlying sort of DNA of the Democratic Party.
Why is this important to do?
Because it's becoming increasingly clear, and maybe you can weigh in on this, honey, is that I think that in earlier eras, let's say the Clinton era, And I'll go further back.
Even with Jimmy Carter, or even earlier, Kennedy, Truman, it seemed pretty clear that those guys were running their party.
They were the leading figure, and they were in charge.
Nobody doubted that Clinton, for example, was appointing Rubin at Treasury, appointing Robert Reich at Labor.
Clinton was calling the shots.
He was in charge.
But we've had this recent phenomenon with Biden, and I think we have We're going to have it with Harris, if she makes her way across the finish line, where, in a sense, they don't run the party.
The party runs them.
And so, this is why it's even more important to figure out the DNA of the Democrats, because it's that DNA, it's that regime, with its kind of inner momentum, that is now swapping out its so-called leaders at will.
We don't like this guy?
Move him out, put him on the beach, bring her in.
And do you agree that there has, in this sense, there has been a shift?
Well, I mean, I would argue that even with Obama, if you recall, people would say that Obama was a puppet, that Soros was running the Democratic Party, and that Obama was the chosen one to help be the face of it.
I don't know how true that was, honestly.
But I mean, that's a fascinating idea, because Obama came out of nowhere.
He was not a particularly intelligent guy, although he had a good way of camouflaging that.
You know, he had a good way of, you know, scratching his head and clearing his throat and making distinctions, you know, between ISIS and ISIL.
So people thought, this guy's obviously really smart, you know.
Even though he himself doesn't know the difference between ISIS and ISIL.
He probably just picked up that phrase.
And so they elevated him into some kind of intellectual, right?
He's a constitutional scholar.
No, he's not.
He's never published a scholarly article on any topic.
So you've got this vacuous character, but he's street smart, he's cunning, he's sly.
And my own view on it is that Obama is He is talented at gangsterism.
So he was, in fact, running the Democratic Party.
Now, he might have been running it in full cooperation.
He might have recognized that even gangsters need financial backers.
I mean, think about it.
He could have been the mafia kingpin, but it's still the mafia.
Exactly.
But the point is, he is the kingpin.
And the kingpin does call the shots.
I mean, he's Don Corleone.
Now, with Biden, although Biden was, I think, the Don Corleone of the Biden family.
So Biden was, you know, James Biden, your assignment is this.
And, you know, Frank Biden, you go over to Costa Rica.
Hunter Biden, you're my bag man for Ukraine.
I have no doubt that's the case.
But with regard to the country, I mean, think of it.
Who's running the country right now?
You see pictures of Biden.
He's on the beach.
He's reclined at about a 70 degree angle.
Typically, his eyes are closed and his mouth is open.
In a rare case, he took a phone call, and in fact, one of these sort of democratic shills, you know, one of these social media guys who is probably on the democratic payroll, but if not, is nevertheless a democratic sycophant.
It's like, look at Biden, he's doing business even on the beach.
This seems to be the solitary phone call he's taken in like three weeks.
Yeah.
Right?
So Biden's not running the country right now.
I mean, how eerie is this?
We are living in a supposed democracy, but a bunch of unnamed guys are making decisions.
Let me ask you this.
Why is it that the Republicans aren't demanding that he resign?
I'm guessing for the opportunistic and somewhat pragmatic reason, they don't want Kamala to be the incumbent president basically two months before the election.
I agree.
I would not do that either because that gives her the inside track to a degree.
Well, I, to be honest, don't think she was running the country.
No, absolutely not.
I always joked about Obama, this being his third term.
I mean, maybe.
I mean, have you seen that?
There's a press conference and I just saw a clip of it just a couple of days ago.
Chuck Schumer is at the mic and Kamala Harris is behind him and she starts like talking out of turn and Chuck Schumer just raises his finger as if to say, shut up.
And she makes eyes like, oops, I guess I shouldn't be talking.
