The Talented Mr. Epstein exposes Jeffrey Epstein’s network as a tool for elite corruption, linking physicists like Lawrence Krauss and political figures—including Bill Clinton and Steve Bannon—to systemic exploitation of power through access to young women. Peter Schweitzer’s The Invisible Coup reveals China’s "birth tourism" (1M+ U.S.-born children since 2013) and Mexico’s coordinated migration strategy (10M+ migrants, 39.9M Mexicans in the U.S. "reclaiming" land), both leveraging U.S. policies to reshape elections and undermine sovereignty. The left’s complicity—from removing citizenship requirements to embracing foreign ideologies—suggests a deliberate civilizational power struggle, not accidental policy failures. [Automatically generated summary]
Because it gives us a window into the behind-the-scenes world of degenerate elites.
It shows how the system actually works.
It's a lesson in how the bad guys get away with it, a lesson in the unaccountability of power.
For decades, the Epstein story was supposed to be about pedophilia.
There was this pedophile, Epstein, who set up an elaborate pedophile ring.
For other rich pedophiles, they communicated through weird signals like eating pizza.
They engaged in perversions, which we ordinary decent people could hardly imagine.
The Epstein story made us feel dirty in a way, but also good about ourselves because we were not like those evil rich people.
We were so much better than they were.
But as with a lot of things, when you get a closer look, things look somewhat different than they did before.
It's happened before.
Remember the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal, all those pedophile priests?
Except the real scandal was far bigger than pedophile priests.
What it really involved is homosexuals infiltrating the priesthood for generations.
Whole parishes became so-called lavender mafias.
The gays recognized they had a ready supply of teenage boys who came in through the altar boy network.
So a whole system of sexual predation developed through a very old institution.
That's why the Catholic Church refused to confront the problem for so long.
It was a corruption of the system, yes, but the problem had also become built in.
It involved the way the system worked.
The real Epstein scandal is the same.
It involves pedophilia, yes, but that's not the full story.
The story is one of how our system of elites works and has long worked in America.
Epstein figured it out.
He was an outsider, but he became part of the club.
He created his own club.
He introduced an innovation, his own unique brand.
He got lots of rich and powerful people to join his club because it had its own special allure.
This is a story of the corruption of human nature, of what happens when the stable balance of power between men and women is wrecked.
Now, Jeffrey Epstein didn't wreck it.
He took advantage of the new opportunities created by the wreckage.
In a sense, he created a new equilibrium of power.
To understand this, we have to understand the cultural revolution of the 1960s.
We have to understand David and Bathsheba.
We have to understand the Bible.
Let's begin with some facts that have come out in recent days that throw light on the big picture.
Want to hear something funny?
I'm named in the Epstein files.
The day before I found out about this, my wife Debbie said to me, Hey, it's a good thing you're not in the Epstein files.
I laughed, but I should have said, Oh, contra.
Turns out I'm mentioned in the files, but in a context that actually makes me look good.
The physicist Lawrence Krauss emails Epstein about being in New York, and he mentions he scheduled to debate, quote, that slime bucket Dinesh D'Souza.
He calls me a slime bucket.
Now, the debate, as it happens, never took place.
I'm not sure why it got canceled, but it didn't work out.
But consider the irony: one pervert, Krauss, writes the king of perverts, Epstein, referring to me as a slime bucket.
Well, hey, I'll take that as a badge of honor.
By the way, Krauss is part of a group that's called the New Atheists.
Our debate was supposed to be about God versus atheism.
I'll let you guess who was on which side.
Krauss was evidently a good buddy of Epstein, but he wasn't the only one.
I notice there are several new atheists, many of them academics and scientists on the Epstein friend list.
Two of them are evolutionary biologists, Robert Trivers and Mark Hauser.
Then there's the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, formerly of MIT, now at Harvard.
Pinker actually draws on the techniques of cognitive science to instruct Epstein on how he can evade charges of trafficking young girls.
Basically, Pinker uses a sort of Bill Clinton technique, getting into the nuances of words.
Remember this?
Are you having sex with that young woman?
Clinton says no, because Clinton's way of understanding the question is: Are you having sex with that young woman right now?
Since he's not at this very moment having sex with Monica Lewinsky, he's technically accurate in answering no.
Pinker wants Epstein to take a page from his good buddy Bill Clinton.
Bill, of course, was an Epstein insider, no surprise.
Epstein even had a portrait of Bill in his New York apartment.
Bill was wearing the infamous Monica Lewinsky blue dress.
I'm sure the two of them had a good laugh over that one.
In that world, a rich, powerful man preying on an opportunistic but vulnerable young woman is not a moral scandal.
It's an opportunity.
Laughing about it shows a wink-wink understanding that we, people like Epstein and Bill Clinton, play by different rules than ordinary people.
Ordinary people don't live like that.
