All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
54:15
THE SILENT ONE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1029
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Coming up, notice one guy who is very silent with everything going on, and that's Obama.
I'll speculate on why that is the case.
I also want to talk about Jeff Bezos and his remarkable notification to the editors and opinion makers at The Washington Post.
Author Jesse Petrilla joins me.
He's going to talk about the motivations for Islamic Jihad, as revealed in his book, If It Takes a Thousand Years.
If you're watching on Rumble or YouTube or X, listening on Apple, Google or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
Hit the follow or subscribe button.
I'd appreciate it.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
I want to talk about two things in my opening segment, the first one being the silence of Obama, and the second one being some very interesting twists and turns in the landscape of Journalism, notably the Washington Post, but going beyond that.
So let me start with Obama because there is such a flurry, a blitzkrieg of activity on the part of Trump and the Trumpsters that you might expect that we would have heard something from Obama.
But isn't it odd that we haven't?
Isn't it odd that while all of this Churning and traction is going on.
And yeah, some of the Democrats are out there trying to get themselves on the front line, trying to mount opposition.
I mean, so far the opposition has been quite weak and ineffective.
And the Democrats know that.
I even see leftists in the media complaining about that, that what Jasmine Crockett is doing or AOC or Chris Murphy from Connecticut.
These are people who are out there, yes, but they are not the numero unos or even the numero dos of the Democratic Party.
We see an odd silence.
I've heard a thing or two from Kamala Harris, but not much.
Biden?
Nothing.
Hillary Clinton?
Pretty much nothing.
Bill Clinton?
Nothing at all.
He's probably just sitting around hoping his name doesn't appear on the Epstein list.
And Obama, I mean, maybe the same, I don't know.
But Obama is, I think Obama's silence is perhaps the most telling here.
And what could it be?
I mean, could it be that he took a beating in 2024?
He realizes that his project for a fourth term was thwarted?
That Trump has beaten him again.
Trump beat him, of course, in 2016 by being elected.
It was a repudiation of Obama and, in a sense, beat him again by beating his stooge, namely Biden, or at least Biden-Harris, let's put it that way.
And so maybe Obama is just cowering and sulking.
But the other possibility is that he knows.
That a lot of the corruption that is being ferreted out in the government traces back to him.
In other words, whether it's USAID, whether it is the machinations of the police state, whether it's the corruption of the FBI, all roads lead to Obama.
Virtually, even in foreign policy, the Iran deal or Think about the release of those Taliban commanders.
When it comes to the FBI, think about Russia collusion.
And maybe Russia collusion was cooked up by Hillary Clinton, but guess what?
You haven't forgotten, have you, that Oval Office meeting.
Hillary Clinton, yes, but also Obama.
And I believe Comey was there, and I'm not sure if Clapper was there.
But this is basically the...
These are the goons who decided to frame Trump as a Russian asset, knowing, of course, that this was completely false.
So I think I'll feel like this whole Trump juggernaut has really reached its fever pitch when a leading Democrat is indicted.
Now, some of these guys have been put off the hook because of pardons, whether Mayorkas or Fauci.
But think how great it would be if Obama got indicted.
Think of how great it would be if that guy was put into handcuffs, if that guy had a mugshot.
Do I think it's likely to happen?
I actually don't.
Debbie says, and I think we both agree on this, is that this guy is like...
The most protected guy in the world, even more so than the Clintons.
And those guys have been, I mean, in some ways you have to admire those guys.
They've stayed one step ahead of the posse.
And they've met from Watergate, I mean, from Whitewater to all their, to the robbing money from the Haitians.
I mean, these guys are unbelievable scam artists, the Clinton Foundation.
So, all right.
I want to now mention this remarkable, I just saw it this morning, notice that Jeff Bezos has sent to the Washington Post.
I'm writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
So he's not talking about the news page but the opinion page.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars, personal liberties and free markets.
We cover other topics, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
In other words, he's like...
You have an internet.
You want different points of view?
You can get them on the internet.
He's like, I'm committed to these things.
And he goes to David Shipley, who is the editorial editor of The Washington Post, and he says, are you committed to this new focus?
Either you are enthusiastic about it, or you're out.
In other words, I don't want some kind of lukewarm yes on the one hand, on the other hand.
You think about it, if you're not on board and enthusiastically on board, there's the door.
And Shipley thought about it, and he exited the door.
