All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 27, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
52:02
DIRTY LITTLE SECRET Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1030
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Coming up, there is a perversion ring within the NSA, the National Security Agency.
I'll tell you about it and about agency head Tulsi Gabbard's response to it.
I'll review the Supreme Court hearing on whether discrimination against whites is an offense that is no less serious than discrimination against minority groups.
And Will Upton of the National Pulse joins me.
We're going to be talking about a bunch of issues of the day.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble or YouTube or X, Or listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please make sure you hit the subscribe button or the follow button.
I'd really appreciate it.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
America needs this voice.
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 NSA, the National Security Agency, is a cornerstone of our, quote, intelligence community, unquote.
And the job of this intelligence community is to, well, Protect the country.
Keep it safe.
Monitor and collect intelligence, which is to say information, sometimes secret information, from all over the place, usually from abroad, sometimes from bad actors at home.
And the idea here is to protect the lives and welfare.
Not to mention the property and also the digital assets of the United States of America.
But it turns out that the NSA has apparently shown a great deal of interest in a secondary topic, a topic that doesn't appear to be connected at all with intelligence.
And this is the topic of sex chats.
What is sex chats?
Well, it's basically NSA weirdos Discussing their sex lives on government time at taxpayer expense and using the messaging programs, sometimes secure messaging programs, of the NSA itself.
So this is the NSA's interlink messaging program, which seems to have been somewhat taken over by a group of trans activists.
Who use it to go into such topics as polyamory.
Polyamory is sex with multiple partners.
Genital castration.
Well, I think you know what that is.
Artificial vaginas.
A topic on which I claim no special expertise.
Piss fetishes.
I mean, I have to confess, this is one of my great weaknesses.
Piss fetishes.
Sex polycules.
I'm going to be revealing to you in this segment.
Now, you might have been wondering, why do I listen to the dimensions of the podcast?
Well, you find out about things like polycules.
Where else can you find out about such things?
Gang bangs, you might have heard about, but that's all part of it.
So, all of this is going on, as I say, in the NSA. Who knew?
Well, Let's look at some of these chat rooms, and I'm not going to go into it too much, but some of it is actually pretty disgusting, and I just want to give you a little bit of a flavor of what these people spend their office time on.
Getting my butthole zapped by a laser.
One guy is discussing the experience of that, which I must say I found pretty informative.
I've never had my own butthole zapped by a laser.
But so, I mean, again, it's highly informational.
Here's something else.
One of the weirdest things that gives me euphoria is when I pee, I don't have to push anything down to make sure it aims right.
So this is actually a trans, a guy who has...
Apparently gotten rid of his own penis, which previously he was very inconvenienced because he had to, quote, push it down when he pees.
Now he's really happy that he doesn't have a penis because he doesn't have to do that.
They go on to talk about...
Debbie says she's getting a little bit uncomfortable.
Medical science is going to give me tits one way or another.
Says a Navy Intel employee.
Guys, I think you can see here, not only are you learning a lot on this front, but you're also beginning to feel extremely safe because our national security secrets are being conserved by this group of people.
One of the chat rooms discusses polyamory.
And I'm going to now explain.
A polycule.
Is a polyamorous group.
So polyamorous groups make up polycules.
And apparently some of the other people in the chat didn't really know what's going on.
So he goes, A is my girlfriend and B through G are her partners.
And B and C are dating but not C and D nor E, F or G with any of the others.
And so, basically, we're talking about like an orgy.
Or what we're talking about here is a kind of generic swingers club involving not just people who are heterosexual, but trans.
We don't really need to go into it, but let's just say...
That this is not what Tulsi Gabbard kind of expected, or maybe she did expect it, coming into this cesspool here.
And no surprise, this gang is not just perverted.
They are also very left-wing.
Many of them are Marxists.
They hate the United States.
Think of it.
They're in the NSA and they hate the United States.
They hate the free market.
They hate our system.
And they hate Christians.
They have...
They created a trans cult within the NSA, and not only that, they're very powerful.
Everyone is scared of them, and everyone accommodates them.
Now, all of this is accommodated in the name of DEI. Well, DEI is now on the outs.
And the New York Times, by the way, in a kind of attempt to cover up for this group.
This is kind of how our media works, and it's always illuminating to see.
I've just given you the flavor of the chats.
Here's the New York Times.
