All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
55:33
SON OF GEORGE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1095
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'm going to talk about this attack in Colorado against some pro-Israel marchers by a guy named, you guessed it, Mohammed.
I'm also going to talk more broadly about how Sharia, if it comes to America, is likely to wear an American face.
I'm going to consider the Asian-Indian backlash to the Indian-American valedictorian at MIT who went on a pro-Palestine rant.
And author and journalist Matt Palumbo joins me.
We're going to talk about the schemes of the younger Soros.
This is Alex Soros, whom seems to be in the image of, if not worse, than his notorious father.
Hey, if you're watching on YouTube or XRumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
Hit the subscribe, the follow, the notifications 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.
guest.
music music music We have a result, and it turns out to be a good result, in the election in Poland.
And that is that the pro-Trump candidate Now, Rocky has won and defeated the globalist, pro-EU liberal, the guy named Trasovsky.
Now, Poland used to be under a conservative government.
It slipped into EU-slash-globalist hands, and this was a very important election for the future of Poland.
EU, the World Economic Forum, the globalist forces recognized that they couldn't pick a far left winger in Poland.
That guy was going to lose for sure.
And so they picked someone who's reasonably to the center, but nevertheless, one of their own, kind of a globalist puppet.
And this guy, Trasovsky, was leading.
In the polls, really to the last day, he went into the election expecting to win.
The media in Poland and in Europe said he was going to win, and he lost.
So the right-wing candidate, Nawrocki, surged ahead of him.
It was close, basically 51-49, but Poland has been, well, to some degree, rescued.
And this is important because there have been recent setbacks, I would say, for the global MAGA agenda.
And by that, I mean specifically election reversals in Canada, where Mark Carney defeated Pierre Poilev.
And in Australia, where the Liberal Party of Albanese, Albanese, was re-elected, defeating the...
But you can view both Albanese as well as Carney's elections as reversals of MAGA-ism at the global stage.
But now in Poland, we have at least a win on the other side, and that means there is a very clearly...
I would mention Bukele in El Salvador, Malay in Argentina, Giorgio Maloney in Italy, and of course Trump.
And now, Navarraki.
So, there is a global right that's emerging and has become established along with other figures, Nigel Farage in Britain, Gerd Wilders in the Netherlands and others.
And the woman in Germany.
Also, what's her name?
Marine Le Pen in France.
So this is the global right.
All right.
An interesting post by the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, yesterday.
We eliminated the head of Hamas again.
He happens to be a sinwar, too.
I think it's the third sinwar.
Who has been eliminated?
And somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I post the following quote tweet.
Well, now there are only 123 Sinoirs left.
I say, I hope the remaining Sinoirs connected with Hamas will consider leaving the group.
The Israelis don't want to have to keep reducing the number of Sinoirs.
So apparently Sinoir, well, the Sinoir bloodline is being endangered here because all these guys turn out to be.
I'm going to come back and talk about the issue of Palestine in a little bit.
But I want to make a point that I get from Cheryl Atkison about the Jeffrey Epstein video.
Because we learned from Kash Patel and also from Dan Bongino that one of the reasons that they believed that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself is because there is a video.
And right away you have to say, wait, there's a video?
We were led to believe that there was no video.
We were told pretty emphatically by the government, and also I remember Bill Barr said, I've looked into it, and that the surveillance was turned off.
And moreover, that the guards were not on the scene, and so...
Now it turns out there is a video, not a video of the act itself, but apparently a video of Epstein and who's going in and who's going out.
And why don't we have this video?
I know that there was some reference to we're working on releasing it, but I think this is part of what makes some of the MAGA, faithful, suspicious.
What is there to, like, work on?
Are you cleaning up the video?
Are you changing it in some way?
Why don't you just release the video?
Now, the answer may be, well, we're working on investigations.
It's an ongoing investigation.
There may be prosecutions that come out of it.
But even if that is the case, there is a difference, I think, conceptually between disclosure and You can release the video.
Everybody looks at the video.
And then you can look based on a video and see if there are any culpable figures that need to be called to account.
I'm making here a point not just about this specific video, but about essentially disclosure in general.
Maybe the statute of limitations on the Epstein client list has passed.
Maybe.
But guess what?
It's a very good form of punishment just to release the names.
Why haven't the names been released?
Well, we're reviewing the names.
Well, why do you need to, quote, review them before you release them?
We're not talking about the names of victims.
We're talking about the names of the people who were customers of this child or underage trafficking network.
