Andrew Clavin and Dinesh D’Souza dissect Trump’s Afghanistan strategy—rejected as nation-building, favoring targeted strikes over endless wars—while exposing media distortions framing his policies as reckless. D’Souza’s The Big Lie argues Democrats’ shift from white nationalism to multiculturalism left extremists adrift, citing KKK ties to the party and Soros’ unrepentant Nazi profiteering. The episode contrasts Trump’s economic nationalism with leftist fascist parallels—Obama-era IRS/FBI harassment, Sanger’s eugenics praise for Hitler—and ends by linking feminist dating critiques to broader cultural fractures. [Automatically generated summary]
How To Create As Much Hysteria As Possible00:02:59
During this disastrous Trump administration, when the country is reeling under full employment and the fact that you can practically order a cure for cancer from Amazon and have it delivered the next day, the nation's journalists have issued a new booklet of guidelines entitled, How to Create As Much Hysteria as Possible from Acts of Violence That Are About As Likely to Kill You as a Bolt of Lightning Ricocheting Off the Guy Next to You than knocking over a tree that falls on a car that then flips over and lands on your head.
The pamphlet published by the Junkie Organization of Uninformed Rockheaded Oaths, or Journo, begins with a preface reading, quote, In this terrible time, when the candidate we wanted for president lost because she was felonious scum, it's very important that every psycho who kills someone for some incomprehensible reason be turned into a major news event and then blamed on Donald Trump and the people who elected him instead of the felonious scum we loved so very much, unquote.
The pamphlet then continues, quote, although it's true we can't make the entire country hysterical over nothing because there are people with only a high school education who own dogs that are smarter and more realistic than we are, we should be able to spread panic in liberal enclaves where individuals with advanced degrees are already living in a fantasy world largely created by us in the first place.
Since many of these jackasses live in Washington, D.C., their panic could cause real problems for everyone else who will then panic in turn and our goal will be accomplished, unquote.
The pamphlet then goes on to give some rules for covering violent events in order to make them seem more threatening than they are and then blame them on Donald Trump.
Quote, rule number one, some of you journalists may remember how Barack Obama made a speech about ISIS and implied that Christians were just as bad because they had fought in the Crusades.
Some of you may remember how we praised Obama as a broad-minded leader for blaming both Muslims and Christians when only Muslims were to blame.
Now, do the opposite of that.
If Donald Trump responds to fascist violence by honestly pointing out that leftists are violent as well, accuse him of defending fascists and even of being a fascist himself.
Rule number two, when Islamists commit terrorist acts, make sure to point out that all Muslims are not to blame.
But when fascists commit terrorist acts, make sure to say that all right-wingers are to blame and all Republicans and especially Donald Trump.
Rule number three, Donald Trump can be borish and inarticulate and half the time no one knows what he's talking about, including him.
Make sure to give his words the most obnoxious interpretation imaginable and then pretend that what you said he said is what he really said.
And then when there's an act of violence, blame it on what you say Trump said, even though he never said it.
Finally, if you want to see these rules in action, you can just watch CNN.
But of course, no one wants to do that.
Unquote.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety boom.
Birds are winging, also singing hunky-dunky-dunky.
Ship-shaped tipsy-topsy, the world is it bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hunky-Dunky Labor Day00:02:55
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Hooray!
Dinesh D'Souza's with us.
Yeah.
Dinesh D'Souza will be here to talk about his new book, The Big Lie, exposing the Nazi roots of the American left.
And tomorrow is the mailbag.
Now, this is very important, right?
How do you send questions into the mailbag, Austin?
You just go on the website into the podcast and click on the mailbag icon.
What he said, go into the website in the podcast part and click on the mailbag icon.
You can ask any questions you want.
You know, I make fun of this all the time because I make fun of everything all the time, but we've actually had letters from people saying we have solved their relationship problems, that we have led them to God, which will improve your life.
That will change your life guaranteed for the better.
So ask anything you want, politics, religion, your personal, your messy, terrible personal life.
We'll straighten them all out.
Just go on the podcast part.
You have to subscribe, though.
You have to subscribe to thedailywire.com, but that's only a lousy 10 bucks a month.
Come on, it's a lousy 10 bucks a month.
And if you subscribe for the year, it's only a lousy hundred bucks for the entire year.
Plus, you get leftist tears.
Leftist tears, if you are not drinking leftist tears, you're probably weak and unhealthy.
Leftist tears are what make us strong, and you can't drink leftist tears on leftists.
They're in the leftist tier tumbler, the official leftist tears tumbler.
And speaking of, and speaking of relationships, by the way, in a relationship, it is always good.
Everybody likes to be surprised in a relationship.
And if you think that means that you wait down a dark hall and when your wife comes by, you shout, boo, that's probably not a good idea.
Plus, if you're a conservative, she's probably armed and will kill you.
But you could send her flowers using ProFlowers.
ProFlowers.com.
It makes it so simple.
It wants to help you surprise someone for no reason at all, while also surprising you with a special deal that is just for my listeners.
You can get 20% off any of their unique summer rose bouquets or any other bouquet of $29 or more.
Their colorful rainbow roses are always a hit if you aren't sure what to send someone.
They really are lovely.
Pro Flowers bouquets are guaranteed to stay fresh for at least seven days or your money back, and you control the delivery date.
ProFlower gives you more bloom for your buck, big, beautiful flowers with more stems for your money.