Not, by the way, because they're better people, but because they are not rich enough or powerful enough to get such opportunities.
Bill Gates was once an ordinary fellow.
He was your typical squinty-eyed tech nerd.
I'm sure he got zero attention from the girls.
They probably made fun of him.
And so did the boys.
Everyone made fun of him.
He didn't like it one bit.
But Bill was smart and he used those smarts to become rich, very rich.
And then Bill noticed that the picture changed.
Suddenly, he became attractive, not just to girls, but to younger girls.
Of course, they were attracted not to him, but to his wealth, his power.
But Bill didn't care.
The bottom line was that a new avenue of opportunity opened up to him.
It wasn't merely a sexual thrill.
It proved to him that he was cool, after all.
He was also hot.
He satisfied the entire vocabulary of one-time social media star Paris Hilton.
She apparently said only two phrases: that's hot, that's cool.
Bill was hot and cool at the same time.
Then there's Steve Bannon, man of the people.
Now, to the outside world, Steve Bannon is a populist.
He's on the side of the common man.
He reflects the ideology of the common man on his show, War Room.
He won't put up with those rich elites.
They're destroying the country.
He, Steve, is the leader of a movement that is saving the country.
Except there's a facade.
Steve Bannon is all over the Epstein files.
It's not just that Bannon knew Epstein.
Bannon was a close advisor and confidant to Epstein.
Bannon was planning to make a documentary film defending Epstein.
By the way, prior to the release of the files, Bannon made it sound like he was doing a film critical of Epstein.
No contrary, Bannon was essentially serving as Epstein's PR man.
Epstein too saw himself as a promoter of Bannon.
You scratch my groin and I'll scratch yours.
Sorry, I had to go there.
Now, in one exchange, Epstein basically tells Bannon that he needs a bit of a rebranding.
Bannon is seen too much as a political hack.
Epstein wants Bannon to go into media.
This will provide a much better cover for him.
The underlying assumption is that Bannon can make shady deals, but hide behind the banner of being a journalist.
Now, consider one of Bannon's biggest scams, raising money to build the wall.
For Bannon, this was basically a ruse to get money for himself.
What he really wanted was for well-meaning rubes to give him their hard-earned money.
But it doesn't work to say, I'm a lazy, disheveled Wall Street guy.
I want to live high on the hog, so give me money.
Now, that wouldn't fly.
So Bannon says instead, workers of the world unite.
Give me money so that I can build a wall and save your jobs.
Bannon was convicted of this racket and then pardoned by Trump.
You might say, you too, Dinesh, were convicted and pardoned.
Well, yes, but I was convicted of exceeding the campaign finance limit, which is trying to give away too much of my own money.
Bannon was convicted of trying to steal from others.
Big difference.
Incidentally, in order to pull off this confidence trick, Bannon could not afford to be seen as a political hack.
He needed to be seen as an honest journalist, a champion of the people.
The whole scam depended on it.
So Epstein understood the game.
He wanted to help Bannon to play it better.
We see here that Epstein's club was not just about sex.
It was also about political and cultural power.
It was about jobs and career advancement and steering the course of scientific research.
It was about playing the system.
The people in this network, Epstein included, are not so much immoral as they are amoral.
For them, it's about power and sex and money.
It's not about anything else because there is nothing else.
These are people who live by Dostoevsky's maxim: if God is not, everything is permitted.
You can see now why the new atheists were all over Epstein like flies circling poop.
For the fly, there's no inherent aversion to poop.
In fact, for the fly, poop is a delicacy.
This brings me to Epstein's innovation.
We need to figure out the innovation of the talented Mr. Epstein, because Epstein by himself had very little to offer.
Sure, he could give advice, but who cares?
Sure, he could make introductions and connections, but there are other ways to get that.
Bill Gates doesn't need to go to Epstein's meetings or Epstein's parties to make connections, to listen to Epstein tell him how the world is going.
Epstein's innovation is to create a social club with a secret ingredient, access to young girls, not necessarily underage, but teenagers and girls in their 20s.
Epstein created a system for men in their 50s, 60s, and 70s to get massages and have sex with young women in their teens and 20s.
This was the key to his success.
Older men can sometimes find a younger woman, but there are no comparable networks where young women can be produced to be your sex slave.
Epstein built his network through his procurer, Gillen Maxwell.
She was the head of his product development, so to speak.
Epstein recognized it's important to embed this prostitution ring into a web of knowledge, social work, and respectability.
This way, people don't have to say, I'm going there to take care of my dick.
They can say, I'm going there to discuss the next steps of artificial intelligence, or I'm going there to learn about global health challenges.
This pretense actually makes the whole thing even more repulsive.
If you're going to be a pervert, don't pretend you're doing it for the greater good.
Genghis Khan raped and pillaged, but he didn't try to pass himself off as Mother Teresa.
Let's put the story in its widest perspective.