I don't think it makes any sense.
And this brings me now to the topic of the day, and that is this attack in Boulder, Colorado.
Of the pro-Jewish, pro-Israel marchers who are marching, by the way, peacefully.
I know in some cases I saw a couple of newspaper headlines, the peaceful march, and they put peaceful in quotes as if there is some question about whether the march was peaceful.
The march was eminently peaceful.
Like 60-plus were in the march.
And what happens?
Well, this guy named Muhammad.
Right there, that should kind of tell you something.
Muhammad.
Apparently, throws a kind of Molotov cocktail, which sets people ablaze, some five people ablaze.
No one dead, fortunately, but people suffering injuries and being treated for those injuries.
And this is quite clearly a terror attack, and it's an ideologically motivated attack.
and the guy shouts something about Zionism.
You got a guy throwing Molotov cocktails, whose name is Muhammad, decrying Zionism, and then you open up headlines from NBC and other places and they go, the motives of the attacker remain unclear.
Now, I even see the bolder PD, quote, we are not calling it a terror attack at this point.
It's way too early to speculate on motive.
Well, At some level, I know what he's saying.
All incidents need to be investigated.
The full story is probably fairly complex.
But the kind of baseline motive couldn't be more obvious.
And that is, you've got basically a radical Muslim who is against Zionism, sees these people as Zionists, says so out of his own mouth, and then like firebombs them.
So, is it really that hard to see that A, this is a terror attack and B, it is motivated essentially by Islamic radicalism and Debbie's now telling me from the side that he's been planning this for a year.
The other interesting aspect of it and Trump was talking about it this morning, is this guy's status.
He's, well, he's an illegal.
And he's an illegal not in the sense that he sneaked into the country, but he's an illegal in that he overstayed his visa.
He entered the country illegally under Biden, and then he overstayed his visa.
And the other thing I want to point out is that, so, you know, you have this guy, this Muslim guy, who is an illegal, and yet if you scour the headlines about it, either they're very neutral, a man, a suspect, an attacker, or on MSNBC, I heard a white male.
He's not a white male.
This is a guy of Egyptian background who is...
I mean, you can see here what MSNBC is doing.
They're trying to fortify the idea that was promulgated under the Biden administration, repeated, by the way, by Christopher Wray and other people, that, you know, white supremacy is the most dangerous thing facing the country.
So they're trying to feed that false narrative.
And they do it by shoehorning people like this guy.
Muhammad Sabri Solomon into the kind of white camp as though he's some sort of member of the Proud Boys and as if he's like against illegal immigration as opposed to being an illegal himself.
It's a pretty interesting visual to see this guy, Muhammad Solomon.
He's standing on the grass.
He's wearing jeans.
He's shirtless.
He's holding two white bottles that appear to be Molotov cocktails.
In other words, to have flammable liquid in his hands.
And interestingly, behind him, against the background of the courthouse, you see a big pride flag.
So this is, you know, in one single image, you can sort of visualize the left.
It's the pride people.
It's the trans people.
It is the pro-Palestine people, it's the pro-Hamas people, and it is domestic terrorism.
Think about that.
Think of the amount of domestic terrorism that has come out of the trans movement, come out of the pro-Palestine, pro-Hamas movement, let's say in recent years.
It appears to dominate the types of terrorist incidents that have been certainly publicized in the news.
Let me turn from this to what's happening in New York, where you have a very dynamic Muslim guy named Madani, who is running for mayor against Eric Adams.
He started out as a no one.
He was just in the back of the race.
He's evidently now almost caught up to Adams.
Can he beat Adams?
Maybe.
You know, the remarkable thing is this guy appears to be an Islamic radical, but an Islamic radical who looks and acts like Obama.
In other words, he's duplicitous, but he's well-tailored, he's presentable, he's relatively young, he is energetic, he's very clever.
His big issue right now is not Palestine.
It's rent control.
He wants to impose rent control.
Now, rent control, as an economic idea, is disastrous because ultimately what happens is that it basically causes landlords to say, I'm not going to rent.
I'll take my apartment off the market.
The amount of housing units goes down.
Why?
Because you're essentially controlling the rent and you're not allowing Landlords to be able to tell people, listen, I want to raise the rent and if you don't want to pay, you're going to have to leave.
It's more difficult to evict people and so on.
And the net effect of all of this is typically to make places, apartments harder to get in New York.
But leave aside the economic wisdom or unwisdom of all this.
It's a popular idea.