The chats had been set up to discuss sensitive security matters, but a group of employees used it for discussions that contained sexual themes.
This is the New York Times.
As if to say that, you know, this is a group of literary critics discussing like Anna Karenina or Madame Bovary, sexual themes.
No, this went far beyond, quote, sexual themes.
But this is the New York Times misleading its own readers about what these groups are actually all about.
And as it turns out, the groups are also bashing the incoming Tulsi Gabbard.
So Gabbard just went on one of the TV shows.
And she basically said, A, I'm shutting this down.
B, I am canceling the security clearances of all the people involved in this chat.
And C, I'm going to be placing most, if not all, of them on administrative leave pending investigations into whether they should be fired.
So this is actually excellent.
Prompt action by Tulsi Gabbard.
In fact, nothing less than we would expect from her.
It shows us that the fight to get her through, well worth it.
This is the kind of nonsense that's been going on inside our government, and it's about time we put it to an end.
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 Earn Phone 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 earned phone after investing.
Find out more.
Visit invest.modemobile.com slash Dinesh.
That's invest.
M-O-D-E mobile.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 his 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.
Debbie and I care about our health and we've come across a remarkable device that's a total game changer.
We've integrated it into our lives.
It's called Juvent Micro Impact Platform.
It's based on the latest cutting-edge science.
It uses micro-impact frequency to promote joint health, improve bone density, boost circulation, and even stimulate the production of stem cells in your body.
Crazy, right?
But it does all this, and it works.
All you have to do is stand on it for 10 minutes a day.
That's it.
It's going to make those crinks and stiffness and aches and pains vanish, and it can even add up to five years to your life.
Wow.
You've got to learn about this new technology.
A lot to learn.
By the way, it's not to be confused with some of the gimmicky vibration plates out there.
Go to juvent.com slash Dinesh to learn more.
That's juvent.com slash Dinesh.
They've got a great deal for you.
$500 off, 10-year warranty, financing options, even a six-week buyback promise because they believe in the product so much.
Juvent can change your life.
Check it out.
Go to juvent.com slash Dinesh.
Let's talk a little bit about discrimination, DEI, affirmative action, and Harmeet Dhillon.
Our friend Harmeet Dhillon.
Harmeet is a colleague of mine.
I don't know if that's quite the right term because we didn't go to Dartmouth at the same time.
She went later.
She's younger.
But because I was on the board of the Dartmouth Review, that's kind of how I met Harmeet Dhillon.
And I always chuckle when I see Harmeet because, you know, people sometimes evolve differently over the years.
You'll go to a reunion, you see someone, they're like, you hardly recognize them, or their personality is so different.
They used to be such an introvert, and now they're an extrovert.
Interesting thing about Harmeet Dhillon is that she is exactly the same as she was in college.
And so, truly, when I hear Harmeet, and she's been testifying now, she's the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Got an important job to enforce the civil rights laws, and she's perfect for it because she is, I have to tell you, A hardcore defender of the idea of equal rights under the law.
She has no tolerance for bending the preferences either way.
She is an advocate of the colorblind society.
She always has been.
She's become, if anything, more passionate over the years.
And she did a really good job testifying.
I don't think there's going to be any real problem in her getting through.
And on the exact same topic, that this is the topic of discrimination, there's a very interesting case that was heard, just heard, by the Supreme Court involving an Ohio woman.
Her name is Marlene Ames.
Now let's follow the facts of this because they're pretty interesting.
She works for the Ohio Department of Youth Services.
She's been there for 20 years.
She's up for a promotion.
They tell her You are being denied the promotion.
In fact, we have to demote you.
Why?
Because the job that you are applying for has to be given to an LGBTQ person.
Wow.
A preference based on sexual orientation.
Now, Marlene Ames sues.
And she says, I have a right to be treated equally under the law.
But in saying that, she runs into a bit of a problem, which is that in the way that our laws have been interpreted, our laws, the civil rights law in particular of 1964, says very clearly no discrimination.
It couldn't be more clear in the language, but courts have interpreted it, pushed by the left, to mean this.
In America, there is a majority, which is whites and males.
and heterosexuals.
And then there are minorities.
And who are the minorities?
Women, even though women outnumber men.
And blacks and gays.
These are the marginalized groups.
These are the minorities.