And your wife probably won't shoot you because she won't be as startled as if you had jumped out on there.
Out at her.
To get 20% off summer roses or any other bouquet of $29 or more, go to proflowers.com and use my code AK at checkout.
Oh, I thought you were going to say how do you spell it?
I was waiting.
I was waiting.
That's proflowers.com and code AK.
Don't wait to make someone's day.
She will like them.
All right.
Generals and the Field of Play00:12:35
We got to talk about Afghanistan.
You know, we had Knowles on yesterday.
I should mention that Knowles and I are working on a podcast that we hope to bring out right after Labor Day, somewhere after Labor Day, called Another Kingdom.
It's a story that I wrote and Knowles performs.
And you will get to see that Knowles actually does have a talent.
And that would be very exciting.
He's really a good actor.
He's actually an exceptional actor.
And we've been working on it really hard.
And I hope you will tune it in when it's available.
Afghanistan.
All right.
So as Trump made his big speech, I heard a different speech than everybody else heard.
Okay.
I heard him say something different than everybody else heard.
And, you know, the Democrats want to claim that, oh, this is just more Obama because he's going to send in some troops, but not a lot of troops.
They're speculating it's around 4,000 troops, which is not going to make much of a difference.
So it's kind of that Obama thing.
Remember when he said, Obama got everything wrong.
I mean, when he, I was in Afghanistan and I came back.
And when I came back, I was listening to Obama's speech.
And he was saying, you know, the war in Iraq is the wrong war.
We've got to win the war in Afghanistan.
I thought, no, that's exactly backwards.
We have won the war in Iraq.
We have to stick with that.
And we can't win the war in Afghanistan.
We cannot win a war in Afghanistan for the simple reason is there is no Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a big piece of property with a lot of different tribes on it.
Most of those tribes fighting over like a rape that happened 300 years ago in legend.
That's what, you know, they're feuding over that stuff.
I mean, this is, it really is a savage land.
There is no taming it.
They call it the graveyard of empires for a reason.
So on the Democrats, the Democrats are saying, oh, yeah, it's just more Obama, which is nonsense.
Obama sent in these troops and then said, oh, and by the way, here's the date we're going to pull them out.
So that was really helpful.
Because all the, you know, the Taliban is there for good.
The Taliban lives there.
And so they disappear in the winter.
They come back in the spring.
They disappear when we're there.
If we tell them when we're going to leave, they just wait.
And everybody knows that if they help us, if the villagers help the Americans, they know when the Taliban comes back, they're going to kill them.
So it's like it's a very, very difficult situation, impossible country to tame.
So the Democrats here, I'm saying more Obama.
Lindsey Graham looked like he looked like a pixie.
He was so happy because he thinks it's now going to be Vietnam and we're just going to keep pouring people in there.
Although, of course, H.R. McMaster literally wrote the book about that and he's not going to do it.
So let's take a look at the speech piece by piece and talk about what it was he was really saying.
Just to start with and get this out of the way, his opening was an address about Charlotteville.
I thought it was really nice.
Let us hear this cut number one.
The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget.
That a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all.
When one part of America hurts, we all hurt.
And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together.
Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another.
Love for America requires love for all of its people.
When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate.
The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home.
We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.
Very, very graceful because that's appealing to the same, you know, the right-wingers who love the military, who understand they're sending him out there.
It is separating them off from the Nazis and the haters and the creeps who go out and with their white supremacy nonsense.
And I thought that was very gracefully done.
Of course, the left's never going to let up about this.
Their idea is to make him so toxic that people are embarrassed to support him.
And that's probably happening.
That could backfire on them when the polls don't show his support.
He's going to be so unpopular that he gets re-elected.
So the setup here is there are four ideas of American power.
They're always in play, but very much in play.
There was Obama's idea, which was basically America is a blundering bully, an imperialist.
We've committed all these sins.
We owe everybody an apology.
So we've got to pull out.
We shouldn't do anything unless we're somehow this angelic force for good that pays no attention to its own interests as if we weren't a country on our own.
There's the Steve Bannon idea, which is screw all that.
We're out of here.
This is now an economic battle.
The Chinese are taking advantage of us.
The globalization is weakening us.
Free trade is weakening us.
And globalization and the Chinese are taking advantage of all that and they're going to kill us.
We shouldn't be fighting anywhere except in our immediate interests.
Then there's Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
If you see it, shoot it.
You know, that's the Superman role where we're supposed to patrol the skies and anywhere there's an injustice, we fly down and save the day.
And finally, there's what I think is the realistic idea that we are the greatest power for good on earth.
We have to be the police.
We have to take care of things.
But we're also a country and we cannot maintain the Pax Americana unless we pay attention to our own interests.
So we muddle along.
We do what has to be done.
When there's a fight we can fix, we fix it.
When there's not, we don't.
We don't spend all our money doing this stuff, but we do what we have to do.
Obviously, Afghanistan was where the 9-11 attackers came from, even though they were inspired by the Saudis and they were all Saudis.
somehow that never comes up because there's enough people on the take from Saudi Arabia that nobody wants to fight with them.
So that's the thing.
So Trump came in kind of with the Bannon thing.
Let us get out of here.
Let's get out of here.
And he talked about that, that he was convinced by his generals that that was not going to work.
He was cut number two.
I share the American people's frustration.
I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly, lives, trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.