People are like, yo, I don't want to pay anymore.
I like rent control.
Let's fix the rent really low.
And then the landlord can't really take advantage of me.
And so this guy is riding this issue.
And the point I'm making here is that this is the face of American sort of Sharia.
And by that I mean that when we think of, will Sharia come to America?
And I'm not saying Sharia has come to America or even that it will come to America, but I'm saying the prospect of it generally is envisioned by most people.
They think, well, you know, you're going to have like Bin Laden or you're going to have some guy that looks like the Ayatollah Khomeini, an 80-year-old with like a long beard.
No.
In America, Sharia doesn't look like that.
Look, you have a middle-aged, successful attorney, somebody who lives in the suburbs, and someone who you would not normally think of as any kind of a bomb-throwing radical, and yet that's kind of where her views are.
You take this guy, this Madani fellow.
He looks like some guy who works at a high-tech company.
He looks like a guy who's like...
But you can see that behind him is a kind of Ilhan Omar type ideology.
And what these guys are doing is making that kind of ideology respectable.
The final thought about Megha Vamuri.
This is the valedictorian at MIT.
This is the Asian Indian woman, American born.
And what does she do?
She goes up and gives a free Palestine speech.
Now, she had submitted the speech to MIT.
And she kind of embarrassed the university because she didn't tell them that she was going to make any kind of political statement.
And so MIT is actually these days quite worried because they've seen what's happening with Harvard next door.
And so they punished her and her family.
They basically told her, you're not going to be able to be part of graduation, the ceremony.
You and your family are excluded from the event.
We're not taking away your diploma.
But we're going to take away your celebration of this event.
You're receiving your diploma in the formal way.
And what's interesting here is that this young woman, Megha, is getting a lot of India backlash.
She's getting a lot of people from India basically saying, listen, the Muslims came to northern India.
They could not have been more bloodthirsty and vicious.
They conquered a large part of the country.
They ruthlessly exploited the Hindus.
This is all part of Indian history.
And yet you, Indian-American, foreign-born Indian, doesn't talk about this, doesn't actually draw attention to something that people need to know more about but know nothing about.
Instead, what you do is you go woke.
And you start mouthing or repeating the slogans of wokenom.
you take the Palestinian side and the Muslim side of an issue, even though your own ancestors have been, you know, you may say, ruled over and often with an iron fist by exactly these very same people.
I think this is interesting and I mention only because I think that They're probably going to tell her, listen, don't go down this road because you're going to get abused by some of the very people whose opinions they cherish.
So we as MAGA conservatives can rail against MAGA Vamuri, but she's not going to care that much about it.
But when she hears from other Indians...
I think this is going to do more to cause her to pull back than perhaps anything that we could do.
The Trump administration has their sleeves rolled up, they're streamlining a bunch of monumental moves right now.
But, you know, it's difficult for them to take your personal finances into account when trying to fix the country.
You have to do that.
Now, tens of thousands of Americans have done that by buying gold from Birch Gold.
Here are some facts.
In the past 12 months, the value of gold has increased by 30%.
Very good.
Central banks are buying gold in large quantities.
Why do you think they're doing that?
The Rio Reset on the horizon, where BRICS nations are looking to unseat the U.S. dollar as the global reserve.
Now, you need to do something.
You can find peace of mind in gold, and Birch Gold makes it easy for you to convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold.
Or you can just buy some gold to store at home.
Just text my name, Dinesh, to 989898.
Birch Gold will send you a free information kit on gold.
There's no obligation, just useful information.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, so they can help you diversify your savings today.
Get started.
Text the word Dinesh to 989898.
Most of us think Medicare is something to deal with someday, one day.
Well, that's kind of how I felt until recently.
Now, I'm 64. The moment you hit that number, it begins the junk mail, the robocalls, the TV ads with, well, washed-up celebrities.
None of it makes any sense.
The more I looked into it, the clearer it became that this Medicare system is meant to be confusing.
Now why?
Because it lets big insurers profit from your uncertainty.
In fact, the DOJ just filed a major lawsuit accusing some of the largest Medicare brokers of misleading seniors, steering them into plans that paid the highest kickbacks and not the best.
Now, this is why I turned to Chapter.
Chapter is independent.
The advisors walk you through every option, unbiased, pressure-free.
They help you find the plan that's right for you and all at no cost.
So if you're turning 65 or even if you're over 65, do what I did.
Call Chapter.
Here's how you do it.
Dial pound 250 and then say Dinesh.