And so courts have said that if you are a minority, it should be easier for you to sue.
You don't have to prove a whole lot.
You simply have to show that, you know what, your group is underrepresented in the surrounding population.
And if you find a couple of anecdotes, you know, this guy gave me a dirty look.
I found some graffiti in the bathroom.
Boom, you've won the case.
Easy.
Slam dunk.
But if you're a white guy or a heterosexual or a male and you sue, the idea is that, no, you have a much higher burden of proof because, after all, it's very rare that whites get discriminated against.
Now, all of this is just gobbledygook because, in reality, it is very common for whites and males and heterosexuals to be discriminated against in applying to college and applying for jobs or promotions or government contracts.
This treatment has been institutionalized in the American system for decades.
So our law is, in a sense, acting in a fantasy land where people who are white and heterosexual don't face the same disabilities or the same burdens as people who are black and female, even though if you're black and female, you're like a shoe-in at Harvard, and if you're white and male, it's almost impossible to get in.
Even if your credentials are vastly superior.
So anyway, Marlene Ames takes all this to the Supreme Court and says, not only is the whole thing crazy, but are you seriously telling me that if I apply for a job and I'm discriminated against because they want to give it to an LGBTQ person, I now have a higher burden of proof than, let's say, they would if the positions were reversed?
And something very interesting happened in front of the Supreme Court.
Namely, all of the nine justices agreed this is ridiculous.
They all did.
And not only did they all agree it was ridiculous, but even the representative of the state of Ohio, who was defending the state in the case, admitted it's ridiculous.
And then Justice Neil Gorsuch said, quote, we are in radical agreement on that today.
I think he was...
Saying with some surprise, it's not often we have a case where all the nine justices and the two parties in front of us all agree.
Agree what?
Agree that this woman is suffering an injustice.
And so it's basically a done deal.
The Supreme Court, now they didn't mention affirmative action.
They didn't mention DEI. None of this ever came up, but I think you can see it's all involved here.
And so...
You know, here's an article on CNN, Supreme Court signals it will make it easier for Americans to file, quote, reverse discrimination suits.
The truth of it is all the Supreme Court is likely to do is affirm a single standard.
You want to prove discrimination?
Be my guest.
But it's not any easier or harder to do if you are male or female or white or black or straight or gay.
One standard for everybody.
Don't stop breathing.
On February 28th, tomorrow, 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...
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, 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.
Get your tickets now for Last Breath.
Rated PG-13 may be inappropriate for children.
Under-13 opens everywhere tomorrow, Friday, February 28th, in theaters everywhere.
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 just $59.98.
The king's only $69.98.
They sell out fast every year.
Be sure to order now.
You can also save 30% on the brand new MyCrosses.
These are designed in the likeness of the one Mike Lindell has worn every day.
For over 20 years, they come in men's and women's styles, and they're made right here in the USA. Get the 2025 six-piece MyTowel set, just $29.98.
The initial quantities are low, so act now.
And I don't want to forget to mention the best-selling standard MyPillow is just $14.98.
Take advantage of the first ever mega sale.
Call 800-876-0227.
Again, it's 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code, which is D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
And one more thing I want to mention.
Remember, Mike Lindell's old deal.
Spend over $75, you get free shipping.
Well, Mike tells me that ship has sailed right now for a limited time.
Every order ships free.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome back to the podcast our friend Will Upton, political editor of The National Pulse.
He was a former Trump administration treasury official.
The website, thenationalpulse.com.
You can follow Will on X, at W Upton, U-P-T-O-N. Will, thanks for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
For sure.
Let me start by asking you about the Epstein release that is supposed to be coming today.
Now, right away, before we even talk about the revelations, there seem to be two schools of thought on this.
One of them is, get ready, guys.
Pam Bondi is about to unleash the fury.
The other view expressed by Laura Loomer and others is that...
Do not get ready because what we're going to see is going to be a real disappointment.
It might even just be a bunch of redacted stuff.
We certainly haven't been promised all of it, only quote some of it.
Are you getting all excited and breaking out the champagne or are you taking a wait and see attitude?
I'm taking a wait and see attitude.
I figure this is going to be...
Fairly heavily redacted.
She kind of, I think, pumped the brakes earlier a bit again by saying that the reason it's taking so long is they want to inform the victims and make sure that all of the victims identifying information is, you know, redacted and removed for their privacy.