This is very revealing because it really shows you that she is subordinate and she acknowledges it.
And she's sort of like, I'm out of turn.
Whoops, I shouldn't be speaking out.
Sorry, teacher.
And Schumer is very authoritative.
All he does is he raises a finger.
It's almost like my dad used to do when I was like seven.
Right.
My dad didn't have to yell.
He would just look at me and raise his eyebrow and I would be like, oops.
OK.
All right.
That's right.
I'm under your authority.
And that was Kamala Harris.
So this is this is a feature of the Democratic Party.
But let's answer the fundamental question we raised at the outset, which is this.
Do you think That the Democrats have undergone some mutation that makes them unacceptable now while they were acceptable before?
Or do you think that this was always the party of gangsters?
Always.
We'll do a little bit of a quick part in the history of the Democratic Party, but before we do that, how do you explain the seeming anomalies?
I mean, there's clearly, you wouldn't say Jimmy Carter As a president was a gangster.
I mean certainly he didn't benefit from the presidency as far as we know.
He seemed to be straight-laced to that degree.
What about Truman?
What about, doesn't RFK have a point when he says that the party of JFK and RFK is completely different than the Democratic Party of today?
It could be that these people were anomalies.
And they didn't even know that the party that they were running in was this bad.
You know, I mean, it could be, right?
Yes.
Because think about it.
JFK was very anti-communism, right?
Right.
And the Democratic Party is pro-communism.
They're pro-socialism.
They're pro-communism.
Right.
But that's not the party that he thought he was in, right?
So it could very well be that Truman and JFK and Jimmy Carter just so happened upon this party that fooled them to believe that it was the party of the poor, the party, you know, of the little guy.
And maybe perhaps they were fooled just like the rest of us.
I mean, this is, I think, a key point, which is that the Democrats have A pro-socialism, pro-communism, and pro-fascism streak in their DNA.
That's right.
And we see this because as those, the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, which dominates the Democratic Party, grew up alongside fascism and communism, and legions of leftists and Democrats were entranced by communism.
I mean, McCarthyism wouldn't even be a phenomenon if there weren't tons of communists in government, in the State Department, in other high institutions of government, and these were Democrats, these were leftists, and they thought the Soviet Union was further ahead in history than America.
Many of them admired Mussolini, a smaller number admired Hitler, they admired fascism in its various forms.
So, JFK, what you're saying is JFK comes into that party, He doesn't represent that wing of the party, but nevertheless, the party had that in its DNA even before JFK.
In other words, the point you're making is the Democrats weren't anti-communist through JFK, and then they swung and became pro-communist now.
They were kind of pro-communist from the beginning.
JFK just didn't fit the mold.
And I mean, you know, here I am being conspiratorial, but that could be why they took him out.
JFK well I mean there's no you're not being conspiratorial in the sense that I think there are I mean look his his own nephew RFK jr.
is raising serious questions about what happened to JFK and while for some time I mean, in other words, after they decided, oh yeah, no, it was a lone shooter, there was a subsiding of the question of what really happened, but that was never fully settled.
This commission was just aimed at sort of almost taking an open question and closing it.
So that is, and I think that one of the things that RFK Jr.
wants to do, and he might be able to do it through a Trump administration, is open all those files.
Wow.
And have that information be aired.
I mean, I gotta say, with RFK, this guy gets better by the day.
Yeah.
Right?
I mean, he's almost following a path that we've seen with others.
We've seen it with Elon Musk.
Elon Musk starts off, well, I'm for free speech, and that's pretty much the main thing I'm for.
Then, I'm a moderate Democrat, the Democrats are getting a little too immoderate for me.
Then, I gotta be for Trump, you know, and now he's full-fledged for Trump.
And I think RFK has followed the same journey.
Started out, I'm sort of good on a couple of things.
I'm really good on COVID.
I'm really good on the police state.
I'm raising questions about free speech.
I'm against mass surveillance.
But he was a conventional Democrat on many other issues.