For centuries, under the system of traditional marriage, young men find young women and they get married and they live together for life.
But underneath this conventional arrangement is a complicated arrangement of power.
Young women are most powerful when they are young, because that is when they are the most beautiful.
Young men are most powerful when they are older, because that is when they become rich and powerful.
Now, in a traditional marriage, a young woman who could attract an older man nevertheless picks a younger man, a man who's not as powerful as she is, but it's a long-term bargain.
Later in life, she will be less attractive and therefore less powerful, and quite likely he will be more successful and therefore more powerful.
But in this bargain, the man agrees not to go after younger women even when he can, because his wife chose not to go after older men, even when she could.
Both parties voluntarily submit to a long-term arrangement that tempers their power when it is at its height.
But when traditional marriage breaks down, there's a new power structure.
Younger women who are at the height of their power go straight for the rich, powerful older men.
The older men realize they can unload their wives and go for the 22-year-old or for a procession of 22-year-olds.
This is not a power imbalance, it's actually a power balance.
The younger women have beauty, and the older men have Lamborghinis, and so there's a kind of market equilibrium here.
Left out of this cozy arrangement, younger men and older women.
Both groups have nothing to offer, so they are abandoned to porn and masturbation, and in the case of the women, embittered feminist ideology.
Social justice and left-wing activism is the consolation prize for women who no longer have a husband or a home or a life.
Jeffrey Epstein's sordid world is distinctive to a degree, but it's also a tale as old as time.
Rich and powerful men have always gotten their way, even in traditional societies.
They've always found a way to evade the rules, or in some cases, they make rules for themselves.
Think of King David, who had at least eight wives, and King Solomon, who had 700 wives.
Both of them also had lots of concubines.
Hey, if you have 700 wives, do you really need concubines on top of that?
I wouldn't think so, but that's just me.
And these are the great figures of the Bible, yet they didn't let their attachment to God eliminate their access to women.
And there were even limits to what the prophets asked of them.
When David sets his eyes on Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan confronts him, but he doesn't say what we expect him to say.
The prophet Nathan does not say, Hey, David, what's with all the wives and concubines?
God created one woman for Adam.
He didn't give him a harem.
Why can't you stick with one wife?
Instead, Nathan gives the example of the rich man with many lambs and the poor man with just one lamb.
The rich man is having a banquet, so he takes the poor man's lamb.
Nathan gets David to agree, this is an injustice.
But it's only an injustice because David has so much and Bathsheba's husband has so little.
Basically, Nathan is saying, You, David, should be content with your eight wives and umpteen concubines.
Why must you also take this other guy's wife?
The Bible never downplays the wickedness of human nature.
Humans are always breaking the rules, violating the commandments, going after the golden calf.
The Bible shows how difficult it is for the Spirit of God to penetrate the thick crust of human depravity.
And so we have the prophet Nathan doing his best with David.
He seems to concede it's the prerogative of the king to have a gluttonous sexual appetite.
He merely wants David to control it at its outer limit.
His message, to put it candidly, is keep the harem, David, just leave Bathsheba out of it.
Even Jeffrey Epstein might have considered that a fair arrangement.
And that's how I see it.
It's officially a new era for gold and silver after gold crossed the critical threshold of $5,000 an ounce.
Silver blew past $100 an ounce.
In 2025 alone, gold went up 64% and silver was up 150%.
2026 could see even better performance due to the political and economic uncertainties we face.
That's why I've partnered with a great precious metals company, Goldco.
They've helped many fans of my show protect their money with gold and silver.
They've helped me personally and they've supported my show from the beginning.
They have my full support and trust.
Fidel Castro's Legacy00:15:30
All you have to do is request their free 2026 gold and silver kit.
You can get up to 10% free gold or silver plus free storage and a free home safe with a minimum cash purchase.
But this offer won't last forever.
You don't want to sleep on this.
Reach out to Goldco before it's too late.
Visit DineshGold.com to get a free 2026 gold and silver kit.
That's dineshgold.com.
Guys, Peter Schweitzer is an author and an investigative researcher.
He has a procession of best-selling books, including the new one, which we're going to talk about called The Invisible Coup.
Peter and I go way back to the Reagan years.
We've known each other a long time.
Peter, delighted to have you join me on the new show.
And you've got this blockbuster book, Congratulations, number one in the New York Times bestseller list, which is now becoming a staple for you.
Let me start with how you begin in this book.
You describe a kind of familiar scene, a protest with Palestinians and Mexicans and Salvadorans.
And these guys are all marching in America, an anti-ICE or anti-immigration enforcement demonstration.
And to most of us looking at that, it's very distasteful.
You see all these foreign flags, but it looks like some kind of a multicultural or left-wing protest inside of America against the policies of Trump or the policies of MAGA.
But you go on to show that there is a lot more going on.
In fact, there's a lot more that doesn't meet the eye.