That is why, shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia.
My original instinct was to pull out.
And historically, I like following my instincts.
But all my life, I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.
In other words, when you're President of the United States.
So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle.
Now, this to me was one of the most stunning moments in the speech because this is the first time I've ever heard Trump say, I was wrong, I changed my mind.
It's the first time I've ever heard him say it.
It fits in with my idea of Trump as a guy who learns stuff, a guy who comes around, who understands that he's got to figure out, he figures out the field of play as he goes.
It was a modest statement.
And when I say that about Donald Trump, it almost sticks in my throat.
It was a statement of like, you know, you don't know everything before you know anything, and he's changed.
So what is, but so what did he learn?
I mean, what did he learn?
First thing he learned, which I think he already knew, was that really Obama messed up this situation in the Middle East beyond anything.
And when he wanted to pull out, he looked at what happened when Obama did that in Iraq, and he did it for political reasons, and it was a disaster.
This is cut three.
A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al-Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.
And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq.
As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies.
Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for and bled to liberate.
And one were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS.
The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks.
We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq.
Plus, so that's Obama done for.
And he also talked about, well, actually, we should go on a little bit, but he also talked about these incredible rules of engagement that drive the military crazy, that you can't shoot a terrorist unless he has a little sign on his head that says, I am a terrorist, and he's pointing a gun at you and has a suicide belt.
You know, they just have to let these guys walk by.
That stuff is over.
And he talked about the fact that he's now going to make new rules.
And I'll bet the military is not allowed to applaud when the commander-in-chief is making a speech about an official commander-in-chief speech, but I'll bet this one just really lifted their hearts.
This is cut number nine.
My administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work and work effectively and work quickly.
I have already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the Secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy.
Micromanagement from Washington, D.C. does not win battles.
They're one in the field drawing upon the judgment and expertise of wartime commanders and frontline soldiers acting in real time with real authority and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy.
Okay, so he's just slapped Obama around from like one end of the room to the other, as Obama so well deserved.
I mean, really, all this stuff was political for Obama.
He had no military strategy.
Lindsey Graham, I'm not a big Lindsey Graham fan, but he said that General Obama was a lousy general.
And he, you know, that's a really good point.
And one of the things that Trump is talking about is he's not going to manage this from the White House.
He's going to let his generals manage it and the commanding officers manage it from the field.
But he also took W to task for the ambition of his vision.
You know, he had that Bush freedom agenda.
And this is the other part of this that he is not signing on.
I mean, obviously, Steve Bannon is probably, his head is probably exploding over the fact that he's staying in Afghanistan, but he's not staying on to nation build.
So this is cut number seven.
Before you play cuts at number seven, the thing is, Trump was known to have his generals in there and say to them, what does victory look like?
And that is the important part of this speech.
What does victory look like?
Because everybody makes these big generalized statements, and we're just going to have to stay there and we're going to kill people, blah, blah, blah.
But what does victory look like?
And here he starts to talk about that.
There's a seven.
Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace.
We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society.
We are not nation-building again.
Texture Com Magazines00:02:21
We are killing terrorists.
Okay, so that is the mission to kill terrorists.
And that's very different than what we were doing before.
And we're going to talk about what that means in just a minute.
We have Dinesh D'Souza coming up.
He's going to talk about his book.
You know where I first really got turned on to what Dinesh was saying?
It was in Forbes magazine when he wrote that incredibly controversial piece on Obama.
He got so slammed for it.
And then he turned it into the movie.
I actually like the article.
I like the movie, but I really like the article better.
And you found that in Forbes.
And you can find Forbes on texture.com because Texture is the place where you can get hundreds and hundreds of magazines basically for the price of one subscription.
I mean, this thing is an app on your, you know, on your device, and it's an app that you will open up.
You will fall into it.
You will never be seen again.
They'll just find your sneakers on the bed.
They'll see your feet coming out of your device because the thing is so involving.
There's such a huge number of magazines, not just Forbes, magazines from all sides.
I mean, Forbes and Reader's Digest, but also Vanity Fair, People Esquire, Time.
You just open this thing up and you get it all, and it's really, really inexpensive.
The texture is normally $9.99 a month.
And for that, you get over 200 magazines.
So, I mean, you're talking about, you know, basically what it would cost you to buy one magazine at the store, a couple of magazines at the store, you get 200 magazines.
And if you sign up right now at texture.com/slash Claven.
I just spoke Clavin.
So I finally stumped you, right?
A-A-K you could deal with, but Clavin is K-L-A-V-A-N.
And if you sign up right now at texture.com slash Clavin, you get a 14-day free trial.
Why subscribe to just a couple of magazines when you can have all of your favorites on your smartphone or tablet all the time for way less.
Texture was selected as one of Apple's top 2016 iPad apps.
Start the free trial at texture.com slash Clavin and you will find out why.
You can try it out.
14 days, you get it for free.
14 days to try texture for free at texture.com/slash clavin, texture.com/slash clavin.
One more time, and you can sing it, texture.com/slash clavin.
It is the most absorbing app, I think, on my machine.
It is the one thing that just sucks your life away because it's so fascinating and so much stuff to read.
Why Subscribe?00:15:27
Okay, so the mission is to kill terrorists, not to nation build.
And here's the thing about this.
I mean, there's all kinds of talk about what went on behind the scenes, that the military wanted 50,000 troops to go in.