Don't let big insurance decide for you.
Take control.
Call Chapter today.
That's pound 250.
Keyword, Dinesh.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast Matt Palumbo.
He is an investigative journalist and author.
His new book, The Air.
Inside the not-so-secret network of Alex Soros.
So this is Alex Soros, the son of the notorious George Soros.
Matt is the manager of BonginoReport.com.
Also, you can follow him on x at MattPalumbo12.
And the website is just BonginoReport.com.
Matt, thank you for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
I must say that...
I mean, I know that you have this guy who has been the champion of what he calls the open society.
And yet at the same time, he has been promoting these left-wing DAs, district attorneys in America that appear to be trying to increase the volume of crime in cities.
He seems to be involved with all this nefarious stuff in America.
We also know that he's doing all kinds of projects abroad.
And yet, of late, it looks like George, the father, has been pulling back, and Alex Soros, the son, has been coming into the forefront.
Help us get started on just unraveling or understanding what is this, quote, family business all about?
I mean, some people would just say, well, they're just trying to take down America and Western civilization.
Are they?
I mean, it sounds like an overly simplistic explanation, but after investigating him, and I also have a book on George Soros, this is the sequel, that's really the only conclusion you can come to in that this vision of an open society, like with all things with the left, the language is really the only positive aspect of their agenda.
But when you look into what it actually is, it's a disaster.
And you mentioned the rogue DAs, which Alex has doubled down on it.
I go into that, And then they never really read the score on how that actually goes.
But, you know, this is something George Soros has been doing since at least the fall of communism.
and he played a role in helping a lot of communist countries transition to capitalism.
And this has been misrepresented by him as...
But in reality, you know, there's a lot of state-owned assets that had to be privatized.
And he was able, through his connections, to buy up a lot of them for pennies on the dollar.
So that was the real motivation there.
And he has, throughout his lifetime, donated $32 billion to his Open Society Foundation, which is the conglomerate he runs to.
His son, Alex, inherits $25 billion.
And despite Alex taking over in June of 2023, George is active.
in other ways.
So it was made headlines ahead of the election that Odyssey was being bought by George Soros.
And it is the case that, This actually was George.
He's still running his hedge fund, and he bought up Odyssey, which is a major network, Radio Manby, Crooked Media, which runs that Pod Save America podcast.
So he's still involved in media behind the scenes, but Alex has taken over the OSF, and for the most part, it seems like it's just continued on autopilot.
And it took me and Joe Vaz, because of the Media Research Center, three months to go through.
But we went through every single climate grant since 2016, which is the earliest date the OSF offers data.
And it was something like $170 or so million spent on environmental issues up until Alex took over.
Since then, they've pledged over $430 billion.
So he is going the green activist route.
He's backed a lot of Green New Deal type groups.
And the other thing about them is they're almost umbrella groups to other far left causes.
Like, you know, Sunrise always makes these headlines for blocking off highways.
But for some reason, Palestinian activism is their second biggest issue.
So all the climate groups just kind of branch out to a million other sort of schizophrenic left-wing causes.
Yeah, I mean, it looks like Soros...
Antifa, BLM, the trans movement, the whole criminal network.
You mentioned now the Palestinian cause, climate change.
And do you think that at the bottom, what is driving all this is, I mean, there seems to be in Russia, for example, now a kind of gangster capitalism that has replaced the old revolution.
And even under communism, as you know, the ruling class lived like gangster capitalists.
In other words, they had things that nobody else had, private homes and so on.
So in some ways, the transition wasn't such a dramatic one, at least for those types of guys.
Do you think that that's the Soros model to have a society that is kind of crumbling and in decay?
But what happens is the government in league with certain organs of enterprise come in and like take over the homeless and like manage the homeless and then take over the prison system and manage.
Yeah, I think it is a sort of burn it all down to rebuild that whoever you want it and manage whoever you want it.
And it does seem to have benefited them.
Greatly financially.
And that if you look at George Soros' hedge fund, its returns in terms of percent return on investment are the second highest of any hedge fund that has ever existed.
Only Bridgewater Associates' Ray Dalio's fund has outperformed.
And, you know, it could be the case that he is the second best trader of all time.
But to think he's not using his political connections, I think, would be delusional.
And he has been convicted of insider trading in a French court before.
And, you know, I assume he can use his connections to sort of get out of trouble elsewhere.
But yeah, he has definitely used it to his benefit.
And there is really no example I could find where he intervened and things got better.