So my guess is that, you know, you look at this and you look at like the old, the Palm Beach trial, and Acosta was talking about intelligence issues and things.
I have a feeling that a lot of this is going to be heavily redacted and probably not the big bombshell we were hoping for.
But I do think it's going to maybe give us some clarity here as to what exactly he was doing and who exactly he may have been working with or communicating with.
Outside of just the actual sex trafficking.
So I think that's going to be kind of the interesting maybe revelation we get here.
But Will, isn't that the very thing that they are trying to conceal?
What I mean is that it could be that Epstein was this hotshot guy who...
He had either created a private blackmail ring of his own or that he had drawn in all these powerful people because he was essentially a kind of international pimp of sorts of underage girls.
But the other thing that is sort of darkly hinted at times is that maybe Epstein was sort of plugged into intelligence services either of the United States or other countries.
And it could be that.
That that is something that the government, for whatever reason, doesn't want to disclose.
Right.
And I think what we're probably going to get out of this, I hope that we get out of it at least, will be at least some clarity as to what his role was, whether he was just running his own blackmail ring, whether he was that international pimp.
Or whether he was connected to some intelligence services.
I don't think we're going to get any names.
I don't think we're going to get, you know, Jeffrey Epstein, here's his employment contract with the CIA or something like that.
But I think we might be able to get and glean from this at least some details that provide us with a degree of clarity on that front.
And I think that's really one of the more important questions here is what exactly was sort of...
His presence, what exactly was it?
Was he, you know, just sort of a weird New York financier that was, you know, just a sexual creep and deviant and criminal?
Or was he, you know, maybe something a little bit more sinister going on here and operating a blackmail ring for himself or for a, you know, the United States government or a foreign government?
I mean, I have to say that I've been somewhat drag-kicking and screaming to the view that there is no way that this guy killed himself.
I'm reluctant to believe those sorts of things because I tend to think that these conspiracies take sort of too much work to effectively execute.
And there are too many people around who would notice that something is amiss.
But in this case, all the people around who would notice something is amiss weren't present.
Like, the camera wasn't working and the guards were either asleep or they were going, you know, they decided to take a walk conveniently at the very time.
So when you put all that together, and then, of course, the only person who testified that everything was on the up and up is the somewhat dubious Bill Barr.
You know, I've looked into it.
It looks all okay to me.
Well, it reminds me of, you know, Steve Bannon has kind of on his mantle this thing.
There are no conspiracies, but there also are no coincidences.
You know, and it's like, it's kind of true here.
It's like whether or not, you know, there was a series of events that happened in the lead up to his death that really, I think, draws some very concerning questions.
You know, the cameras are off.
The guards aren't present.
He was set to be transferred to a new cell.
Like, there was kind of a lot of stuff in motion.
That sort of allowed for a window of opportunity for something to happen.
And whether or not they figured he would just kill himself and be done with it, or somebody did it, you know, that's something that...
We may never actually know the answer to because there were no cameras, there were no witnesses.
Nobody was actually present on the cell block at the time.
I think I remember Will seeing, and this I'm flashing back now, so I'm quoting from memory, but an interview with his lawyer, and his lawyer's like, I just met with a guy.
We were discussing a motion that we were filing.
He seemed very optimistic.
So he was giving the idea that this did not seem to be a guy in the mood of despair where he might...
All right.
Let's pivot to another topic, I think quite important, and that is a decision...
It's being reported as the Supreme Court.
It's really John Roberts unilaterally deciding.
But what he did is he slapped down this judge named Amir Ali, a left-wing judge who had told Trump and told the Trump administration, listen, you cannot block this $2 billion of foreign aid.
It has been contractually agreed to.
You have to pay it out by midnight.
I mean, imagine a judge ordering the executive branch to send...
I guess his thinking was that if you send the money, it's going to be...
Really hard to get it back.
And the Trump administration made an emergency appeal.
And Robert stepped in and goes, you know, essentially vacates this judge's injunction pending the resolution of further procedures.
What does all this mean?
What's going on here?
So we've seen a series of these challenges where basically the left is trying to use the judiciary to sort of hem in.
The executive branch and what is constitutionally executive authority and what Trump has over these executive agencies, the power that he has over these agencies.
In this case, you have this Judge Ali, who, by the way, used to be the executive director.