And now I see most recently he's taking on the issue of election fraud.
I mean, who knows?
He may switch parties altogether.
You know, he moves into the independent zone.
But think of it, a Trump endorsement opens the door.
And think about it, if RFK Jr.
becomes a cabinet official in the Trump administration, don't you think he'd become a Republican?
I think he would.
Yeah, he could very well be one.
Or he can still stay as a Democrat if he doesn't want to, but I think there's a good chance that he will.
Let's go to the root of the Democratic Party.
Let's pick it up when we come back and talk about how this party was created as a defender of slavery, not just in the South, but also in the North.
Guys, if you'd like to support my work, here's the best way to do it.
Become an annual subscriber at my Locals channel.
I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also get to know me better.
I post family stuff and personal stuff on there.
And on Locals, you can interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday.
No topic is off-limits.
I've also uploaded some cool films to Locals.
It's Dinesh's movie page up there.
2000 Meals is up there.
The film that came out last year, Police State, and of course the new film will be up there.
And you're going to want to see that.
If you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch this movie content for free.
It's included with your subscription.
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.
One of the core themes of the Democratic Party right from its founding is that the Democratic Party began as the party of slavery.
Now, this is not something that you learn in the textbooks.
You know, honey, interestingly, when you and I went to college, we had textbooks that basically portrayed the Democratic Party.
It's the party of the common man.
And it's the party that- Party for the poor.
Party for the poor, a party that fought for civil rights, and there was no mention.
Now, the slavery issue is discussed in textbooks, but it's discussed as a North-South issue.
And what is not said is that both in the North and in the South, there was a party that actively defended the interests of the slave owner.
Explicitly in the South, it was the Southern Democrats.
But in the North, not only were the Northern Democrats allied with the Southern Democrats in protecting slavery, but they were with the immigrants creating a plantation system of their own.
It was a different type of plantation system.
It was based on the idea that I'll give you a bottle of whiskey and maybe refer you to my friend Gus who will give you a job in exchange for your vote.
Wow.
So it was creating government dependency of a different kind.
I think Martin Van Buren who came after Andrew Jackson.
So Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party.
He was a Southern slave owner.
But Van Buren was the architect of the Northern plantation system.
And intellectually very few people have connected the plantation system of the North.
Because it took a different shape.
It wasn't called a plantation system.
It didn't have physical plantations, although it did for some people.
Think about where the American Indians live.
They live on reservations.
It's dependence.
It's dependency in both cases.
That's the uniting thread.
When did you, you know, we had a very pleasant dinner with some of your professors.
A few years ago.
This was obviously long after you and I were both out of college.
And I remember something kind of funny.
What was the name of your professor?
I've tried to remember.
Dr. Heinsohn.
Dr. Heinsohn.
And I was working on my book, Death of a Nation.
We were doing a movie on the plantation theme.
And he goes, oh, Dinesh, well, you know, what are you working on?
So I go, well, I'm working on a new film and a new book.
And I hesitated because I knew that this is, you know, he's a mainstream academic.
And I was a little hesitant To spell out the theme.
So I hedged it.
I go, well, you know, what I'm really saying is that the Democratic Party in the North and in the South, from its very beginning, is the party of the plantation.
And what makes me laugh is that he looks over and he goes, well, everybody knows that.
And I was like, oh, I was approaching the topic with extreme caution, thinking that you might... Okay, I will say this.
He's extremely intelligent, and I learned a lot from him.
And I knew he was a right winger, even when I was in college, graduate of class of 88.
So he had it going on back then.
So, he knew a lot.
And yet you said that one reason you knew he was a right-winger was not because he was explicitly political, but because he wasn't.
He wasn't.
Exactly right.
And the left-wingers were all explicitly political in the classroom, and if somebody wasn't, you're like, I wonder if that guy's a conservative, as sure enough, he turns out that he was.
So, the Democrats are the party of slavery, and I want to emphasize how bad this is, and to what degree what I'm saying is true.