What is going on?
Well, Dinesh, it's great to be with you on the show.
Congratulations on the new program.
And yes, we do go back, I want to say it's some 40 years.
So you are the ageless one, by the way.
You look every bit as much as you did when we first met.
Yeah, I mean, I think what we have missed in this debate over immigration and over these protests is the fact that what we're seeing on our streets when we see the Mexican flags, the Palestinian flags, it's not just simply the case of some radical student or activist that decides they're going to show ethnic pride and wave this flag.
This is actually a concerted effort by foreign actors, foreign governments, foreign organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, who work in conjunction with domestic forces in the United States.
I'm not suggesting they sit down and conspire, but it's a confluence of interests, right?
The radical left in the United States has this massive disdain for our country, and these foreign governments or these foreign movements share that disdain, but they also have levers or mechanisms that they can deploy in order to give more organization to these protests.
So, you know, Mexico has a vast network of consulates that have become involved in our politics.
They've actually set up a structure of elected officials that actually live in the United States and serve in the Mexican parliament.
And these are structures that are being mobilized in a manner which is a direct assault on our sovereignty.
So I felt like we were missing this component that mass migration, what I call weaponized migration, is actually a subversive act.
It's a form of subversion.
And that's not so much my words.
Those are the words of these foreign powers themselves.
And which are the key powers?
You focus in the book, it seems you have Mexico, but you also talk about other parts of Central and South America.
I see that you have Venezuela, you have Brazil, Central America.
You also talk about China, and then, of course, the Muslim world.
So it looks like this is happening not just in one sector, not just across the southern border, perhaps, but it is an international, maybe even a kind of global effort to infiltrate and subvert the United States.
Yes, yes, exactly.
And I think the inspiration here goes back to the Mariel Boatlift in 1980.
Fidel Castro, I'm certainly old enough to remember it.
And this was an instance which what started as what seemed like people fleeing communist Cuba on boats was weaponized by Fidel Castro.
There's two famous scenes that I recount early in the chapter of the book on this subject where Jimmy Carter, when the refugees start to arrive, he says, we're going to welcome them with open arms.
And Fidel Castro told his top aides, according to a defector, well, we're going to fill his arms with human excrements.
He used a stronger word.
But the point is, we are going to weaponize this migration.
And in fact, that's what he did.
So he seeded the 125,000 that eventually came to the United States through the Mariel boatlift with psychopaths.
He opened up the mental hospitals, put them on boats with criminal gangs, with intelligence officers.
And they ended up wreaking havoc in the United States, a huge spike in violent crime, a big infusion of drug networks.
Our mental hospitals were filled.
And Dinesh, it's interesting in the early 2000s, right after 9-11, the government had a report.
They studied what were the most successful attacks on the United States.
Number one was 9-11.
Number two was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Number three was the Mariel Boatlift in terms of the damage done by an external power to the United States.
And what's interesting is when you recount those three episodes, what happened after 9-11?
We destroyed Al-Qaeda.
What happened after Pearl Harbor?
We destroyed the Japanese Empire.
What happened after the Mariel boatlift?
Nothing, because there's no military targets to strike.
I mean, in fact, the Reagan administration in 1985 was still begging Fidel Castro to take back some of the people that he had sent to the United States.
So that was proof of concept that mass migration can be weaponized.
And it's interesting that in the summer of 1980, when Fidel Castro was doing this, he went to Managua, Nicaragua to celebrate the first anniversary of the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua.
And with him there were Daniel Ortega, who is still the president of Nicaragua, Lula, who is now the president of Brazil.
And he recounted to them the great successes of the Mario Boatlift.
And one of the themes of the book is they learned from that lesson and they replicated that lesson, particularly during the Biden administration, but they did it on a grand scale, not 125,000 people, more than 10 million people.
And what you're saying is that this is actually a coordinated effort.
You described, for example, the San Paulo Forum, where these countries kind of get together, they compare notes, they, in a way, they formulate strategies.
And so they're executing this, it seems, at scale, with each actor kind of doing its part.
And you're saying America, in effect, doing nothing about it.
Yeah, that's right, Dinesh.
Sao Paulo Forum was started by Fidel Castro and Lula in 1990.
It includes all the major left-wing parties of Latin America, the Democratic Socialists of America, which is AOC and Bernie Sanders in the United States.
They are honorary members.
But you're talking about the Morena Party in Mexico.
You're talking about Daniel Ortega.
You're talking about the Venezuelan regime.
They're all members of the Sao Paulo Forum.
And what they have really pushed for, largely from the beginning, has been open borders with the United States, mass migration to the United States.
And that has been kind of the strategy.
And so when Joe Biden was declared the winner in November of 2020, they immediately went to work.
In Mexico, Amelo, the president of Mexico, the Morena Party, immediately pulled in the parliament and they passed three bills that they knew were going to open up the floodgates of migration to the United States.
Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua sent out word around the world: if you charter planes and you come to Nicaragua and pay us $50 for a visa fee, we will get you to our northern border and help you get to the United States.
And it's estimated that 1.5 million people from Africa, from Asia, and from the Caribbean actually did so.
So this was highly coordinated and engineered.
It's not to suggest that there aren't people who are just voting with their feet and leaving their countries, but it is kind of a faucet that you can turn on and off.
You'll notice that when Donald Trump sealed the border, you don't have a mad rush of people still going to Mexico.
They've stopped because the faucet was closed.
And that's what I think we're missing with immigration today is how it's been weaponized by these powers in Latin America and, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood and China as well.
Peter, in one of my earlier films called America, I had a conversation with this professor of ethnic or Chicano studies in the Southwest.
And he was talking about the Reconquista.
He was talking about how large parts of America were seized from Mexico and truly belonged to Mexico.
And at the time, I saw this as a kind of leftist academic talking point in the ethnic studies department.
I was a little shocked to see in your book that this ideology that essentially wants to reclaim large parts of America for Mexico, this is actually something that is part of the ideology of the Mexican government.
Elected officials talk about it and promote it.
In other words, it's not a talking point.
It's a real political thing.
Yeah, I had the same reaction, Dinesh.
When I started researching Mexico's attitude towards immigration, I was shocked that they were this explicit about it.
If I might, I'm just going to read two quick quotes because to me, it's a little jarring when you realize who's saying these things.
The first one is from a Mexican senator, Felix Macedonio.
He's a member of the Morena Party.
He's a senior senator.
He sits on the National Defense Committee, which is the most powerful committee in the Mexican Senate.
And he said just a couple of years ago, quote, Mexicans are in our territory.
California, Nevada, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Wyoming.
We're going to take back the territory that was stolen from us.
So this is not some, as you said, some nutty Chicano studies professor who's living in a fantasy world.
This is somebody with actual political power.
Or this one, which is shorter, is a December 2024 report from one of President Scheinbaum's top aides, Gabriela Rodriguez.
This is an official government report, quote, we already know that the Mexican population in the United States reaches 39.9 million.
We Mexicans are reclaiming our territory.
So yeah, this is, I think, clear evidence of how Mexico views mass migration.
It is an opportunity to extend their sovereignty in the United States in territories that they feel were stolen from them in the 19th century.
What that actually means, I mean, do they think that California and Nevada will become Mexican states?
I mean, I don't know, but I think they mean at a minimum that they are going to exert sovereignty over territories in the United States.
And they're already doing this, Dinesh.
One of the most shocking things that I discovered in the book, and as I've met with people at the White House and Capitol Hill, they had no knowledge about it either.
Mexico right now has more than a dozen senators and members of parliament that sit in their Senate and parliament, but live in the United States.
And their job is to represent Mexicans in the United States before the Mexican government.
That to me is a shocking example of subverting our sovereignty.
I can't imagine that Canada or Mexico would tolerate the United States doing a similar thing in their country.
And yet that's exactly what Mexico is doing.
So we have to stop engaging in mirror imaging, which is thinking that other countries like Mexico view migration the same way that we do.
They don't.
They view this as an opportunity to get remittances.
They get $60 million, $60 billion worth a year, but it is also a means of extending their sovereignty inside the United States.
And we need to take that seriously.
I don't know if you use this phrase, Peter, but it seems to me you're describing almost a kind of warfare, right?
Because the Mexicans can't take the territory by force.
And so they decide there's another way to do it.
And that is to kind of infiltrate, work with the system, exploit the vulnerabilities of America and do it that way.
Earlier in the book, you talk about Samuel Huntington's famous phrase, the clash of civilizations, which Huntington formulated a little bit, I believe, after 9-11.
It was sort of the idea that we in the West represent one type of culture, and then there are these non-Western or anti-Western cultures, and there's a kind of brewing clash, impending clash of civilizations.
But you say, I think very strikingly, that this clash of civilizations now is not sort of at the border between cultures, us against them.
It has been imported into the United States.
So the clash is occurring full scale, but it's occurring right here in America.
Yes, yes.
And that's because these powers view mass migration and this clash as a form of civilizational warfare.
Chinese Influence in American Politics00:15:26
So, you know, when you look at, for example, the Chinese Communist Party and they discuss their competition with the United States, yeah, they talk about spheres of influence.
They talk about military capabilities.
They talk about Taiwan.
They talk about, you know, market share.
But what they foundationally talk about is getting rid of or defeating Judeo-Christian civilization and its focus on individualism because they have a very different notion of what societies and people should value, what is important, how our communities should be organized and by whom.
So it's a very foundational clash for them.
Same thing, of course, with the Muslim Brotherhood.
You know, you've written a lot on the issue of Islam and its clash with the West.