Great news, because the post has been, in the opinion pages, a complete rag.
It's been absolutely twisted and one-sided.
It has not been open to conservative points of view in any meaningful way.
It has certainly not been a defender of free markets and personal liberties, on the contrary.
And as I'm reading this stuff from Jeff Bezos, it's presented with such a kind of innocence, almost a goofball innocence, that I'm thinking, doesn't Jeff Bezos know that there's going to be entrenched resistance to this focus in the newspaper?
Not just from the editorial side, but from the news side.
And I can already see some reverberations coming from news people at The Washington Post and elsewhere.
And so I might talk a little bit more about this, pick it up tomorrow, because there's a lot to talk about here.
But my point is, Jeff Bezos is likely to encounter some overt And a great deal of covert subversion of his attempt to move the paper in this direction.
I'm very happy that he's doing it, but I think he can't be unaware that this is not only not the ideology of the paper now, I mean of the people who run the paper, who write for it, the editors and supervisors and so on.
In fact, this is the opposite of what they believe.
They don't believe in personal liberty.
I mean, they believe in personal liberty for themselves.
But they want to restrict the liberty of others.
They're happy to have censorship and social controls.
And if you were to take a poll on whether they are believers, let alone enthusiastic believers, in the free market system, I think you would find that the overwhelming majority currently are not.
Hello folks, Dinesh here.
Big Tech is cashing in trillions on our data and attention.
As a proud Mode Mobile shareholder, I'm excited to share something revolutionary.
Introducing the Earnphone by Mode Mobile.
This smartphone shares revenue with you, paying out over $325 million in earnings and savings to users.
With 32,481% growth in three years, Mode Mobile is transforming how we use our phones.
Now, find out how you can join me as a co-owner.
If you invest today, not only could you receive up to 100% bonus shares, but you can even get a free earnphone after investing.
Find out more.
Visit invest.modemobile.com.
Dinesh.
Again, it's invest.mode, M-O-D-E, mobile, M-O-B-I-L-E, dot com slash Dinesh.
The following was a paid advertisement sponsored by Mode Mobile.
Salem is not an investment advertiser, and this is not a recommendation to buy or sell securities.
Salem and Dinesh D'Souza were paid $7,140 to carry this ad on its podcast network.
Mr. D'Souza is also receiving 5,648 shares in Mode Mobile as compensation for this ad.
His investment decisions for these shares may differ from this ad's recommendations.
Salem does not endorse any investment product.
Consult your financial advisor before investing.
Grand Canyon University, a private Christian University in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Grand Canyon University, GCU, believes in equal opportunity, and the American dream starts with...
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.
Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
With 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private.
Christian.
Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
I think that the NATO alliance is in trouble and I want to say why that may not be a bad thing at all.
Not because I'm against the idea of NATO. By and large, I've lived with NATO all my life, my adult life.
I do think that NATO has served an important purpose.
But the question is, what purpose does NATO serve now?
The conflict that is jeopardizing NATO is, at the front end, all about Ukraine.
And yes, one can debate the wisdom of funding or not funding, and are we tired of funding Ukraine?
But we can also debate Trump's characterization of Zelensky as a dictator.
Trump said at one point, well, I think his approval is like 4%.
And then the Democrats said, absolutely not.
He's more popular than you.
And the polls put him at 59%.
And now these are polls, by and large, that are driven by Ukrainian sources.
They're coming out of Ukraine.
They're coming from the Ukraine side of the conflict.
They are probably no more reliable than polls that we've seen in this country that depart significantly from the truth or from what turns out to be the case.
Look, there's really only one way to figure out if someone really is popular.
Have an election.
And Zelensky hasn't done that.
Now, again, there are pretexts and excuses and reasons like, well, you know, we're in the middle of a war and our constitution forbids us from having an election during a war.
Well, all right.
But then don't say that you are overwhelmingly popular because no one really knows until you put that popularity up for a considered test in front of your own electorate.
But the NATO question is bigger than just Ukraine.
It has to do with what is NATO intended to accomplish?
Well, what it was intended to accomplish in the Cold War was to provide a kind of common defense for America and Europe against the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union was a threat.
Europe was under threat because it was actually not very many miles for the Soviets to come crashing into Germany.
And so Germany and France and England, not to mention a lot of smaller countries like Poland, wanted to have a common defense against the Soviet threat.