Trump is not talking about how many troops go in.
The rumors are 4,000, but he won't talk about it.
They say they wanted 50,000 troops.
They say somebody floated the idea of sending in mercenaries, which is truly, truly a bad idea.
But Trump is not doing any of that.
So is he just doing the Obama thing of sending more people in there to bleed?
And I don't think he is because the most shocking thing that he said, the most startling thing that he said, was the thing that he said about Pakistan.
I mean, Pakistan is our theoretical ally, but they're not.
You know, they have been harboring these guys, and he called them out.
This is cut number eight.
The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism.
We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices.
But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people.
We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars.
At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting.
But that will have to change, and that will change immediately.
Okay.
I do not picture Donald Trump as a guy who two years from now is going to be still pouring in troops like Johnson did in Vietnam, Kennedy did in Vietnam, still sending troops into this maelstrom that cannot be won.
That is not the way I picture what he's talking about.
He's calling out Pakistan because he realizes there's only one solution, and that's a diplomatic solution.
Somehow, the government has to be patched together that is strong enough to survive the Taliban.
And that means that India and Pakistan have to get involved.
Now, India has helped, but he called them out too.
He wants them to help more.
Pakistan has been playing a double game, and he called them out and he said we were sending them billions and billions of dollars.
That's a genuine threat.
He may even want Russia in there.
The press has made it so hard for him to deal with Russia.
I don't know if he can.
But I think what he's announcing here is what they call a diplomatic surge.
I do not think he's announcing a military surge.
I don't think he's depending on the military to go in there and continue to muddle through forever.
I don't think he's saying we're going to send in more and more and more troops.
I think what he is saying is they have got to fix this on their own and put this government back together.
And meanwhile, meanwhile, we're going to be killing these people like bats out of hell.
Get prepared.
Here's what you can be prepared for.
You can be prepared for stories suddenly about atrocities committed by American soldiers.
You can start to see stories about American soldiers coming home in boxes, because remember there were no stories about that when Obama was killing people for no reason, getting Americans killed for no reason in Afghanistan.
But now that he's going over there with an idea, with a thought of how he can get out, suddenly we're going to see that coming on.
And I suppose we're going to trust Trump not to panic and to look the press in the eye and say he never covered this before, because the one thing about Trump is there one thing we know he loves, and that this is cut number 10.
Our troops will fight to win.
We will fight to win.
From now on, victory will have a clear definition.
Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.
So I think what we were seeing last night, and Trump couldn't say this because if he says it, then he's doing the same thing Obama did, which is he's telegraphing his hand.
I think what we saw last night was Trump announcing a diplomatic surge, a strong attempt to solve this problem and get us out of there through diplomatic means while we kill terrorists like we are crossing the river Ryan.
While we kill them with a new commitment and a new unrestricted way of fighting, which I think would be a good thing.
It was a good speech.
It was a vague speech.
Everybody kind of noticed the next morning, like they said, well, good speech.
But what did he say?
I think what he said, it's what he didn't say that was actually the policy.
I think what he didn't say is that we are going in there for a diplomatic surge.
I do not believe he's going to keep boring people in there forever.
We can't win.
We can't win not because the military isn't great.
We can't win because we're not going to spend the blood and treasure that it would take to win an open, savage country.
Let us talk to Dinesh D'Souza.
We recorded this just a little earlier, but we have all the things to talk about.
Dinesh has a new book out called The Big Lie, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, which is an interesting thing to have come out just as everybody is accusing the right of being the Nazis.
So I don't know if his timing was great or terrible, but we'll find out.
Here is Dinesh D'Souza.
All right, in our continuing efforts to give ex-cons a chance to rehabilitate themselves.
We've invited Dinesh D'Souza on fresh from your stint and the slammer.
You know, I have to tell you this.
Two things.
One is you are the only person whose book I ever did as an audiobook that wasn't mine.
And I did that out of respect for you for standing up to an Obama administration that was literally willing to imprison you for what you said.
But the other thing I want to say to you, and I'm talking, of course, about these campaign contributions, and you were not put in prison, but you were put in this, what would we call it, a halfway house, basically.
Eight months of overnight confinement with a fairly varied group of hoodlums.
The night I heard about this, I was at a large party with some of the most prominent conservatives in the country and was shocked to hear them sort of saying, well, maybe Dinesh shouldn't have made this.
It was a minor, minor error in contributions against a law that shouldn't be in place anyway.
I mean, I just thought it was a political takedown.
Well, both things are true.
I was a little, I was naive in the first, not to be familiar enough with the campaign laws.
Number two, not to realize that after making a movie about Obama and given what a thin-skinned narcissist he is, and I knew that, not to realize there'd be a big target on my back.
But my message to all these conservatives who reflexively say, you know, we've got to follow the law, is just wait till the federal government puts you in their sights, assigns 10 FBI agents to look at your bank records and your tax returns.
We live in an era where if they want to get you, they can.
That's right.
And justice isn't just a matter of did you do it.
It's a matter of did other people who did it get the same penalty?
Was the punishment proportionate to the crime?
Now, in my case, no American has been prosecuted, let alone convicted or locked up for doing what I did.
Typically, in these campaign finance cases, they only go after you if there's corruption, by which I mean a quid pro quo.
I'll give you the money, I want you to pass a law that says this, so I want an appointment to a judicial position if you get elected.
None of this was even applicable in my case.