I believe it's the MacArthur Center for Justice, an NGO, by the way, a nonprofit group that receives government funding.
And now he's a federal judge.
He was actually one of Biden's last appointees to the federal judgeship.
He passed, I believe it was 50 to 48 in the Senate.
There were two Republican senators that were absent.
We could have forced a tie vote and forced Harris to break the tie.
One of them was Mike Braun, the governor of Indiana, who's now the governor of Indiana.
He was preparing for this transition to the governor of Indiana.
This vote happened, I think, was November 20th.
The other one was, unfortunately, Senator Cruz from Texas missed the vote as well.
So he gets in here.
He's a new judge.
And I think Roberts is correct that, you know, putting a sentence because right now it looks like you have a judge interfering in what is the constitutionally, you know, protected powers of the president.
So the Supreme Court's going to have a much broader hearing on this before the full court.
They're going to figure it out.
My gut tells me Trump's going to win this fight.
I think so, too.
I mean, I think part of what's going on here, on the first glance, it would seem that these cases have absolutely no merit for the simple reason that it's the executive branch, right?
Who's the head of the executive branch?
Trump, the one guy who was elected by the people as a whole.
But I think maybe what's going on here is that the left thinks that the executive branch is divided into two.
There is a political part of the executive branch which is on the surface.
The people who nominally head these agencies and head these departments.
But I think the left thinks, and they have reason to think this because it has worked this way for decades, that there is a kind of underground career service in the government and those people operate, quote, independently.
They have their own authority.
They somehow are not accountable.
Well, they clearly aren't accountable to the legislature or they're sort of a fourth branch of government.
And that Trump is, quote, interfering with the independence of the career people.
Isn't that kind of the no one says it like that, but I think that's the fight that's going on here, don't you?
Yes, yes, exactly.
And that's sort of the line that they took with Judge Ali.
I was a little bit surprised that they stayed away from the impoundments issue.
We've seen this in a couple other cases where they've kind of gone a little bit more down that path.
So presidential impoundments, it used to be that the president could basically withhold congressionally appropriated funding from agencies.
But after President Nixon, Congress passed the Impoundments Act, and there's been two Supreme Court decisions that sort of...
Touch on the impoundments issue.
They have not stripped the impoundments power from the president entirely.
But they basically said, you know, it has to be within the realm of reason.
You can't just withhold all the funding, but you can withhold part of it.
But the one thing you notice in the USAID case is that these are just sort of the agency receives a bunch of money, and then they get a debt and decide what they do with the grants.
So they could give out none of the grants.
So this isn't really an impoundments issue, but I was a little bit surprised they didn't try to make that argument there.
And they sort of went with, like, these are already fulfilled contracts.
They went with a sort of contract argument, and that's what Ali sort of ruled on.
But yeah, I think you're 100% right.
I think the left views this as there's actually two executive branches.
There's a permanent bureaucracy, and there's the elected political bureaucracy.
And President Trump is interfering in the permanent bureaucracy, which they control.
Even on the issue of existing contracts, I mean, isn't Lee Zeldin experience relevant here where he says that days before the shutdown of the Biden administration, they moved some giant amount of money. they moved some giant amount of money.
$20 billion into Citibank to take it out of the purview of the incoming Trump administration.
So, I mean, this to me is a little bit like a bunch of thieves are about to be busted, and so they decide to unload the gold on one of the other mafia families.
Well, so in the communications that led Zeldin to this money, the Biden administration people actually referred to it as throwing gold bars off the Titanic.
People think Zeldin's the one calling it that.
It's like, no, these are what the Biden people said, that they were throwing gold bars off the Titanic.
And yeah, so they parked $20 billion at Citibank and outside financial institutions.
That was earmarked for programs.
One of the groups that was receiving, I think it was like $3 or $4 billion of it, maybe a little bit more, was an environmental nonprofit that has ties to Stacey Abrams.
It's a subgroup of a much larger left-wing nonprofit group that she's one of the general counsels at or one of the legal counsels at.
But this group had like $100 in its bank account before it got this billion-dollar grant.
You know, the Biden EPA. It doesn't just smell of corruption.
I mean, it reeks.
It's pungent.
You know, the entire air is wafting with corruption when some of these moves are.