And because America and the Soviet Union were the two superpowers, the United States felt a keen interest in protecting Europe from the Soviets.
But we don't have any Soviets.
We don't have a Soviet regime.
Yeah, we have an aggressive power in the case of Russia, but it's no more aggressive than great powers have been through the wide sweep of history.
If you look at earlier periods, we've had powerful regimes, the Ottoman Empire, for example, out of Turkey.
These were no less aggressive.
We also have other aggressive powers in the world, notably China.
There are threats all over the world, but there seems to be no specific threat that we need this kind of common alliance to manage.
Remember, common alliances are based on common interests and common values.
But what are the common interests between America and Europe?
America is bankrolling or at least disproportionately bankrolling the security of Europe.
Well, is Europe bankrolling the security of America?
No, not at all.
So it's a one-sided type of subsidy.
And naturally, the guy who is making the payments in the subsidy is going to say, what am I getting for that?
What is the value of this subsidy?
For some time, people would answer, well, we shouldn't ask those kinds of questions because the Europeans are one of us.
They have common values with us.
We have a common tradition.
We have a Judeo-Christian root.
But the Europeans are doing their best to pull away from those roots.
And we are doing our best to pull toward those roots.
So it looks like European countries in the main, not all, there are exceptions, Hungary, Poland, maybe even Italy under Maloney.
But nevertheless, by and large, Europe is going in a different direction toward mass migration, open borders, toward the idea of going all in on Ukraine and demanding that the United toward the idea of going all in on Ukraine and demanding that the United States put at least a lion's share of
So I think for these reasons, it is not a bad idea to explore, look, we can have good relations with the Europeans.
We can trade with them, hopefully on even terms.
Obviously, Trump believes that they have tariffs.
We're going to have tariffs as well.
We do speak, we can't say a common language because there are different languages across Europe.
But there is, in fact, a common understanding.
That I think still persists between the United States and Europe, which is, after all, the ancestry of the people who established this country.
So I don't think that the NATO alliance should be jettisoned lightly, but I don't think that NATO should be taken for granted either.
And this kind of re-examination, turning NATO into an open question, I think is at this point a very healthy option.
Have you seen the news from economists forecasting a depression, not recession, depression by the year 2030?
We're in a perfect storm as Social Security and Medicare hit a breaking point with the largest generation hitting retirement.
A smaller workforce means a smaller tax base.
When you pair that with our growing national debt, rising cost of living, clearly we have a big problem.
So, what are you doing now?
to protect your family for the future.
Gold can be a safe haven in hard economic times.
Birch gold makes it easy to diversify a portion of your savings into physical gold.
Birch Gold will help you to transition an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold and won't cost you a penny out of pocket.
Protect your future today.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
You get a free information kit on gold and a copy of the Ultimate Guide for Gold in the Trump era with a foreword by Donald Trump Jr.
There's no obligation here, just information.
Debbie and I buy our gold from Birch Gold.
We've been very happy with our investment.
You can trust Birch Gold.
Text my name, Dinesh, to the number 98. Don't stop breathing.
On February 28, Focus Features invites you to experience the most inspirational film of the year.
Based on extraordinary true events, Last Breath tells the story of a deep-sea diver trapped at the bottom of the ocean.
With only 10 minutes of oxygen left, he struggles to navigate the pitch-black abyss while his teammates devise a daring plan to save him from certain death.
What happens next, some called impossible, others call it a miracle, starring Woody Harrelson, Simu Liu, and Finn Cole.
Last Breath takes you inside a world of deep-sea, high-pressure diving, where every decision, every second, and every breath is a life-or-death moment.
With incredible performances, astonishing visuals, and an uplifting emotional core, this is a truly immersive movie you cannot miss.
Witness the most thrilling motion picture event of the year on the big screen.
Guys, I'd like to welcome to the podcast a new guest, Jesse Petrillo.
He's a former...
Sorry, start again.
Sorry.
Hang on.
Let me have a sip.
Gather my thoughts.
Yeah, Jesse, I just got in on a flight this morning, so I'm a little...
Okay, here we go.
Guys, I'm really delighted to welcome to the podcast a new guest, Jesse Petrilla.
He's an author.
He's a former army captain.
His book, which we're going to talk about, If It Takes a Thousand Years, From Al-Qaeda to Hamas, How the Jihadists Think and How to Defeat Them.
Jesse is a guy who's traveled worldwide.