Right, right.
Well, it's a badge of honor as far as I'm concerned.
I'm glad to see that you're trying to build bridges with the left now with your new book, The Big Lie, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.
I think the subtitle, the subtitle alone, reveals my great reputation for moderation.
Dear yourself, with the left.
All right, now this is a big thesis, especially with some of the stuff that's been going on in the news recently.
You are saying that it is the Democrat Party that has actual links to the left or just philosophical links or whatever.
Yeah, you know, I started the book knowing that fascism and Nazism were on the left, that Mussolini was a Marxist, in fact, the most famous Marxist in Italy.
I knew that when Mussolini did his march on Rome, Lenin sent a telegram of congratulations, basically saying, fellow revolutionary on the left, congratulations.
I knew, of course, that Hitler had the National Socialist Party.
So I knew that there was a kind of scam that had been that had occurred after the war, World War II, in which the progressives had somehow cunningly moved fascism from the left-wing column to the right-wing column.
So that's what I started out as my hypothesis.
Now, what I didn't know is that there's a whole secret history between the progressives and the Democrats on the one hand and the fascists and the Nazis on the other.
I'm not talking about, I had thought that there would be similarities.
So, for example, I was struck, Andrew, by the fact that here in America in the 20s, we had the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis had the brown shirts.
Now, check out these two organizations.
Both are into costumes, right?
Both are into racial terrorism.
Both are paramilitary organizations.
Both pick on a kind of minority, blacks, Jews.
Both are extensions of a party, the Klan of the Democratic Party, the Nazis, the Nazi Party.
So I was looking for analogies, but what I didn't realize is they're actually in bed together.
That the Nazis are heavily drawing on ideas, ideas, from the American progressives and from the Democrats.
Yes, I'll give you one example.
Here are the Nazis in 1935.
These are the senior department heads of the Nazi Party meeting to draft the Nuremberg laws.
And they have a stenographer present because they decide it's a historic occasion.
We are creating the world's first racist state.
One of the Nazis, a guy named Krieger, who had studied in America, stands up and spoils the party by saying, Sorry, guys, you can't create the world's first racist state.
The Democrats in America, in the South, have done it.
He goes, All the stuff that we want to do, outlaw intermarriage between Jews and Germans, confiscate Jewish property, segregate the Jews into ghettos, they've beaten us to the punch.
All we need to do is to take their laws, in effect, now I'm paraphrasing, cross out the word black, write in the word Jew, and we're home-free.
So the Nazis then reconvene with all these laws in front of them.
And the Nuremberg laws are drafted based upon, in a sense, a substitution of words from existing democratic laws.
Remember, every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor.
There are no exceptions to that rule.
Now, obviously, the Democrats are always saying that Nixon's southern strategy flipped the script.
So from that point on, yes, they will admit, they like to bury it, but they will admit that they were connected to slavery.
But basically, they say the modern Democratic Party is not that party whatsoever and has completely severed that.
Now all those guys are Republicans.
Now, that big switch narrative is false.
There is a grain of truth in what the Democrats are saying.
The grain of truth is this.
The Democrats have, in a sense, done a transfer of ethnic nationalism.
And what I mean by this is that they used to be the party of white nationalism.
This is, in fact, how they held the South.
They used racism as a sort of way of telling every poor white loser that by joining our party, you get to be above every black guy, no matter how rich or well-educated.
So they created this racial totem pole with whites at the top.
Now they have an inverted totem pole.
In other words, now they support every other type of ethnic nationalism except the white.
And in fact, they encourage every other ethnic group to affirm its identity, racial solidarity, black pride, Hispanic pride.
And then they mobilize these ethnic nationalisms against the white.
So the reason I think these white nationalists are sort of politically homeless, they belong in the Democratic Party.
The Democrats invented white nationalism.
But now when they go to the multicultural picnic, not only are they not wanted, they're Satan.
So Trump's nationalism, which is not a white nationalism, but an American nationalism, is a better alternative for them than the old Democratic Party, which was their natural home.
So let's talk about Trump for a while, because obviously there's been all this stuff in the news and this alt-right people, and they deeply, it deeply offends me to have these guys in my house calling themselves right-wingers, putting themselves in the Conservative Party.
But we have to admit, they vote for the same candidate we voted for.
What's the connection?
Yeah, so that's my point.
If you're a white nationalist today, and most of these guys, I mean, let's remember, first of all, what we're talking about.
This is a residual ragtag group compared to what it used to be.
Take the Klan, right?
The Klan today has maybe 1,000 members.
The Klan can't have a demonstration anywhere in the country without four times as many protesters encircling them.
And so this is not the old Klan.
When the Klan had real power, this is in the 20s, it had three to five million members.
In 19, the mid-20s, 50,000 Klansmen in hoods marched on Fifth Avenue in New York City.
Where were they going?
The Democratic National Convention.
That's where they were headed.
And so the Klan was, Eric Foner says this, the progressive historian, the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.
And this is its actual history.
So this is why I think things like Charlottesville are so convenient for the left, because they feed the media narrative that somehow the KKK is on the right.
But what we have to account for is why these dudes today, ragtag though they may be, why are they even, why do they think they're on our side?
Why are they for Trump?
I think it's for a bunch of reasons.
One, it is that, is that Trump's American nationalism has a place for everyone.
It's basically saying America is one country.
Now remember, Trump doesn't make a racial distinction.