I mean, to move $20 billion and park it in an outside financial institution in the final days of a presidency, that's stuff that you would expect, you know, in some 10-pot dictatorship in Africa, not in the United States of America.
Well, when I see that real estate values have taken a bit of a plummet in Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia, Southern Maryland, you know what that tells me is that...
And it actually explains the hysteria of the bureaucratic class as well as the Democrats, because it's not just about, hey, let's remember that there are some life-saving medicines on the line.
I mean, that's the rhetoric, right?
But in reality, it looks like a way of life has been threatened here.
And what is that way of life?
I mean, if we think of D.C. as a company town...
Normally, a company town produces something, right?
Grain or steel.
It's built around lumber.
There's something that the company is producing.
Well, here the company is producing corruption.
In other words, it doesn't produce anything else.
The Department of Education doesn't educate anybody.
The Department of Transportation doesn't transport anybody.
So corruption is kind of its stock in trade.
And now that this is being exposed and some of the money is being pulled back, I mean, for these people, it's their livelihood.
It's like the steel business all going to Indonesia.
And so they are going nuts.
As perhaps they should.
Funny enough, I grew up in Appalachian, Ohio, and when the steel and coal jobs left, whole towns sort of lost everything.
I mean, you can drive through some of these towns, and there's just empty buildings and dilapidated buildings everywhere.
And now I live in D.C. I own a condo in D.C. Watching my housing price, you know, my housing value plummet, I'm like, oh no!
But at the same time, I'm kind of like, you know, I'm okay with it because, you know, I like living here.
I like my home.
So I'm not really planning on selling anytime soon.
And two, like, this is, like, for the better.
Like, we are actually cleaning up what is exactly what you said.
All they do is they siphon off taxpayer dollars into their pet projects or into their pet organizations or into their own personal wallets.
And that's what they produce, basically.
They produce graft.
And that's what we've seen.
Because we see all these figures, bureaucratic figures like Samantha Powers, but political figures, they go into politics, their family is worth like $45,000 or maybe $100,000, and they leave politics.
Suddenly, $17 million.
And it's like, well, how does that work?
And I think what we're now realizing is it doesn't work in the very simple way.
You almost have to draw diagrams, right?
So the guy gets money, and then his son-in-law starts an NGO, and his daughter-in-law is a legal activist who's doing a legal shakedown, but she's shaking down bureaucratic figures that are sympathetic to her, so they're very happy to settle the case, and about a bunch of money changes hands.
So this is the...
This is the back-and-forth racket that we're...
And the senator ultimately gets wealthy authorizing half these payments because that money gets pushed into a trust they end up having access to.
Exactly.
It's a big...
They use the very same confusing, you know, Elizabeth Warren's a prime example of this, who has become very wealthy as a United States senator.
But you start to look at somehow, like, some of these people are doing this.
They're using the very same sort of financial mechanisms that they criticized Wall Street for using to sort of hide their money from the IRS or to, you know, reduce their tax burdens and things like that.
They're using the very same mechanisms just to basically hide the fact that...
They're recycling taxpayer dollars into their own private organizations.
Will, let's close out by ruminating on this very ingenious move, I have to admit, by Jake Tapper.
And that is, after promoting relentlessly for months, if not years, the idea that Biden is in the full...
He has all his wits about him.
He merely has a childhood stutter.
And anybody who raises questions about Biden's capacity is mocking his stutter.
There's a classic video of this where he's lecturing.
I think it was Laura Trump and telling her, you're so insensitive.
Stop making fun of Biden's stutter.
So after being the purveyor of these lies, he has now announced a book.
President Biden, it's called Original Sin, Original Sin, President Biden's decline, its cover-up, and his disastrous choice to run again.
What do you make of the chutzpah of this enterprise?
It is very bold.
Alex Thompson, who's his co-author on it, is a pretty good journalist out there, although I think he missed some of this stuff.
But throwing Tapper on there for, I think, kind of name recognition to really kind of blow it up in the press.
This guy has a long track record of running interference for Joe Biden and the Biden family and the Biden government.
And as these details have come out about, one, the press was well aware of the fact that Joe Biden was in severe mental and cognitive decline.
The White House staff, for the most part, was aware that something was up.
Now, granted, it does appear...
That a lot of junior staff or lower-level staff were sort of shielded from the president by the likes of, like, Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, who was one of the first ladies close-aids.