He's done a whole bunch of missions.
He has studied the jihadis in all kinds of places from Jordan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Egypt, but also in Europe.
And he was a liaison officer to the army, to the Afghan secret police.
And he did interrogations of over 400 captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda members.
So this is fascinating stuff.
Follow him on X@JessePetrilla.
P-E-T-R-I-L-L-A.
Jesse, thank you for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
And boy, this is a heck of a topic.
Thank you, Dinesh.
Absolutely.
Let me ask you this, in thinking about these jihadis.
We're talking about different countries, right?
Pakistan and Afghanistan, some of them in the Middle East, some of them Shia, some of them Sunni.
So they're obviously geographical and also, I suppose one could say, denominational differences here.
But it seems that underneath that, there is a certain Sure.
Sure.
There's absolutely a common thread among all the different fractured groups.
In fact, I think the fact that they are fractured really is our saving grace.
I mean, heaven forbid, if they were to ever become all united, we'd be in big trouble in the West.
The common element that I've seen among all the different groups, whether it's Hamas or Hezbollah or the mullahs of Iran, is the goal of establishing a global Islamic government known as a caliphate.
So the fight really comes down to who will rule the caliphate, how will it be implemented, and human nature is very tribal.
And we tend to break into different groups and fight amongst each other.
But it's very, very amplified when it comes to the jihadists.
So in addition to that goal of establishing a global caliphate, the fundamental difference in thinking between the West and the jihadists is that they think very long-term.
And that's the title of my book, If It Takes a Thousand Years.
Those were actually words that were told to me by a captured Taliban commander where I asked him, I said, look, we've got you caught.
How long are you going to keep fighting us?
And he said, you have me in a cage, but my children will fight you.
And if they don't win, their children will fight you.
If it takes a thousand years, we will win.
And that's really the difference between the way that they think and the way we think.
We typically only think maybe two, possibly four years in the future, which is the re-election cycle of our politicians.
They're only looking at how much they can get to get re-elected and what legacy they can leave in those few short years.
But our jihadists are thinking a thousand years in the future.
They're always focusing on...
The next generation.
And that's really, that is their biggest recruiting tool that across the board they use.
You look at Hamas' children's programs that they run where they're just brainwashing kids.
The Taliban in Afghanistan, in fact, Taliban is the Pashto word for students.
And it's because they come out of these Islamic madrasas that they run.
They aren't really recruiting people like from, I mean, I don't know, Dinesh, does joining the jihad sound like fun?
It doesn't sound like fun to me.
I don't think they're going to win a whole lot of people joining their side.
The only place that I found that was really in the prisons where they're able to reach a few folks.
But outside of that, they're really focusing on the kids.
And that's the difference.
That's the thread.
That's really the core principle, I would say, of the jihadist mindset is trying to get to that next generation.
And it seems that, do you think that this long-term perspective comes out of their religion?
In other words, is it something that they get out of Islam, out of a particular understanding of Islam?
Or if I could put it somewhat differently, if you remember right after 9-11, there was a distinction that was made between sort of the ordinary Muslims and the radical Muslims.
And the jihadis seemingly would fall into that latter camp.
Can you clarify this distinction a little bit?
Because it seemed like for a while there, after 9-11, people would talk about the ordinary Muslims as if they were liberals.
And obviously they're not.
They're traditional Muslims.
They believe in the Quran.
Sharia is not a bad word to them.
And I'm sure jihad is not a bad word to them either.
Is there a meaningful distinction here between the jihadi and the run-of-the-mill Muslim in, let's say, Pakistan or Indonesia?
or does kind of the one bleed into the other? - Well, I won't, absolutely recognize the fact that the largest number of victims of jihadist terrorism are Muslims.
But the jihadists are the ones who are saying that it's the religion that's driving them.
And if they're the ones that are saying it, I'm not going to question that that's what they believe.
There's no doubt in my mind that they believe that it's based in Islamic principles.
And I'll tell you the...
One thing that I've seen across the board with jihadists is they really only divide the world into two categories, and certainly not every Muslim does this, but every jihadist does.
It's Dar al-Harb, which is the land of war, and Dar al-Islam.
It's one or the other.
So Dar al-Harb, the land of war, is where they're trying to conquer and where they're fighting, Dar al-Islam being the...
The land that has been conquered that's now under Sharia law.