If you go to 1860, which is the year in which the Civil War began, and you ask yourself, of the 4 million slaves in the country, there were 4 million slaves, so slavery increased dramatically.
There were about 2 million slaves in the country in 1830, by 1860 it was 4 million.
That was the kind of heyday of slavery, the peak of slavery.
And you ask, how many of these slaves were owned by Democrats and how many of these slaves were owned by Republicans?
I'm now in a position to answer this question.
The number of slaves owned by Republicans in 1860 out of 4 million is approximately 10.
Approximately 10.
These are Republicans living in the border states.
In fact, many of them started as Democrats.
Yeah.
But they switched over to the Republican Party.
They were Southerners and slave owners who were trying to avoid secession.
That's why they allied with the Republican Party, thinking that they could stave off secession.
But think of what that means.
Now, there were a few other parties, but what it means is that the vast, vast majority of those 4 million slaves, the overwhelming majority, over 90%, were owned by Democrats.
Now, I challenge you to find this, not only in any textbook, but in any historical documentary, any PBS documentary, go to Ken Burns' The Civil War.
It is uniformly suppressed, and it's suppressed not because it's, oh, Dinesh, you're saying something controversial.
I'm saying nothing controversial.
What I'm saying is completely documented and fully accepted By every liberal and leftist historian, it's just that they don't want this fact to get out.
Yeah, well it is controversial because it's true.
It's controversial because it's true.
That's the point I want to make.
Alright, let's fast forward past slavery.
The Democratic Party was established, overwhelmingly the party of slavery, but it was also the party of of racial terrorism, of lynching, of the Ku Klux Klan, of Jim Crow, of segregation.
The Democrats were the architects of all those things.
And that is another fact that is not well known.
In fact, it was well known, it was so well known in the early part of the 20th century that the Nazis knew about it.
The Nazis, in fact, when they were crafting the Nuremberg Laws, we discussed this, by the way, in the film Death of a Nation, there's a fantastic scene where a group of Nazis around a table, senior-level Nazis, are framing the Nuremberg Laws and modeling them on the democratic laws of the Jim Crow South.
Now, do you think, though, that they thought that it was the Democrat Party and not, you know, because, again, they kind of made it seem like it was America.
No, no. So here's the thing. Here's the thing. No, they knew.
There is a leftist historian at Yale who wrote a book called Hitler's American Model.
Now this guy knows full well that Hitler had no American model.
Hitler had a democratic model, right?
The Nazis knew it was the Democrats, because they knew, first of all, it was only in the South, and second of all, they knew who was doing it.
So, they specifically said to one of the Nazis who had studied in Arkansas, they're like, you study the laws of the democratic South and show us what they are, because we're going to use them as a model for the Jews.
But the leftist historian at Yale wanted to hide this fact.
So what he did was, instead of saying Hitler's democratic model, which would have been a massive blow on his own side, he makes it the American model.
He pretends, he uses it for the anti-American purpose.
He uses it to make it sound like, look at how horrible we must be as a country.
Hitler is using America as his model.
So this is a very deceitful, although I have to say from a certain distance, very shrewd and cunning move by a progressive leftist to hide the tracks of what Hitler truly admired.
Hitler didn't admire, you know, God bless America.
Hitler didn't admire the American founders.
Hitler didn't admire capitalism.
He probably didn't admire Lincoln.
No, he didn't admire Lincoln.
He hated Lincoln.
In fact, he denounced Lincoln.
And he admired the American South.
And he admired the people who ran the American South, which was in fact, it was called the Solid South for the reason that it was solidly in the democratic camp.
Now, one of the things that's so interesting is that Throughout the 20th century, blacks ended up migrating to the Democratic Party, the overwhelming number of them, and Hispanics too.
So here you've got a party creating plantations in the North and in the South, and yet you have minority groups that are going to be exploited under this system voting for those parties.
I mean, that becomes a kind of supreme irony.