But you could also say the same thing about Mexico.
Now, Mexico often strikes people as kind of a strange one because it is, after all, a Spanish heritage country and it's Catholic.
So it obviously is a Christian society.
But what's happened in recent years in Mexico, particularly with AMLO, but also with Scheinbaum, has been a denunciation of the Western influence in Mexico.
Amlo, Lopez Obador, the former president, when he was president, said that everything was great in Mexico until the conquistadors arrived.
And that's when we got greed.
That's when we got slavery.
That's when we got wars.
And that's when we got violence, which, of course, is a complete rewriting of Mayan and Aztec history in a major scale.
But he's serious about it.
Scheinbaum, in the same way.
In fact, there has been now, over the course of the last five or six years, a long simmering dispute, but I think an important one between Mexico and the king of Spain, because they have asked the king of Spain to apologize for Spain's colonization and movement into Mexico, and the Spanish king has refused.
But at the same time, Scheinbaum and Amlo have also elevated the sort of indigenous cultures, which are not, I think, by any definition Western in their orientation.
So Mexico also figures into this clash of civilizations because in a sense, they are turning their back from the Spanish Catholic heritage, which traditionally has guided that society.
So they fit very well into this mold of wanting to defeat what they view as the Anglo-culture of the United States.
Peter, let's talk for a moment about China.
You and I have talked about this before, but I want you to share it with my audience.
This remarkable phenomenon of Chinese connected tycoons and billionaires who are promoting trans ideology in the United States.
Now, you go on to point out they're not doing it in China.
They're doing it here and only here.
And I think what you're saying is that, you know, it's not that the Chinese have developed a sudden sympathetic affection for Americans who are having trouble with their own identity.
This is part of the weaponization, isn't it?
Yeah, it is.
Yeah, this would be Joe Tsai, who's one of the co-founders of Alibaba, who has poured tens of millions of dollars into trans right causes in the United States and other well-connected Chinese investors or billionaires who are funding the trans rights movement in the United States.
They're certainly not the only ones.
But again, these individuals are not supporting the similar cause in China.
And this goes to the heart of what I think we're talking about when we mean civilizational warfare.
And they've gotten very clever about this, Dinesh.
One of the things that China has done, you know, Mexico has its strategy, which is bringing people across the border and then trying to get them connected and turning them into a political force.
In the case of China, it's this industrial-scale exploitation of birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship, this idea that if you're born here, you're granted U.S. citizenship.
And generally speaking, I'm sympathetic to that idea, except for the fact that in the modern age, China has exploited it on a massive scale.
We don't know numbers in the United States because our federal government does not track the national citizenship of the parents.
So if you're born here, you get a birth certificate, you're granted U.S. citizenship.
But China has been tracking what's been going on, and they have actually encouraged their elites to do this, to engage in birth tourism, to fly their pregnant wives to the United States on a tourist visa, give birth here.
The child is born here, granted citizenship.
As soon as they can help fly in a healthy way, after a week or two, they're flown back to China where they will be raised.
But when they're 18, they're U.S. citizens.
They're going to be able to vote in elections, donate to political campaigns, apply for government jobs.
And the problem is the scale.
The Chinese government and Chinese research firms have looked at this, Dinesh.
I quote them in the book.
They say over the past 13 years, every year, roughly 100,000 Chinese babies have been born in the United States.
Think about that.
Do the math, that's more than a million quote-unquote U.S. citizens that are right now being raised in China.
And when they turn 18, that wave will start to crest around 2030.
When that happens, they will be able to start voting.
And let's remember the 2016 election was settled by what, 72,000 votes.
So this is a massive vulnerability.
I don't understand how any circumstance you can believe that birthright citizens should apply in a case when somebody is literally sticking their toe across the border for the purposes of giving birth.
And these children are being raised under a system in a society that is completely antithetical to our own.
So China has weaponized migration in a different way than Mexico has, but it's also fraught with peril for our country.
And I think it's a vulnerability that the Supreme Court needs to take into consideration when they consider the birthright citizenship case later in the spring.
And I think part of what you're saying is that the forms of subversion are actually quite different.
In this case, they involve a kind of delayed form of election rigging, because as long as our country is closely divided, you have elections where 2020, you know, Georgia is decided by 12,000 votes, Arizona about the same.
If you can have a substantial number of Chinese people who are now American citizens, you've just got a pretty powerful leverage over the entire political process.
And this is a type of election rigging I don't believe that we've even thought about or talked about before.
Yeah, I bet that's very, very well said.
And Dinesh, I mean, it's determined at a state level, but many states make it very easy to establish residency.
All you have to do is a week before the election, lease an apartment, and you can lease an apartment with 15 other people listing it as your address.
And now you can vote absentee, by the way, absentee ballot.
Millions of legitimate American citizens who work in London, who work in Beijing, they can mail in their ballots from overseas, military people serving overseas.