And so we see them fighting a lot in Muslim nations because they don't recognize these secular governments.
I should say the jihadists don't.
And so they're the ones that say it.
I mean, this book, If It Takes a Thousand Years, which is available on Amazon and at Barnes& Noble, it's a truth-telling book, as Dennis Prager called it.
I just say what they say.
I mean, these people truly believe that if they die in their jihad, that they're going to go to heaven.
I mean, this is just such a...
Fundamental difference, when you take the fear of death out of it, it really changes things.
I mean, there was one jihadist, just to give you an example from the book of the determination that they have.
I went into one of the cells and...
He had half of his face blown off.
I mean, it was just gone.
And I needed to get his thumbprint on something.
A lot of them couldn't read or write.
Very simple fighters, at least in Afghanistan.
A lot of the average fighters were just blindly going along with this thing.
But I go to get his...
He couldn't read or write, so he couldn't sign his name.
So I needed a thumbprint.
I go to pick up his hand to get a thumbprint.
He didn't even have a thumb.
And yet this guy is still fighting.
And I look at him and it looked like it was old, the wounds.
I mean, it was healed.
And I asked him, when did this happen?
And he told me, fighting the Russians.
And so this happened 25 plus years earlier before that moment in Afghanistan.
And here he is still fighting the jihad, still fighting against the infidels.
Whereas, I mean, I... I was in the Army.
If I lost my pinky, I'd be back at home collecting disability, playing video games.
I mean, it would be over.
And yet these guys are volunteers.
It's just crazy.
It's just such a fundamentally different mindset.
I mean, there was a young suicide bomber that was captured that I met.
He was about 12 years old.
A lot of them didn't know how old they were.
And that's another thing, is they really...
Take time out of the factor.
So they don't know how old they are.
They don't care.
But he looked about 12. And I told the Afghan agent that I was working with, I said, you know, he's real young.
That's just crazy.
And he said, that's not even the youngest.
I asked how young the youngest suicide bomber was.
And he said, six years old.
And so that's the mindset.
Somebody strapped a bomb on a six-year-old and sent him on a mission.
I mean, it's just crazy.
Crazy.
And they operate without a whole lot of technology.
There was one interrogation that we did, and the interrogator comes out laughing, and he said, you know, the Taliban stopped him in the middle of the interrogation and said, what is that stick in your hand?
He'd never seen a pen before in his life, and yet he's out there fighting the jihad, and these are the people that we were trying to teach Western.
Democratic-Republican-style governance, too.
I mean, it was bound to fail.
I mean, this is just, we went in there thinking that we can apply our mindset to them, and I think that is the biggest fallacy that we place on things, the idea that we can export democracy, export our way of thinking, that we can put our mind...
Mindset on others, but the reality is that in those particular tribal cultures, it's just a different mindset.
From the time they're little kids, they're raised to think differently, and it's something that's absolutely alien to most Westerners.
I mean, in some ways, I think what you're saying is that, I mean, I think back to Islam in the very early centuries when it was, it had the fire of its original revelation, because the Muslim armies at that time were terrifying.
I mean, they were unstoppable.
They penetrated south into North Africa.
They went east into places like India.
They went north into Europe.
They were at the gates of Vienna at one point.
There's a story I remember reading as a kid about these Indian rulers, Hindus for the most part, and they were notified that these new people, by and large coming from places like Iran and Afghanistan, had landed.
In India.
And so the Indian ruler goes, well, what can you tell me about these people?
And the answer was, well, first of all, they all dress alike.
They all dress in white.
Number two, they all fight as one man.
There's sort of no distinctions among them.
And they are all committed to a single cause.
And they fight like a single human being with like nothing to lose and no fear.
And it says that the Indian guy was like, that's actually kind of terrifying.
That's the worst kind of opponent you want to go up against.
And as you are relaying your description from these interrogations, what I'm getting out of it is that, you know, it's like Islam has not lost the force of its original revelation.
You think that in some ways that could be true?
I say it because over time, if you think about...
You know, Christianity today, it's very different than it was, let's say, in the Crusades.
Or it's very different than it was in the early centuries when you had the early Christians.
But it looks like Islam today would be recognizable to Muhammad.
I mean, I may be kind of going out on a limb here, but do you think I'm onto something?
Well, I think it comes down to the tribal mindset that's very different.
I mean, the places we have to remember for 1,400 years, A lot of these tribes have been under Islam, and Islam has evolved and came from these tribes.