When Trump distinguishes immigrants, it's the legal versus the illegal.
Now remember, most legal immigrants today are not white.
They're not the Irish, they're not the Italians, the Jews.
They're Pakistanis and West Indians and Koreans.
And Trump has never said, hey, I don't like the Browning of America.
I want to make sure we get more immigrants to Australia and fewer from, say, India.
Trump has said, I want immigrants who speak English, but of course, as you know, the Indians speak English.
So that is not a racial line at all.
The other thing about Trump is Trump is an America first guy and a jobs guy.
And in an era where the blue-collar white working class has been pretty hard hit, at a time when the economy as a whole has done well for many others, this promise of jobs may be a non-racial motive for many of these guys to like Trump.
Okay, okay.
Now, what about the idea?
I mean, I've always said that I just don't think Trump is a racist.
He just does not have that stink on him at all.
And it's not something that, you know, he's surrounded.
First of all, he's surrounded by Jews.
I mean, everybody around him is a Jew.
So I don't know what these Nazis are talking about when they're supporting him.
But the charge against him is that he has been mealy-mouthed, I guess would be the word to use, that he hasn't come out and condemned them.
They hit him after Charlottesville, that his first statement talked about the hate on all sides.
Fair or not fair.
Well, you know, I stopped by the White House.
I signed a book to Trump.
Trump, I don't think, knows the ideology of this.
He is an instinctive guy.
But I think instinctively he knows that there's a scam underway.
And the scam underway is to take these 12 white supremacists and basically stick them on the Republican Party.
Andrew, I've been speaking at GOP events since 1991 when my first book, Illiberal Education, came out.
My wife asked me just today, she said to me, Dinesh, have you at any of these events ever seen a Nazi or a Klansman or a skinhead?
And I said, I never have.
This is actually just not who our team is.
Left's Tactics in American Politics00:08:36
But the left is trying to make it so.
And so when they say to Trump, you must single out and condemn the white nationalists, obviously implying you must not at the same time include, there's a lot of violence in American politics right now.
After Charlottesville, there are riots in Seattle and the Antifa guys are battling the cops and they were at Trump's own rallies.
So Trump knows intuitively that this violence is not a one-sided phenomenon.
In fact, it resembles sort of the early days of the black shirts in the 20s when, you know, the Mussolini's guys were fighting their political opponents.
Hitler would talk in the 30s about how he'd speak in a German beer hall and the communists and the Nazis exchanging blows while he's giving his talk.
I mean, we haven't seen that in American politics, at least not in my adult lifetime.
I'm a little worried we're seeing the hints of it now.
We're not where Nazism was, of course, but it's that early whiff of it that worries me.
So you're saying with Trump that basically he has this, he knows he's being scammed.
He hasn't really quite sat down and thought about it.
He is, as you say, an instinctive guy.
He basically realizes that there's violence on both sides.
And when he comes out and says that, he feels that he's covered this.
You don't support, for instance, the idea that Steve Bannon is in his side office cooking up some white plan for a white American.
You know, here's the thing.
I think that this term alt-right is very amorphous.
I think when it started out, the origin of the term was that there is a group that is on the right that belongs in the Republican Party, but has been completely, you may say, excommunicated.
And these are the economic nationalists.
Bannon has said repeatedly, I'm not a racial nationalist.
I'm an economic nationalist.
And he doesn't hesitate to say things like, you know, I would prefer an American worker over a foreign worker because he's one of us.
So that is nationalism, but it's not racial nationalism because it would benefit, for example, the African American over, let's say, the illegal coming over from Mexico.
And that's Bannon.
Now, interestingly, as I dug into this book, I found that take a guy like George Soros.
Now, Soros is sort of the kingmaker on the left.
He funds and the Antifa groups refuse fascism.
He purports to be a champion of the open society, Karl Popper, and so on.
Now, just in researching Soros, I find this interview he did some years ago with Steve Croft of CBS News.
Oh, yes, I remember.
Steve Croft says to Soros, is it not a fact that in your native Hungary, when you were in your teens, you and a bunch of guys were going through Jewish neighborhoods, basically confiscating Jewish property and turning it over to the Nazi-owned regime in Hungary?
Soros goes, yes, it's true.
And then I think the key question, Steve Croft says, well, okay, you were a teenager then, but you're not a teenager now.
Looking back on this, do you feel a sense of regret, remorse?
And Soros basically says, absolutely not.
Why would I?
He says, that stuff was happening anyway.
I didn't make it happen.
I merely took advantage of it, kind of the way in markets, I take advantage of market opportunities.
Now, think about this.
If this had been the actual history of any Trump appointee, he was actually a collection boy for Hitler in his youth and doesn't regret it now.
It would be scandalous.
So the leftists sort of constructed this thing in which they chase people down for obscure, dubious violations, whereas the flagrant violations on their own side are ignored.
You know, we're talking about this book, The Big Lie, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D'Souza.
Laying aside for a minute the racial aspect of it, the identity politics aspect of it, are there any other connections between Nazi policy as it was at the peak of the Nazis and Democrat politics today?
Well, the core, here's the key thing.
The Nazis have taken the socialism out of National Socialism.
Okay.
The core meaning of fascism is the centralized state.
Mussolini says everything in the state and nothing outside the state.
And what Mussolini means is that the state is like an organism.
Each individual is a cell within it.