I mean, he, for instance, they said he cited and his son has as well, you know, Baltimore as the prime example of his drug policy being a success in terms of so-called harm reduction.
And it's not only our overdose is up, crime is up, too.
And I've just I've gone through everything.
I just cannot find.
Anywhere where anything has improved under him.
I mean, if you're a, let's say, a bank robber, right?
It doesn't make any sense to tell the bank robber, hey, listen, stop robbing banks because if everybody robbed banks, then nobody would put their money in banks.
The banking system wouldn't work because the bank robber is not trying to improve the banks, right?
The bank robber is just trying to loot the banks.
He could care less whether the bank shuts down or people put their money or don't put their money in.
So if you look at Soros, He's not trying to fix crime.
He doesn't care whether crime goes up or down.
He wants to control the levers of criminal justice.
He's very good at that.
In other words, we have to admire this guy because, in a sense, I mean, from a distance, obviously, not sharing his politics.
But I'm saying that as a venture capitalist of politics, this guy, I mean, he realized, hey, listen, by spending a relatively small amount of money, I can control these DAs in key parts of even red states like Texas.
And so he spent his money very effectively.
I mean, to be honest, I cannot think of a single conservative or right of center, quote, philanthropist who is half as strategically effective as the two Soros's.
Do you agree?
I mean, historically, the big money on the right has mainly focused on tax and fiscal issues, which I'm all for, but I would love to see it.
you know, there's a much higher return on influence when it comes to these, you know, the crime issues, as you pointed out.
And it's not even just, is it It's whatever laws you choose to enforce versus not enforce sort of de facto become the new laws.
And I could go through a million examples, but one that comes to mind was there's a DA in California named Diane Becton, and she stopped enforcing laws against graffiti or vandalism or both, I should say.
So, you know, if you get caught spray painting something, doesn't matter.
You can vandalize, whatever.
There was a couple that defaced a Black Lives Matter mural, and of course they get charged with vandalism, a hate crime, etc.
And it's, you know, the laws were there.
It's just a question of, well, who do you enforce it against?
And it's, you know, you punish your enemies, you reward your friends, and you go to remake society in a liberal way.
Let's talk about Alex Soros.
I mean, every now and then I see an image of him with the equally bizarre Uma Abedin on social media.
I really don't know what's up with those two.
They look like a couple out of a horror movie.
But leaving that aside, how does the sun...
I've seen a few people say, well, he's worse than his dad.
Is he worse than his dad?
Does he have an independent ideology?
Is he simply a, like, not son of Satan or son of Sam, but like son of George?
Or is there something more to this guy?
He's at least equally as bad.
I mean, he was a student of his father from a very young age.
I mean, since high school, he was going around with his father and meeting people like Hillary Clinton and other top leaders around the world.
One of the funniest things I found while researching him, and this was, I think, during the first season of The Apprentice, but George referred to Alex as his apprentice, which was a nod to Donald Trump's TV show.
And it's just funny that 20 years later, Trump is the number one opponent of him and his vision.
But in a recent New York Mag piece, it seemed like Alex was, and this is just what he claims, that he's not as completely devoted to the open society vision, that he's not going to constrain himself mentally or box himself in ideologically.
But that doesn't mean he's not a hyper-progressive.
In fact, he has referred to Jasmine Crockett as the future of the Democratic Party, which He has tried to moderate himself on a number of issues.
So when he took over the OSF, he told the Wall Street Journal when they were breaking the news that he thought the left had gone too far in restricting free speech and cancel culture, but he has not funded a single group or pro-free speech group or anything like that.
He had tried to moderate himself on Israel versus his father.
in 2007, wrote a piece that was saying the U.S. should work with Hamas because they were democratically elected.
But he also has continued funding these groups that are And not only on our campuses, Alex is the chair of Central European University, which his father funded.
And they have an open society university network where they have a number of other colleges that partner with them.
One of them is Al-Quds University, which Islamic Jihad has held rallies at.
They were doing Nazi salutes and not the Elon Musk kind, the actual kind.
And it generated controversy.
And all the administration had defended it.
This group holds events honoring so-called Palestinian martyrs, and he has continued the partnership with them.
So unless he's somehow unaware of what his own organization is doing, it seems like he is trying to present this more moderate image of himself, but really is not at all.
It's odd because it seems like he doesn't want the spotlight or the criticism.
On him for that, yet every single thing he does, he's posting on social media and practically bragging about it.