And so a lot of it, it's very intertwined, just this generational warfare type of thinking that predates Islam, especially in Afghanistan.
You have these tribes that have been fighting for tens of thousands of years.
But Islam adds another element to it.
And so it's a...
I mean, they're really...
They do...
They fight incrementally.
That's the thing.
They really look at this, hey, we're just doing our small part as a cog in the machine.
They don't really...
I mean, humans will think individually, but the whole jihadist cause in general really does put an emphasis at incrementally making that step toward establishing a global Islamic caliphate.
So if their kid goes and a jihadist goes and sends his kid to blow himself up and makes that one little step as a martyr, I mean, it just...
If every step just gets a little closer to that, they're happy.
One thing, too, I think that should be pointed out is it's not personal.
I mean, that's the biggest takeaway that I had of interacting with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was that they really, they seemed genuinely warm.
And that's the scary thing, is that they don't want to kill you, Dinesh, or me, Jesse.
They want to kill all of us.
And so it's like frogs being boiled.
Destroy our society, even if it takes a thousand years.
And so that was a big takeaway.
The counter to that is also true.
It's not personal against them.
We don't hate individual Muslims, certainly, and even, I would say, individual jihadists.
We hate the jihadist ideology.
And I've met plenty of great people who used to be fundamentalist Muslims who changed.
I mean, you look at Waleed Shubat, for example, or other people who have been engaged in terrorist acts, and then suddenly they see the light and change.
Waleed became a Christian.
Other people, they've left to various ideologies or became secular.
I think the internet is going to, and it already is, really shaking up the jihadist cause.
It's being utilized by them, but at the same time...
Having those parts of the world get connected is showing the people that there's another way.
And they're able to question their leadership.
They're able to question ideology.
They're able to explore their spiritual journey without the threat of being killed when they're just doing it from their own phone or internet.
Whereas before, it was very easy for these people to control the narrative and to control what's taught in the Islamic schools and in the...
And what the tribal leaders tell you.
But now it's different.
I mean, and we're seeing this real, to quote Wafa Sultan, who's a wonderful lady that's from Syria, if you're familiar with her.
She said, it's not a clash between civilization.
It's a clash between the civilized and barbarism.
I mean, this is really, it's a fight that every, It's just so terrible.
And every piece of news that comes out makes me think that we're doing the right thing to speak up.
It's a battle that needs to be fought.
And if we could close out on this, Jesse, what you seem to be saying is that even though...
At the first glance, you are dealing with people who are to many...
I mean, to some way, people might think they're almost like aliens, right?
And by that, I mean they have a different...
We're so used to reading in college about Maslow's hierarchy in which people first pay attention to their basic needs, and then they pay attention to some sort of second-tier wants, and then finally they reach the stage of self-actualization.
But of course, all of that is embedded within this idea that somehow becoming self-actualized is like the highest goal of a human being, and that may be the highest goal of...
Certain modern Western people, but it's not the goal of humanity universally.
And so do you have in your book a way of thinking about how one could deprogram a jihadi or show him a different way, but in a way that would appeal to that guy and maybe get him to think, I'm not doing the right thing by going this way.
I should go another way.
Well, I mean, you know, it really is an alien world.
I'm a huge Star Trek fan, and I think we're either facing a future of Star Trek or Stone Age.
It's going to be one or the other.
And, I mean, it's funny you'd say that.
Dealing with some of these people, particularly in Afghanistan, where you see them beating their chest, it is a good day to die, type attitude, it really reminded me of the Klingons.
I mean, that's for lack of a better analogy.
But it's just, it's really...
We're fighting an ideological war, and I think the solution is not so much to Convert a jihadist, but to get to the next generation.
And mainly, it's about preserving what we've got here.
In America, we have something so special.
And I mean, if you're listening to this, you're probably already aware, but are your children?
That's the biggest thing.
I mean, what's worse, isolated terrorist attacks or a generation of pro-jihadist zombies that we see these days on college campuses?
You know, there was a survey that was done that was reported by NBC that showed one out of eight college students actually outright supported the Hamas attack, and 48% didn't even blame Hamas.
So, I mean, we need to remember those are the voters of tomorrow.
These are our children.
And we have to get to the next generation.
I mean, this is a bipartisan issue, and it's unfortunate to see that...