You had Ashley Williams, Annie Tomasini, who was the deputy chief of staff, and then Anthony Bernal.
Williams was, like, the scheduler, and then Bernal was kind of Joe Biden's right-hand guy.
They ran the White House, the three of them, and Joe Biden, basically.
So you had Joe Biden and these three staffers running the White House.
And I don't understand how anybody in the media that had any level of access would not have realized that because these are the people you would have been interacting with.
And they would have been preventing you from talking directly with the president or getting anything from the president.
And if you're sort of, you know, trying to speak to the chief executive of the United States and you keep running into these same free staffers, to me that should raise some concerns and alarm bells.
You know, who's really running the country and who's really in charge?
And I think, you know, we can now safely say for at least the past two years, two and a half years, maybe even three years, these three people ran the country, ran the United States of America.
You know what?
It would be really funny if the book appears, and it's a truly well-reported book, and one of the villains of the book is, in fact, Jake Tapper.
You know, in other words, it exposes himself as one of the scoundrels who's in.
I mean, we all know this is not going to be that way, but wouldn't it be fun if it were?
It would be, yeah.
Hey, guys, I've been talking to the one and only Will Upton, political editor of The National Pulse.
Follow him on x at wupton.
The website is thenationalpulse.com.
Hey, Will, thanks for joining me.
Yep.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Janesh.
I'm continuing my discussion of The Big Lie, and we've been talking about leading figures who paved the transition from fascists posing as anti-fascists.
People who have roots in the Nazi movement posing later as anti-Nazis.
So in the case of the philosopher Heidegger, somebody who was...
A champion of Hitler and Nazism.
Later he goes, well, no, if you read my work carefully, I'm sort of an anti-Nazi.
Marcuse, who studied under Heidegger, who was indeed anti-Nazi because he was a Jew, but he certainly wasn't anti-fascist.
But then later after the war, he posed as an anti-fascist, even though he continued to recommend fascist-type tactics.
And now we want to turn to the third, the most familiar, in some ways the most notorious.
We're going to look at George Soros.
And I'm going to look at George Soros somewhat in depth because he is the classic pattern of somebody who has roots from his youth in Nazi collaboration.
And yet he...
He purports to be an antifa, anti-fascist, anti-Nazi, claims that he's a champion of the philosopher Karl Popper and the open society movement.
Popper, of course, was an eloquent critic of all totalitarian systems, including Marxism and, of course, fascism and Nazism.
So Soros is a chameleonic figure.
And it's only by understanding Soros and the way he thinks about himself and his own past that you get a grip on this venture capitalist of the political left.
This is who Soros is.
He's the bank roller of the Democratic Party and of the left.
You hear Democrats say, billionaires are controlling Trump.
Billionaires are not controlling Trump.
But billionaires are controlling the Democratic Party, and none more so than George Soros and now his son, who is essentially taking up his mantle, Alex Soros.
So let's talk about George Soros.
He is Hungarian, Hungarian-born.
He became a billionaire through very shrewd...
Global investments and also currency manipulation.
Currency manipulation is betting on the euro against the dollar or betting on the dollar against other currencies, the peso, the rupee, and so on.
And Soros has run a very successful hedge fund, which makes these investments, called Quantum Fund.
He has become, as I say, a bankroller or a bank for a whole host of left-wing groups, groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, various environmental groups, human rights groups, so-called.
His organizations and nonprofits will fund the Women's March.
Soros Money has helped to bankroll Antifa, Black Lives Matter.
And so, who is this Soros figure?
And by the way, it is worth noting that Elon Musk has now taken on the self-described mantle of being the anti-Soros, or as Musk himself says, the Soros of the right.
But the only reason that you need a Soros of the right is to counter the Soros of the left.
And Musk and Soros, as we...
Should be able to see are actually very different people, different in their outlook, different in their motivation.
And Soros is, first of all, he has a, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say, a messiah complex or a god complex.
If this seems like an overstatement, let's consult the words of Soros himself.
quote, I fancied myself as some kind of God, end quote, Soros, quote, if truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood.
The significant point here is not that you have fantasies in childhood, but that he carried with them.
He carried those fantasies into adult life.
He was asked by Britain's newspaper called The Independent to explain this strange assertion, and here's what he said.
When you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.
What a remarkable statement.
He goes, yeah, it's an awesome responsibility, being God, making the whole world.