So it's hard to make the guy out there, but he is, you know, fortunately again, not a very compelling figure.
If you've ever seen him speak, he is a, Oh, no.
I shared a meme of the guy, and he speaks for about two minutes, and I think he uses the phrase, you know, about 30 times.
And he's talking about stuff, and he goes, you know, you know.
And I'm like, no, I don't know that.
I mean, that's why I'm listening to you, to see what you have to say.
But I was a little shocked at his garbled way of speaking.
Especially because I would expect that he would have a more comfortable use of the language than, say, his dad, who was raised, of course, in Germany.
No, I'm sorry, in Hungary, in a different context.
You have an article...
Tell us a little about that, because I think this is a demonstration of how these guys have their tentacles all over the place.
I mean, they've been thrown out of a couple of countries.
I know the Prime Minister of India hates them.
And so there are a lot of people worried about thesaurus influence, but I didn't really realize that thesauruses were...
Yeah, so just to give some background, so George Soros funded the Maidan protests back in 2014 in Ukraine.
Petro Poroshenko ended up becoming the president after that.
He was backed by Soros.
After that, Soros gets appointed to the National Investment Committee of Ukraine.
And by the way, Zelensky is now the chairman of it because the president always chairs that committee.
There's no news of George Soros departing from the committee, which sort of implies he's still part of it.
But George was also awarded by Poroshenko the highest award.
In the country, which only a couple hundred people have ever gotten.
And there was a Ukrainian newspaper that listed him that year as the second most influential person in Ukraine after Poroshenko himself.
So he has had historically a lot of influence.
He has funded so-called anti-corruption organizations in Ukraine.
And one of them, it's called Ant AC, was actually cited quite liberally in the document that was behind the first Trump impeachment.
So a lot of shady connections there.
Obviously, Hunter Biden had connections and Soros had been funding that family.
But fast forward to now, Alex has donated $1 million to an NGO that Zelensky's wife runs.
He has been pictured with Zelensky a number of times shaking his hand.
And then just a lot of top members of Zelensky's cabinet and members of parliament he has met with there.
He's visited Ukraine at least four times and been in favor just of a lot of...
But one connection, too, there is, and I have a whole chapter on Alex's role in Albania, which, again, his father's a very long historian, and he's buddy-buddies with the prime minister of Albania, Eddie Rama.
He's been photographed with him more than any other politician.
They call each other brother, etc.
There was an arms deal that Ukraine struck with Albania to produce a certain number of munitions.
So they're subcontracting it out somewhere else and then pocketing the difference.
And it's a deal that only makes sense if someone like Alex put those two in touch, Zelensky and the Prime Minister of Zelensky, and presumably is profiting from it.
And, you know, I can't obviously prove this, but under Eddie Rama, narco-trafficking had exploded.
In Albania.
And it's a relatively small country.
Their economy is, you know, a fraction of a...
And it's, you know, per capita income is $10,000 a year.
And it just doesn't make much sense for Alex to be there unless there is some sort of corrupt dealings going on that is benefiting him.
I mean, one of the striking things, Matt, as we close out, I remember that Elon Musk said a few weeks ago is he said, you know, a lot of people think that Soros is like funding all this stuff with these NGOs, giving away all his money.
He goes, actually, no.
Soros is giving a tiny fraction of the money.
Then what happens is that that money is used to lobby.
For government money to flow to these NGOs.
So Soros is doing nothing more than providing the seed money to open up the federal spigot, the federal faucet.
And to that degree, you can see not only that this is very clever on the Soros' part, but ultimately it's a racket that is extracting money from the, that is looting the treasury, extracting money from the taxpayer to fund all these left-wing causes.
It's like, I put in 10 cents and then we get 90 cents from the government.
So Soros is getting basically 10x on his money.
Yeah, so USAID, we know for a fact they've given at least $270 million to Soros, like groups that Soros himself played a role in starting.
Now, obviously, there are groups that Soros funds that also got money from USAID, and I haven't seen any estimates on how much that is, but presumably it has to be bigger.
And one of the things that Soros did with USAID that has been not as reported on was under the Obama administration, he was able to get them to change the rules for what you have to do to qualify for aid.
And it's left-wing things like you have to support drug decriminalization, the LGBTI, whatever that acronym is now, LGBT agenda, and support decriminalizing prostitution.
And it's just...
But any group that could reasonably have any sort of political leanings or operations then has to adopt this whole left-wing agenda.