A lot of folks on the left, specifically with the mainstream Democrat Party, have not risen up with a few exceptions to push back on this uneasy alliance that they've made with the jihadists.
And my message to the Democrats who are fighting against us is if the jihadists ever take over, we'll either hang together or hang separately.
This is something that will come for all of us.
It's not going to stop.
Have this goal.
They think that they're on a...
God-commanded mission of establishing a global Islamic government.
And it's really, I'm thankful that we have a president right now who's saying what most leaders are thinking but won't say on a lot of these issues.
I mean, this is particularly Israel.
You look at what's happening there, it's just one battle.
You mentioned multiple battles from the gates of Vienna to attacks on India to the Moors.
All these different jihad campaigns that have been throughout history, it did not start in 1948, and it's not going to stop if, God forbid, the jihadists ever did destroy Israel.
They're coming for all of us in the West.
They want us all to submit or die.
And I think you're saying they're not going to make an exception for like Adam Schiff or Bernie Sanders.
No, certainly not.
They get a certificate of exemption.
No, we're all in their sights.
Guys, I've been talking to Jesse Petrilla.
The book, If It Takes a Thousand Years, From Al-Qaeda to Hamas, How the Jihadists Think and How to Defeat Them.
Available on Amazon, Barnes& Noble, wherever you get books.
Jesse, thank you very much for joining me.
Well, thank you very much, Dinesh.
You are a warrior, and I really appreciate the opportunity.
And if anyone wants to connect with me as well, they could go to joinjesse.com.
That's J-O-I-N-J-E-S-S-E dot com.
And looking forward to connecting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MyPillow is excited to announce they're having the first ever mega sale on Overstock Clearance.
And brand new products.
For example, you can save over 50% on this season's flannel sheets.
The queen size is only $59.98.
The king's only $69.98.
They sell out fast every year, so be sure to order now.
You can also save 30% on the brand new MyCrosses.
These are designed in the likeness of the one that Mike Lindell has worn every day for over 20 years.
They come in men's and women's styles.
They're made right here in the USA. Get the 20-25 six-piece...
My Towel Sets, only $29.98.
The initial quantities are low, so get them now before they go.
I don't want to forget to mention the best-selling standard MyPillow, just $14.98.
So take advantage of the first-ever mega-sale.
Call 800-876-0227.
Again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget the promo code, D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
And one more thing.
Remember Mike Lindell's old deal.
If you spend more than $75, you get free shipping.
Well, Mike tells me that ship has sailed.
Right now, the deal is even better.
For a limited time, every order ships free.
I'm continuing my discussion of the big lie, and we're in a latter section of the book where we're looking to see how the big lie itself...
The idea that somehow fascism is right-wing, Nazism is right-wing, and opposition to fascism is left-wing, and the left gets to be antifa or anti-fascist.
How was that deceitful formula sold in America?
I talked the last time about the Frankfurt School.
About Theodore Adorno, one of its founders.
I mentioned Herbert Marcuse.
And I want to dive into Marcuse's book, which is called Civilization and Its Discontents.
The section of this chapter in my book is called The Sex Pervert as Anti-Fascist.
And we're going to see Marcuse developing a completely twisted and false...
He's going to identify fascism with sexual conformity, straight-lacedness, tradition, heterosexuality, the family, and he's going to define anti-fascism as being bohemianism, sexual experimentation, homosexuality, free love.
This is an inversion of the facts.
Because as I'm about to show you, the fascists were not straight-laced at all.
They did not believe in traditional roles.
They were densely populated with gays and perverts of every stripe.
Even the leading Nazis all had a...
A queer streak, if I can put it that way, or at least a bohemian streak, as I'm about to show you.
So this is a real big lie by Herbert Marcuse, but it was a big lie that he was able to sell, and partly he was able to sell it because it was the 60s.
There was a kind of sexual revolution that was burgeoning or getting going, and so a lot of young people were in a frame of exploration.
Challenging traditional lifestyles.
And so here comes this guy with, again, with a sort of a German accent.
He never presented himself, Marcuse never did, as some kind of a hippie.
He was very different in this regard from, say, Timothy Leary, who would say things like, you know, tune in and drop out and take drugs, and he took drugs himself.
Marcuse's style was, I'm the disinterested academic.
I'm making an argument, but it was an argument that fell on receptive ears.
I think that's the point I'm trying to make.