Your life, your rights are meaningless except to the degree that you serve the state.
Now, my point is, does this more resemble the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
If you look at the economics of the Democratic Party now, we're not talking about the 30s, we're talking about now.
To me, they're classically fascist.
And what I mean by that is they're not Marxian socialists.
Socialist governments take over industries, right?
Nationalization.
The Indian government nationalized in the 40s and 50s.
They would run the energy sector.
They would own the banking industry.
The government would.
Now, under Obama, we have private hospitals, we have private health insurance, but the government directs it.
So it's state-directed capitalism.
And we saw that with the banks, with the investment companies, with the energy sector.
So this notion of state-directed capitalism is classic.
That's the classic economic definition of fascism.
Right, right.
Okay, fair enough.
And you mentioned Planned Parenthood, which is one of my favorite targets.
I mean, they really have developed an idea of the human being that does send a chill up my spine, you know, when you think of the Nazis.
Now, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a champion of forced sterilization.
Yes.
And when the Nazis adopted the forced sterilization law of 1933, Margaret Sanger went around giving speeches, basically praising the Nazi program, saying it's more specifically.
She named it.
She said, basically what she said is the Germans are getting ahead of us.
She goes, we are falling behind and we need to go where they're going.
Now, what Margaret Sanger did not do, but other progressives, there was a guy named Paul Popano in California, progressive eugenicist.
He talked about lethal chambers.
He goes, it's not just a matter of preventing people from being born.
We've got the sick, the disabled, the worthless people in our society.
We have to kill them.
And we can't kill them one by one.
There are too many of them.
We need a system to do it.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Nazi eugenicists in the early 30s got the idea of lethal chambers with carbon monoxide gas from the United States.
The original concentration gas chambers were for the sick, the disabled, what they call imbeciles.
That was later expanded into the final solution.
So there's a very ugly history here.
It's all in the historical record.
But a lot of it's not in the textbooks because the progressives coming to power after the war decided to leave it out.
Yeah, and it's interesting when they're taking down statues of Robert E. Lee.
I always want to say to them, you know, 50 years from now, they're going to be taking down statues of people who supported abortion because they're going to say this was a holocaust and you shouldn't have a statue or an airport named after a guy who supported this.
Let me finish up talking a little bit about Obama as one of his most effective critics, so effective that he actually came after you.
What do you feel is his legacy?
I mean, is Trump, Trump does seem to be dismantling a lot of it.
And yet, healthcare is still in place, Obamacare's still in place.
What do you feel is the result of the eight years of Obama?
Well, to me, I think Obamacare will be substantially remade, if not unmade.
The Republicans, I think, just weren't ready for it.
They didn't think Trump would win.
I know, they were settled.
Now they're suddenly scrabbling and saying, oh, well, we actually get to do this.
And so they're knitting together the way to do it.
I think Obama, what's very bad about Obama is he brought a gangsterism to American politics that wasn't there before.
For example, I don't think that Jimmy Carter would have dreamed of trying to imprison his political opponents.
But with Obama, we saw for the first time the mobilization of the organs of the state, the IRS, the FBI.
My case is only one.
The Tea Party guys, they were going after, they would try to track down investors in our films so they could audit their taxes.
I mean, this kind of political prosecution, very dangerous stuff.
In fact, it's fascism of a much scarier kind than what happened in Charlottesville or the Antifa guys.
Those guys are at least outside on the street.
I'm much more worried about studio bosses that will throw you out of the film industry if you confess to being a conservative or deans who control billion-dollar endowments who can enforce what the Nazis call gleichschaltong.
In other words, forced cooperation across whole swaths of American culture.
That's much more dangerous.
And Obama is part of that, creating that atmosphere of retribution and intolerance that we now see in our culture.
He legitimizes, there's no question.
Body Wants Bonding00:08:28
The Big Lie, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D'Oza.
Dinesh, thanks very much for coming on.
It's always great to see you.
Always a pleasure.
Thanks a lot.
All right, we've got our new segment.
for the second time, sexual follies.
You stood there and hung your head.
Made me wish that I were dead.
Johnny, get angry.
Johnny, get mad.
Give me the biggest lecture I ever had.
I want a brave man.
I want a caveman.
Johnny, show me that you care, really care for me.
Johnny, get angry.
I want a brave man.
I want a caveman.
Do women prefer nasty guys?
I mean, every nice guy on earth comes to the conclusion at some point that he could have more women if he could just learn to be nasty to them.
And then you get articles like this one.
This is from Grumpy Sloth.
Sierra Marley writes the seven worst things about nice guys.
She says, everyone hates nice guys, especially genuinely nice guys.
There's nothing more annoying than a boy who thinks that he is owed something by a woman simply because he's not treating her like garbage.
Can you say beta for this?
That's, wow, that's really cruel.
For the sake of clarity, here's a list of seven things that people hate about nice guys.
Number one, they're clingy.
Even if you're not dating, they insist on hanging out with you and texting you incessantly.
Two, they are entitled.
Every time you see a nice guy, you can bet it's because they're complaining about how women only want to be with jerks and they never give nice guys a chance.
They think they're entitled to be with a woman simply because they don't treat them like garbage.
Three, they're needy.
Now, this is different than clingy in a few ways.
First, they need constant validation and will put themselves down as a way to get you to compliment them.
Four, they're always whining.
Girls and guys alike hate that self-proclaimed nice guys are always bellyaching about how girls reject them for being nice.