The same thing can apply to these quote-unquote U.S. citizens.
I kind of put them in air quotes that were raised in China.
So it's a massive, massive intrusion into our sovereignty, and it is election-rigging.
I will add, Dinesh, there's another form of this that we have no idea of the total numbers, and that is this sort of bizarre behavior of Chinese elites hiring surrogate mothers in the United States.
I mean, this sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, but the Wall Street Journal ran a story probably eight, 10 weeks ago on the front page about a Chinese billionaire close to the CCP who's done this 100 times.
He has 100 children where he has donated the sperm.
A surrogate mother in the United States has carried the child the term.
They get paid $60,000.
The child is born here.
The child has a biological mother who's American.
So they're going to be granted citizenship, but they're all being raised back in China.
So just one man has more than 100.
We know of another case of a CCP official in Southern California who had 26 children this way.
And in the research that we did in the book, we found just in Southern California, 107 Chinese-owned surrogacy companies that advertise these services in China.
So we don't even know the numbers related to that.
The irony here, Dinesh, is, and I know you lived in California for a while.
The irony is that California is ground zero for most of this, for the birth tourism and for the surrogacy.
And it's completely unregulated.
How many things can you say California are unregulated?
Not very many, but for some reason, this is.
And that, I think, is a huge vulnerability that we need to look at.
Well, you say for some reason, but I think we actually know the reason, right?
Because if we think about California, it used to be Reagan country.
Even before that, it was Nixon country.
At the very least, you could say that California was politically in the balance.
California has become a one-party state.
My wife, who's Venezuelan, calls it Calizuela.
But it looks like this foreign operation that you're describing here with so many different tentacles also has a domestic ally in the political left.
And in certainly large segments of the Democratic Party, they've realized that this clash of civilizations within America represents a lot of the things that they believe, right?
They believe in indigenous rights.
They believe Columbus was a bad guy.
They believe in trans ideology.
So when they see the Muslim Brotherhood, when they see the Mexicans, the Chinese pushing for these things, there is a domestic operation that goes, hey, we're getting reinforcements from abroad.
We have an interest in welcoming these developments.
And again, as you say, that doesn't have to be open collaboration.
They don't necessarily get on a Zoom call, but they are working toward the same end.
Yeah, it's the classic VIN diagram, you know, where you have the overlap and the commonality of interests.
It's interesting that one of the things I have in the book is a meeting that was held in the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma consulate of Mexico.
And they had brought consular officials from Los Angeles and Orlando and the consulates in between.
Mexico has 53 of them in the United States.
And there were people that flew in from Mexico City, and they had Democratic Party political activists there as well.
Clearly, this is not what diplomats are supposed to be doing.
But one of the things they said, Dinesh, was: we turned California from red to blue.
We turned Arizona from red to blue.
And the conversation in May of 2024 at the Mexican consulate was: how do we turn other states from red to blue?
So there are these conversations that are held, but it is this confluence of interests.
And there's a chapter in my book titled Voter Mills.
And that term comes from an email in the Clinton White House when they were trying to and successfully loosen citizenship requirements to become naturalized in the United States because they knew it was good politically.
They discovered that about 85% of new citizens were voting Democratic.
So the goal was to ram through as many new citizen applications as possible, which they did.
And they did it by getting rid of criminal background checks, by getting rid of literacy requirements, getting rid of the civics test requirements, and just sort of pushing them through.
And one of the White House aides said, if people figure out what we're going to do, they're going to accuse us of running voter mills.
And so when you look at what happened under Clinton, under Obama, and Joe Biden, you find the same pattern.
The pattern is we want to create as many new citizens as possible, and we're going to do that by ignoring criminal background checks and all these other requirements.
And if you look in modern American history, the three biggest years for naturalizing new citizens were 1996, 2012, and 2024, all which were re-election years for Democrats.
Now, my parents were naturalized American citizens.
I think it's wonderful.
I actually like legal immigration, and I like immigrants that adopt American values to become American citizens.
But what the Democrats have done is that they have taken the citizenship process and literally turned them into voter mills because they are getting rid of requirements that normally exist and they see the political benefits of mass migration.
And progressives, who I quote in the book, see it not only as helping elect Democrats, but they believe that increased mass migration pushes the Democratic Party further to the left.
So they very clearly see this as politically beneficial for themselves.
Peter, in the book, you have a number of very cogent, specific recommendations.
They have to do with immigration changes, sealing the border, rethinking birthright citizenship.
But one theme that comes through really strongly in our conversation right now to me is this: that as conservatives, as Republicans, as MAGA types, we often think that the left doesn't understand what's going on.
We're always saying to them, you know, we need to explain to the Biden administration why a porous or open border is not a good idea.
Need to Change Approach00:05:17
We need to explain to Obama why it's not a good idea to give all these weapons to Iran.