And he gave all these bohemians of the 1960s the sense that they were somehow enrolled in a noble cause, namely the noble cause of anti-fascism, somehow by challenging authority.
By challenging their parents and challenging their teachers and their preachers and the Bible and the structures of their traditional society, they were somehow fighting against Hitler.
I mean, this is putting it in a crude way, but it captures, I think, the appeal.
You can see pictures, if you look back, of Marcuse sitting with a bunch of hippie types, and they're looking very devotionally.
Up toward him as if he is their guru.
And it's because of the message that he was selling them.
And a message not rooted in any kind of reality, as I'm about to show you.
Now, Sigmund Freud had argued in a book called Civilization and Its Discontents.
Marcuse's book, by the way, is Eros and Civilization.
I might have misspoken earlier.
The book Civilization and Its Discontents is Freud.
Marcuse is eros and civilization.
And Marcuse's book argues the exact opposite of Freud.
So Freud's view was that civilizations are built by repressing sort of erotic or sexual impulses.
You push them down and you focus on...
On building civilization, but if you allow, if a society allows these sort of erotic or primal instincts to run loose, you get social chaos.
And Marcuse argued the opposite.
He argued that no, he said that technological capitalism is very repressive and that it comes at the expense of, like, the libido.
I think he talked about, quote, the sacrifice of the libido.
And essentially, Marcuse was, let it all hang out.
Go ahead and experiment.
He talked about, he attacked the idea of monogamy.
He talked about why is there a social taboo on so-called perversions, meaning he was in favor of these perversions.
And all of this, again, this is the big pose, is in the pose of fighting against some kind of fascism.
Now, let's take a look at the fascists themselves.
I'm going to start here with Hitler.
Hitler was a Bohemian.
He started out as a painter and an architect.
He hung out in the Bohemian districts of Schwabing near Munich.
If you've seen our film, Death of a Nation, it's all shown right in that film.
Hitler had a mistress.
He wasn't married, Eva Braun.
Now, Hitler and Eva Braun did get married, but guess what?
They got married a day or two before they both committed suicide.
Their vow till death do us part basically lasted for a matter of hours.
Hitler was also a vegetarian.
And so this idea, again, that Hitler was some kind of a traditionalist, he was a family man, not so at all.
Let's look at Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's number two.
This guy was also a kind of deviant.
His secretary was his mistress.
He was actually obsessed with natural foods, and he was an avid proponent of organic farming.
I don't think this is funny, but it is sort of peculiar.
Himmler would show up at Auschwitz, and the guards at Auschwitz would think that he had come to sort of check on the prisoners or to see if the gas chambers...
No, Himmler was actually...
Coming to visit the vegetable garden at Auschwitz.
He had a particular interest in some of the vegetables that were growing there.
And so he would make kind of Auschwitz stopovers to check out the vegetable garden.
The historian Stanley Payne says that a number of the Nazis were early environmentalists.
Let's look at Goebbels.
He was an atheist.
He was a philanderer.
He had an affair with a Czech actress named Lida Barova.
In his early days before he joined the Nazi party, Goebbels wanted to be a writer.
He was kind of a Greenwich Village guy, and even if you look at pictures of him now, you see that he's kind of a bohemian.
I think if Goebbels were living today, he would probably be living on Canal Street, or he would be living somewhere in Soho, and he'd be teaching romance languages at Columbia.
So this is who the fascists and the Nazis really were.
Mussolini was a Bohemian.
He was, in fact, he was a violinist, and he lived in a Bohemian community in Italy.
He was notoriously promiscuous.
He was also an atheist.
The Nazis were densely populated with homosexuals.
Ernst Röhm, who was the head of the Brown Shirts, was notoriously gay.
And Hitler, in fact, was challenged by people who sometimes said, You've got so many gays in the Nazi movement.
And Hitler was like, well, I don't really care whether they're gay or not.
And Hitler basically said that these guys are good fighters.
I'm not interested in what their lifestyle is, so to speak, which is another way of saying that Hitler was knowledgeable about and tolerant of the bohemianism of the Nazis.
So the point here is that the interpretation of Nazism as somehow repression is false.
This was an invention of the Frankfurt School.
It was an invention of Herbert Marcuse.
It's the big lie as represented in his book Eros and Civilization.
A false picture of fascism and Nazism is now imported into America under a kind of banner or imprimatur of scholarly authority by a group of left-wing Marxists,
▲
Export Selection