It is, but, you know, that's the dangling of the candy, really, because sometimes people want to be taken care of, and they feel that, okay, well, this party, maybe they had a really bad history, but now they're offering us goodies.
Now they're offering us a chance to have something, and not realizing that they're making a deal with the devil.
It's almost like after slavery, a plantation owner says to the newly freed slaves, hey listen, I did whip you, and I did mistreat you, and I did sell off your wife, and I sold off your kids, but now that slavery is over, I want you to re-enter my family because I've got really good things planned for you.
And here's the wonderful thing, and actually Frederick Douglass in one of his very poignant scenes, he's talking to his owner when he's a slave.
And the owner says, Frederick, the good thing about you is that you never have to worry about your happiness.
Your happiness is my problem.
I am in charge of your happiness.
Think about it.
And he was kind of trying to sell young Frederick Douglass on the idea that he, the master, would make sure that Frederick Douglass, as a possession of his, would be happy.
In other words, that Frederick Douglass' interest was somehow aligned with the master's.
I think the Democrats are still trying to do that.
They are.
They're still saying to Hispanics and Blacks, don't worry about your happiness, leave it to us.
That's right.
Except Frederick Douglass was too smart.
And Frederick Douglass, in fact, Frederick Douglass' master was not one of the harshest of the masters.
He wasn't one of these guys.
And interestingly, when Frederick Douglass was later free, he went to see this man, right?
And this man was indignant.
And he was like, why did you run away?
Why did you run away from me?
I was a kind master.
And Frederick Douglass had a very interesting thing to say.
He said, I didn't run away from you.
I ran away from slavery.
So what Frederick Douglass is saying is that it is slavery that is the oppression.
It doesn't matter if it's a good master.
And by the way, think about it.
Historically, this is what the American founders thought.
The American founders thought Tyranny, coming from the British, doesn't depend on whether it's a good king or a bad king.
Because kings are going to differ.
Some will be more benevolent, others will be more tyrannical.
But the American founders, we reject the idea of kingship because we want to rule ourselves.
And the same can be said of anti-slavery.
I reject the idea that I should be the possession of some other person.
I want to be in the driver's seat of my own life.
And I think what we're seeing now with more and more blacks more and more hispanics that are breaking with the democrats is that they are saying we're leaving we're leaving the democratic party and it's not just that we're running away from you we're running away from oppression from the intrinsic oppression that your party represents
Debbie and I have sketched, however, briefly the, we've done a sort of tour d'horizon, a kind of quick run-through of the history of the Democratic Party.
We want to come to the Democratic Party of the present, and you were just drawing my attention to an article, which was, what's it about?
How to teach your kids?
Yeah, so this is Understanding Democrats, a kid-friendly guide to political parties in the United States.
And it's a school tube, so it's on YouTube.
And it's basically propaganda for the Democratic Party.
Let's go through some of it.
It'd be fun.
So, you know, it says, have you ever heard your parents talking about Democrats and wondered what are they talking about?
Don't worry, you're not alone.
Politics can seem confusing, but it's actually pretty simple once you understand the basics.
Let's break it down.
And they go, What exactly is a Democrat?
Imagine you and your friends are trying to decide what game to play.
Some of you may want to play tag while others prefer hide and seek.
A political party is kind of like a big group of friends who have similar ideas on how things should work.
And then it basically will say, the Democratic Party is super old.
It's been around for over 200 years.
Just like people change over time, so have the Democrats.
They haven't always agreed on everything, and their ideas have evolved throughout history.
Today, Democrats are known for wanting to help people, especially those who need it the most.
They believe in things like making sure everyone has health care, protecting our planet, fairness for everyone.
I mean, I mean, I think it's interesting, not surprising of course that these digital platforms are using their sort of weaponry to do straight-out propaganda, right?
Because there's nothing, there's no discussion, there's no debate, there's no effort to contrast what Republicans and Democrats believe.