And it's ironic because under Bush, there were certain strings for projects in Africa where you had to do things like oppose legal prostitution and things that would – And Soro sued to get those laws overturned on the basis that it was violating free speech.
Meanwhile, the second a Democrat's in office, he does the exact same thing, but for the causes he wants.
So obviously the free speech was not a real concern for him.
Matt, this is all interesting stuff.
Keep up the good work.
I think this investigative stuff is just really important to give us a factual basis of understanding these nefarious characters.
The book, The Air, Inside the Not-So-Secret Network of Alex Soros.
Guys, I've been talking to the author, Matt Palumbo.
Matt, thank you very much for joining me.
Thanks.
It's a pleasure.
As you know, our friend Mike Lindell has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't stop by just creating the best pillow.
He created the best bedsheets ever.
They look and feel great.
This means an even better night's sleep for me, which is crucial for my busy schedule.
Now, Mike is offering the best deal on his Giza Dream Sheets.
Any size, any color, just $49.
That's right.
You can get kings, queens, split kings, cal kings, any size, any color, like I said, $49.98.
Order now because when they're gone, And for a limited time, when your order is over $100, you get $100 in free digital gifts.
Call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or you can go to MyPillow.com.
When you use promo code Dinesh, you get the amazing offer.
$49.98 on the Geezer Dream Sheets.
Any size, any color.
I'm discussing my book, Ronald Reagan, How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.
And we are in the section where Reagan is now the president, but we're considering his economic policy.
And to understand his economic policy, we need to talk a little bit about economic philosophy and economic theories, partly because they are relevant not only to the 1980s, they're also relevant to our debates now.
So the prevailing system of economic thought that handed down through the decades was the progressive one called Keynesianism.
And the philosophy of Keynesianism is basically that the government can and should intervene to...
If it's going too fast, you put on the brakes.
If it's going slow, you accelerate.
So the underlying principle is that the bureaucrat is sort of the guy at the wheel.
It is the government that is managing the economy.
Notice, by the way, this is a principle not dissimilar from socialism, communism, fascism.
No surprise, Keynes'ideas appealed to...
To the FDR people.
Not because they were particularly good.
Not because they made any sense.
But because they fit the political demands of the time.
And so Keynes was elevated as this brilliant apostle of modern day economics.
Keynes really actually wasn't even an economist.
And, but nevertheless,
But Keynesianism had a kind of a single thrust which made it vulnerable to being tested, and that was the idea that inflation and unemployment We're a kind of a seesaw.
They move in opposite directions.
You get more inflation, you get less unemployment.
You want less inflation, you're going to get more unemployment.
So look at it this way as Keynes saying in his own way that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
This is the Milton Friedman slogan, but here I'm applying it to Keynes.
And Keynes was basically arguing that you can choose the degree of We found that this seesaw was being empirically disproved.
And by that, I mean inflation was going up and unemployment was going up.
suddenly had nothing to say about it because if your whole idea, if the whole implication of your philosophy is that you have a seesaw and it turns out there's no seesaw, then how do you deal with this?
How do you bring...
But now you have both that are at a high level.
So basically, Keynesianism was bankrupt.
And on the conservative side, this is really important because, of course, Reagan was right at the helm now, and it was no longer the era of FDR.
Reagan had to decide how to go.
But on the conservative side, there were two rival schools.
And interestingly, the Now, both the schools agreed that Keynesianism was bunkum.
Both agreed that Keynesianism made no sense.
And to that degree, they were attractive to Reagan.
But the two schools were called Monitorism, associated mostly with Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman...
Friedman was, of course, in the 1970s and 80s.
He was a very well-renowned economist.
He had won the Nobel Prize for Economics.
He made a very popular series called, I believe, Free to Choose.
I think in one of the segments I am featured, along with some other young people talking about And basically, monetarism is the idea that you solve the problem of inflation by controlling the money supply.
And so the money supply, of course, is in the hands of the Fed, the Federal Reserve.
And Friedman's idea was basically, listen, don't print too much money.
That's how you lower inflation.
Because when there's too much money in circulation, it bids up the price of goods and services and assets, and that is the meaning of inflation, right?
Prices go up, the amount of money in the economy is quite literally inflated.
Now, the Friedmanite solution was basically this, and that is that if the economy is growing at 1.5% or 3%, well, print 3% more dollars.
And it will kind of match up to, it'll be in sync with, it'll be in line with the amount of growth in the economy, and everything is going to be fine.
But notice that in this Friedman recipe, there is a kind of assumption that I want to make explicit.