Our underlying assumption, which I think actually is a legacy from the Reaganiers, is we assume that we're dealing with other guys who have the same goals that we do, and we merely have to educate them on how it is a better way to get from here to there.
I think what you're saying is that they have rival interests.
They understand perfectly well what's going on.
They are, in fact, more consciously moving toward their own goals than we are.
And our strategy needs to change.
We've got to realize that the problem is not that they are uncomprehending.
They don't just need another carefully worded op-ed from us.
We need to recognize this kind of movement, this strategic effort to subvert our country and treat this as a power struggle, which is what it is, and take the steps to shut them down.
Am I reading you right on this?
Yeah, no, that was so well said, Dinesh, and I agree with you.
And one of the things I try to do in the book is quote from the left themselves.
What do they say about mass migration?
How do they view it?
And one theme you find over and over and over again, whether it is radicals who are working for Catholic charities, whether it is refugee groups that is funded by Bill Gates and George Soros, whether it is progressive political activists with the Democratic Socialists of America, all of them repeatedly say that mass migration has a transformative effect on the receiving country.
That's us.
And that that is a good thing.
And they all know, and they cite the studies, that people that come from the developing world, especially if they are put in communities with people like themselves, they will not embrace traditional American values.
And in fact, there's a lot of pressure from these foreign governments and NGOs connected to foreign governments not to assimilate.
One of the people that I quote in the book is a guy named Alejandro Robles.
He's one of these members who sits in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, their Congress, but he lives outside of Los Angeles, California.
And he described in 2025 how Mexicans who came to the United States, adopted American values and assimilated were, in his words, traitors to Mexico.
And he said that Sheinbaum, President Scheinbaum of Mexico, agrees with him.
And there are all sorts of things that Mexico, China, the Muslim Brotherhood does to shame people that come here from their communities and want to adopt American values.
And the left knows this because many of them say the same thing.
So you are exactly right.
We are past the point of debating and trying to persuade the left to see the errors of their ways.
It's not an error of their ways.
They know exactly what's going on.
And it's quite successful.
They have decided that because they cannot ultimately win on the national level in politics, that you need to change the voter pool.
And the way you change the voter pool is by mass migration and by substantially weakening the citizenship requirements.
And that's effectively what they've done for the last 30 years.
It's an eye-opening book.
It's called The Invisible Coup.
I've been talking to Peter Schweitzer.
And Peter, what I take away from all this is that there is a kind of war that is underway.
You know, I hear people saying, oh, if we strike Iran, it's going to be World War III.
But part of what you're saying is that we should be alert to the fact that there are new types of warfare, including this one.
This is a very subtle, but in some ways, very effective form of warfare, particularly because we're so unprepared in dealing with it.
And so one question I had running through my mind listening to you, reading your book, is, World War III, is it something that's on the horizon?
Or is it already here?
Peter Schweitzer, thank you very much.
Always a pleasure.
Thanks, Dinesh.
Step into the world of the Dragon's Prophecy on a tour of the ancient land of Israel.
I'm Dinesh T'Souza, and I'm inviting you to join me and Jonathan Kahn for the Dragon's Prophecy Tour.
We'll walk the ancient streets of Jerusalem and visit iconic landmarks like the Western Wall, the Sea of Galilee, and the Mount of Olives, exploring the real world settings behind the mysteries and what they reveal about the days we're living in.
Book now at inspirationtravel.com slash dragon or call 844-715-2425.
All right, let's close out with some tidbits.
Now, here's something strange.
Strange Tidbits Revealed00:02:27
A trans Aborigine.
Hi, my name is Kristola Johnson Nabunaga.
I come from Tiwi Islands and Lakemanu.
I knew that I was different.
You know, when I was growing up, I didn't know what was sister girls or gay.
And, you know, we were just like normal kids playing with coconut dolls.
Some of the challenges was for me growing up is I thought that I was a girl, but you know, when you're coming into society now and especially in town growing up, people put you into that category like you have to be a boy.
I had to stick to myself and to pretend that I'm straight, but you can see that I'm really feminine.
You know, the trans phenomenon doesn't really work in Aborigine communities.
No one can tell the difference.
Black History Month, normally a bore, yawns, snore, the usual pablum.
Most of the really interesting stuff we don't even hear about.
We don't hear about how the Democratic Party was the party of the slave plantation.
We don't hear about how Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly voted against the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
This was the amendment that permanently outlawed slavery.
And so, for my contribution to Black history this month, I want you to envision a group of Democrats in a bar, circa 1865.
Let's see how they might have reacted to the end of the Civil War.
Let's be honest, we're a little bit pissed.
Our deal is now rotten.
No one should pay cotton.
The slaves, they will surely be missed.
Two tears That's terrible shame Abe Lincoln's to play.
That Republican is a real jerk.
Good Democrats all.
We were having a ball and we all got to get up and work.