So for example, you know, If you wanted to highlight who Democrats are, you would give examples, right?
Let's say, for example, you and I sometimes use the Thanksgiving example, right?
You and I are seven years old.
We go out to collect candy.
You collect two bags.
I collect four bags or vice versa.
Right.
And we've made the effort, we've gone, knocked on the doors, I maybe stayed out later and went to more doors, I have four bags, you have two bags.
So now the question is, who gets, how is this candy to be allocated?
Right?
So the Republican solution is, he who did the work, keeps the benefits.
So let's just say in theory that I should now keep my four bags of candy, you keep your two.
The Democrats think, no, forcibly one bag should be taken from me and given to you so we both have three.
So, framing it this way, the child will go, well, which do I agree with?
In other words, we have a choice between the two parties, but they don't do that.
They use vague words like fairness as if it's obvious what's fair, whereas it's not obvious what's fair.
In fact, there are sort of competing doctrines of fairness.
Well, they don't want children to know that, to know what's fair, because as you know, that's how I taught my kids the differences between the two parties.
It was Halloween.
And their candies were to be divided, go back to the neighbors, divide your candies, and what do I keep?
Oh, just keep two.
You know, that kind of thing.
And give some to the kids who never went out?
Who never went out at all.
And so, again, trying to teach them what it is that they advocate for and what we advocate for.
I also think that this the fundamental premise that this is what parties ought to be, meaning they ought to be collections of people who share certain principles.
I don't think that today's Democratic Party is like that at all.
It operates more Like a criminal gang or syndicate in which people are brought into the system and they get defined benefits.
The benefits could be social prestige.
They could be influence.
They could be access.
So think of media reporters.
They don't make that much money, but they're given enormous access and they have a lot of influence.
Think about a guy like Mark Cuban.
He has a lot of money.
He doesn't need money from the Democrats, but he needs social prestige.
He needs acceptance.
He needs to be in the right box at the Lincoln Center.
He gets all.
The Democratic Party has the power to confer that.
And then, of course, the Democratic Party has to become a money machine for leading Democrats so that they can all run a racket.
So when they get out of politics, they're all multi-millionaires, which has happened.
With the exception, you have to go back to Jimmy Carter to when that didn't happen.
But look at the Clintons, look at Obama, look at Biden.
I'm sure Kamala Harris is just salivating over the idea that I'm gonna end up with $100 million one way or the other, whether it's money sent to Ukraine that makes its way back to me, or whether it's money from lobbyists, or whether I get a Netflix deal.
The modes of compensation differ, but it's a racket all the way through.
And I always say that this is also a parallel.
With Venezuela.
Because talk about Maduro, because not everybody knows that Hugo Chavez.
Hugo Chavez, as you know, came in, you know, rallying for the poor.
I'm going to do this and this and this for the poor.
I'm going to give you free housing.
I'm going to make it affordable for everyone.
I'm going to, you know, take you out of poverty.
All those things.
All the while, he was actually just You know, making himself rich.
Looting the country.
Looting the country.
He became a billionaire.
By the time the man died, he was a billionaire.
He had a net worth of $2 billion.
And so he was a hypocrite because he made money off the backs of the people.
When you think about it, when people demonized, look, I hate, I don't like Romney, but when they demonized Romney for being rich, Romney was like backtracking, like, oh, well, I'm, you know.
Very defensive.
Yeah.
But the thing is, Romney made money his, you know, the right way.
He didn't use government to make money.
Right.
Same with Trump.
Look at Trump.
Trump's a billionaire.
He did not use the government to make money, but all of the millionaires that were in government, that made money in government, were all Democrats, if you think about that.
I mean, it's fair to say, I think, that There are some sins that you see in common with Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats may do them more, but Republicans do them also.
But one sin that is not in common between the two is I cannot think of a Republican president, in living memory and even beyond, who has financially benefited from office.
Eisenhower didn't, Nixon didn't, Reagan didn't, neither of the Bushes didn't, Trump we know lost money.