Many people didn't think about this assumption in the 1980s because it was taken for granted.
We're very conscious of it today.
And that is that Milton Friedman, like the Keynesians, trusted the Fed, trusted the government, To be the one deciding how much money there should be in the economy.
In other words, there is a concession that even in a free market system, the very fuel or engine of free markets, namely money, remains in the control of the government.
And Friedman's hope was, hey, listen, I can trust you guys in the government to exercise the kind of monetary discipline.
Now, I say all this because you're probably like, really?
How naive is this?
How ridiculous is it to expect that the government, given the power to print money, is not going to actually do it?
I agree.
I think that over time, now looking back with hindsight and really more than 25 years of hindsight, we can see that this entrusting government to be able to exercise self-control, discipline, On the money supply, this was an unreasonable assumption.
But nevertheless, monetarism was in fact one of the two options in front of Reagan.
And now we want to talk briefly about the other one, and that is supply-side economics.
Now, supply-side economics was in a way a more fundamental challenge to Keynesianism than monetarism.
Why?
Because like I mentioned a moment ago, The government should put on the brakes.
Remember that Keynes was like, sometimes put on the brakes, sometimes hit the accelerator.
But Friedman's view was, no, government should just play a somewhat more modest role, just ride alongside the growth rate of the economy.
Neither slam on the brakes too hard.
Unless inflation is already out of control, then you may have to do it.
But on the other hand, don't hit the accelerator.
Either just kind of keep the car going at, let's just say, 50 miles or 55 miles per hour, kind of the Friedman, quote, speed limit.
Now, supply-side economics was radical because while the Keynesians believed that the economy is driven from the demand side, the supply-siders said, no, the economy is driven from the supply side.
Now, what does this really mean?
Well, if you think about Economics 101 or the very basic idea of economics, it is that the price arises out of two factors, demand and supply.
And so let's just say you want to buy something and some guy is trying to sell it to you.
It comes down to how much you want it, how much he's willing to sell it for.
Your demand and his supply are going to kind of And if you extend this over to the economy, you have the demand of all these people in the whole country, let's say, demand for broccoli, demand for cars, demand for homes, and then you have the supply, the supply of broccoli, the supply of homes.
And so the Keynesians believe that the way to understand the economy is look at the amount of demand.
That is out there, and the government can adjust the amount of demand.
How?
By changing things like the interest rate, by changing things like the money supply, and by doing those things you can influence whether people want to buy more.
They want to buy less.
They feel a bit richer.
They feel a bit poorer.
It costs them more to get credit or it costs them less.
The supply-siders said, well, we admit that all of that is true, but you're forgetting the whole other side of it, which is what are the factors that motivate the supply side?
Like, what causes an entrepreneur to want to make a new product?
And the answer is the set of incentives and disincentives that occur not on the demand side, but on the supply side.
Which is to say, if I'm going to make a product, I'm going to make a profit, but you're then going to confiscate, let's just say, 70 cents on the dollar that I make, I'm going to be like, well, maybe I won't do that.
Maybe I'll do something else.
Maybe I'll invest the money in something else.
And so the supply of goods and services is just as important as the demand side.
Not to mention the fact that when you consider new products, there's no demand.
Let's say, for example, that I invent a new robot or I invent the iPhone.
Think of it.
Nobody has an iPhone.
Everybody's using other types of phones.
How many people know that they want an iPhone?
Answer, zero.
Why?
Because the iPhone hasn't been supplied yet.
And so you have a remarkable phenomenon here where it is not demand.
That is producing supply.
Where people go, yeah, I'm hungry.
I want more corn.
The farmer goes, okay, I'll go ahead and plant some corn.
What you rather have is an entrepreneur anticipating demand.
There's no demand that actually exists.
But the entrepreneur goes, people would like to have this kind of a phone that has a camera in it and it also connects to the web and it does all these other things that other phones don't do.
And I bet you that if I make the phone first and put it out there, the demand will then respond.
So supply precedes demand.
This is the key idea of supply-side economics.
So what I've done today is really just lay the foundation.
Of monitorism and supply-side economics.
The two, in some ways, like I say, looking at different aspects of the economic system.
Monitorism at the money supply, supply-side at the creation of goods and services, particularly new goods and services.
And these two options are presented to Reagan as if to say, pick one.
And the monitorists were vying for their side, and the supply-siders were vying for their side.
And guess what?
Reagan kind of takes a look at it and he goes, I like it.
▲
Export Selection