Five, they don't listen to your problems.
Six, they think being nice is the only thing women care about.
Seven, they take everything personally.
And of course, the feminists move this to another level with why chivalry may not always be what it seems.
Men who hold doors open and smile may actually be sexist study claims.
If you're the sort of gentleman who holds the door open for a lady or the sort of woman who expects him to, then be warned, such acts of chivalry may actually be benevolent sexism in disguise, according to researchers.
And they go on, they have this tribe, like all the things when men talk about women, you know, their responsibility to take care of women, when they won't refuse to split the check, when they want to pay for dinner and all this, all this is secret sexism.
And, you know, the effect of that, the effect of feminism is really interesting.
Instead of making guys better, nicer, more feminist, it just made weak guys cave to feminists, but it made guys who want to retain their manhood.
It turned them into Schwarzenegger characters.
I mean, the idea in the old days, the idea of a man had a lot of humor, had a lot of wit.
You had to live by your wits.
You had to match wits with women.
Then it became, in the 70s and 80s, when feminism really took off, it became this idea that you were just this muzzle-bound guy who came and took everything that you want.
There is some science, insofar as we have science, in the idea that primates, primate males, abuse women, and that the primate women expect it.
There has been studies, there's a recent one with baboons, where they found out that the baboon males don't rape women.
What they do is they pick a woman and then they just abuse her continually until she's afraid to go with anyone else so that when she's ready to get pregnant, when she's an estrous, she belongs to him.
And the women expect this.
And there's a lot to suggest that this is, that, how do I put it?
That this is something that is like evolutionary that is in men.
I personally hate evolutionary reasoning because so much of it is pie in the sky.
I mean, even if you, I know there are people here who don't believe in evolution at all, but for those who don't believe in evolution between species, but even if you do believe we were descended from apes, and I was descended from an ape around eight o'clock this morning, so I, you know, I can speak for myself.
But I mean, even if you do believe in this, I believe that the reasoning, we don't even know what kind of apes we might have been descended from.
We don't know what.
I believe this reason is completely wrong.
I hate it when people start talking about alpha males and beta males because that is how gorillas behave who live in tribes.
We all know that there are people who are leaders, but most of the good leaders I've ever seen in the military, for instance, are also good followers.
They know when they're not the guy to be the leader.
And then there are people, you know, like artists like myself who are like lone wolves.
They can't be, they're not trying to lead or follow.
They just want to be left alone to do what they're going to do, and they can't be moved off their dime.
Here's the thing.
All this way of thinking, and we were talking about this a little bit yesterday, but it still applies.
All this way of thinking is reducing people to physicality.
It is reducing people to just their flesh and bones.
And the thing about, what is it, Spencer, my son Spencer is here today.
What is that quote?
Spencer knows everything.
So I just, that's why I bring him in.
What is the quote?
St. Paul.
Yeah, you're not on the dime or anything.
St. Paul, that we are, our treasure is in pots of clay or something like this, Dina?
Spirits and clay jars?
Yeah, yeah.
Spirit.
What is it?
I can't say that.
You can't say that, okay, but it's something like he's the kid is worthless.
How are you ever going to support me in the manner to which I've become accustomed?
It is something like that our souls are like treasures in pots of clay, something like that.
And the thing about the body is we have a body, but we aren't a body.
We are a spirit.
The thing about the body is the body makes no distinctions.
Men, just like women, want to be loved.
They want to be bonded to somebody.
They want to be in a relationship.
They want to have families.
The male body, which is something entirely different, just wants to bang everything that moves.
That is what the male body wants to do.
That's what it is assigned to do.
But you are not your body.
That is the whole problem with this idea.
And when they look at, when they test animals, one of the really interesting tests that they do with animals sometimes are bugs and insects is they'll create a female who is more of what they like than anyone that exists in nature.
So for instance, if there's a moth who likes dark moths, they'll dye a moth really dark.
Or if there's a spider that likes hairy-legged spiders, which there are, they'll paste hair onto the spider's legs to see if they'll go for something that doesn't even exist in nature.
The body wants everything.
The body just wants all of what it wants.
But people, humans, spirits, have choices that they make.
When women have fantasies like 50 Shades of Gray, when they want cruelty in their life, that is the body reacting to their desire for strength.
They want men who are strong, men who can support them, men who can defend them, men who will protect them, and men who will carry them through when they are still processing information, will make the decisions that would go.
You know, they always say lesbian couples never make decisions.
They just process.
The man is there to make those decisions.
It is their body taking that to the extreme, taking that strength to the extreme.
And women who live in their bodies, like men who live in their bodies, are usually headed for a very, very bad fall.
So the women in your life are not looking for people to be cruel.
This is my belief.
They are looking for men to be strong.
And the feminists are just reacting.
What the feminists are, is they're people who are so horrified by what their body is telling them, the abuse their body might be looking for, that they reject it, even strength, utterly, because they're afraid of themselves.
They're afraid of what they really want.
And that is my answer.
Sexual follies.
Can we play that thing again?
I love that.
I want to see the sexual folly scene.
All right.
I just have to say that again.
Feminists and Fear00:00:16
Tomorrow is the mailbag.
Go on the podcast.
Thanks.
Send in your questions.
You've got to subscribe to thedailywire.com.
And if you subscribe for the year for only a lousy hundred bucks, leftist tears.