He goes, but I'm in my own way trying to do that.
Now, he's not making the world, of course, but what he...
I think quite consciously is trying to remake the world.
Remember Obama?
We're going to remake America.
Well, Soros wants to help Obama and the Obama-ites to do that, but his ambitions are truly global.
And it's worth asking, who talks like this?
I mean, who refers to himself as in this sort of messiah vocabulary?
And the answer is, it's people like Hitler.
Hitler was intoxicated with power, particularly after his early victories, not just the neutralization of Austria, but his invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia.
And then, of course, the kind of trophy of them all, which is when Hitler crushed the Maginot Line and took France.
Hitler was, you know, riding in a car that donned the Champs-Élysées in Paris.
And Hitler, needless to say, at that point thought of himself as some sort of a god.
And so that's the closest analogy I can think of for this kind of intoxicated Soros rhetoric.
Now, what do these Soros groups do?
They liberate criminals.
That's what the Soros-backed DAs, district attorneys, do.
The Soros grassroots groups specialize in, I would call it, the fake...
Uprising of public support.
In other words, what you do is you pay a bunch of ragtag people and often you put out ads in places, Craigslist and so on.
You advertise for...
It's like rent a mob.
$20 an hour if you show up.
We'll provide like signs and bricks and perhaps even costumes.
But you show up in Milwaukee so people will think that there's an upsurge of racism and the people, the citizens are outraged.
So this is the artificial impression hyped in the media that there's a groundswell of public support or public opposition as the case may be.
This is one of the things Soros specializes in another.
The fake racial incident.
Think of Jussie Smollett here.
Think about the guy in Florida, the race car driver who found a noose hanging in his garage.
Bubba, I think the guy's name, Bubba Wallace, was that it?
Anyway, this is all, again, contrived incidents to feed a narrative.
And Soros Money is behind all of it.
It's behind the incident in some cases.
It's behind the media that then promulgates the incident.
It's behind the non-profits who are quoted in the media articles denouncing the incident.
So, if you are not paying attention carefully, it's very easy to think, oh my gosh, look at this, you've got...
You've got the facts on the ground.
It's being reported over here.
The sources are disturbed about it.
And so clearly something must be going on.
All these people couldn't be lying.
All these people may not be lying, but they have all been put up to it.
That's the key point.
And they've been put up to it with large wads of Soros cash.
Soros' strategy is...
In activism, similar to his strategy in investments.
Typically, if you're a venture capitalist, your strategy is really pretty simple.
And here's what it is.
If I invest $1,000, I could lose it.
But here's what I do.
If I have $10,000 to invest, I don't put it all on one company because the company might fail.
Even if it seems incredibly promising, I could be wrong.
So, but what if I can find 10 companies?
And let's just say that these 10 companies have a 50% chance to go up by 10x.
In other words, they have a chance to go up 10 times their original size and return $10 for every $1 I put in.
So think of how this is kind of a no-lose system for a venture capitalist.
Here's why.
I put $1,000 each on 10 different companies.
Let's say 5 of them fail.
No problem.
I've lost $5,000.
But the other five go up 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x.
So my $1,000 becomes $2,000 or $3,000 or $5,000 or $10,000.
So in other words, I make so much money on my winners that it is quite enough to cover my losses, which are fairly modest, on the losers.
Because when you think about it with a company, the most you can lose is what you put in.
So if I put in a thousand dollars, I could lose a thousand.
But I don't just stand to gain a thousand.
If my bet works, I make two, five, ten, thirty thousand.
So the venture capital business is based on the idea that there is no upper limit to the winning, but there is a bottom limit to the losing.
And so by betting on a lot of different horses, some of them are going to work.
And Soros uses the same model for politics.
I'm going to bet on a bunch of leftist organizations.
I'm going to let all these horses run, so to speak.
And then I'm going to check in with them a year later.
And the horses that are running fast and are doing a good job from my point of view, I'm going to bankroll those and give those more money to run even faster.
So it's a very, you have to admit, even from a distance and recognizing Soros to be, as you'll see soon, I'll continue my discussion of this not tomorrow, Friday, but Monday.
You'll recognize Soros, even though he's a monster, he's a very clever monster, and understanding this cleverness helps us ultimately to understand him and also to counter his malign influence.
▲
Export Selection