So Trump doesn't take a salary and he loses money.
By contrast, look at the Democrats who have almost uniformly enriched themselves, at least going back now to Clinton.
Clinton over the past quarter century, Democrats have looked at government as a way to make the kind of money they could never have.
Yeah.
Think of Obama.
This is a guy who never had a job of any kind in the private sector.
He is a failure at everything he's attempted, but is able to leverage governmental power.
But he's also the media darling, right?
So pop culture loves him.
Hollywood loves him.
And so the very people that say, oh no, we're for the little people, all of a sudden become super rich and famous.
It used to be the case.
Now, when we talk about parties, there are some shifts with Republicans and Democrats.
The Republicans are becoming more, obviously, a working class party.
And I also think that, if I think back to when I first came to America, the 1980s and early 90s, if you had looked at CEOs of major corporations, for example, They inclined Republican not heavily, maybe 60-40.
And if you looked at billionaires, they broke either way.
But I would have guessed on the balance more for the Republicans than for the Democrats.
But today, it's the opposite.
Today, the Democrats are quite clearly the party of the rich.
If you made a list of their billionaires and our billionaires, our billionaires can be counted on two hands.
I mean, honey, I was looking at the money raised by Kamala and by Trump in the swing states.
The Democrats lead that department.
But that's when you say in the swing states, the money doesn't come from the swing states.
It comes for the swing states.
I'm just saying that they have a lot of money, the donors for the Democrats.
Exactly.
And let's drill into a little bit of why.
And they're the ones lining their pockets.
But so how could they be the party of the poor and we're the party of the rich when they have more money than we do?
Exactly.
And let's drill into a little bit of why.
The Democrats basically raise most of their money from New York and California.
And there are many billionaires in both those places.
By and large, it's Wall Street, it's Silicon Valley, and it's the entertainment world.
And they funnel large amounts of money to the Democrats.
The Republicans have only one rich state, and that's Texas.
But the Texas billionaire is not the same.
The Texas billionaire is actually more tight-fisted.
Then the New York billionaire or the California billionaire, a Texas billionaire will not say, by and large, I'll give one-tenth of my net worth.
Think about it.
People like Warren Buffett will say, I will give all my money to these charitable causes.
Bill Gates says the same thing.
And Soros, you know, Soros is worth $37 billion.
He's putting $25 billion into political causes.
I don't get it. I do not get it. Why is it that they cannot see this? And look, if we lose Georgia and Pennsylvania, I think we lose the White House. These are two states that Elon Musk could make the difference. People like Elon. I mean, there's... Well, Elon Musk, to his credit, Elon Musk has maybe 220 billion dollars.
He spent 40, which is a giant... That's 12% of his entire network to buy X. So, this is a guy who actually does put his money where his mouth is, right?
Now, you're saying Elon isn't investing as heavily as he maybe could in partisan politics, and maybe that's true.
Remember, he's a real newcomer.
I'm talking about people like the Koch brothers and others.
No, I know.
They have giant resources.
I get it, I get it.
And they are utterly, I don't know if utterly worthless is going too far, but pretty close to useless.
I think, look, they think that their money is safe.
And I'm here to tell them that if we become Venezuela, their money is the first to go.
Well, and not to mention the fact, I mean, exactly.
Now, they might think that they have enough, that they will still be okay, but when a guy who has a billion dollars suddenly realizes that his purchasing power has dropped, you know, by 80%, suddenly this is not a guy who is one of the movers and shakers of the world.
You have now basically, you might get by, you might have enough to get by even in a destroyed United States, but the sad truth is not only that your lifestyle is wrecked, but you are now complicit in... The destruction of it?
Of your own country, the country that sustained you and built you to where you are now.
Far from giving back, you're giving back nothing.
You are actually collaborating with the people or at least you are doing nothing to resist the people who are trying to take the country down and that will have a much more devastating effect on many of your fellow citizens.
▲
Export Selection