3372 Hillary Clinton's America | Dinesh D'Souza and Stefan Molyneux
Did you know that the Democratic Party is historically the party of slavery, segregation and domestic terrorism? Do you know about Hillary Clinton's close relationship with Senator Robert C. Byrd who was a former Ku Klux Klan member? Dinesh D'Souza joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" and the unspoken truths the mainstream media hides from the general population. Dinesh D'Souza is a #1 New York Times bestselling author and the creator of "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party," the top-grossing documentary of 2016, which is in theaters now!Dinesh D'Souza's Website: http://www.dineshdsouza.comHillary's America: http://www.hillarysamericathemovie.comBook: Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party: http://www.fdrurl.com/Hillarys-AmericaFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Very pleased to have on the line and on your screen, if you're watching this on YouTube, Dinesh D'Souza.
He is a number one New York Times bestselling author with the actual handicap of being somewhat on the conservative side, which means he's about 12 million ahead of everyone else.
And he's the creator of Hillary's America, The Secret History of the Democratic Party, which is the top grossing documentary of 2016.
It's in theaters now.
And we're going to put the links to this below, DineshD'Souza.com and Hillary's AmericaTheMovie.com.
Thank you so much, Dinesh, for taking the time today.
It's great to be on the show.
All right, so we are going to go.
30 minutes beginning to end from founding to all the way to the convention.
And we're going to start with the general narrative, which I kind of grew up with about the Democratic Party.
First of all, they were always wonderful.
Secondly, if you find out at some point in the past they weren't always wonderful, well, that kind of switched.
Usually it's considered to be switched in the 60s.
They became a lot nicer.
But your approach seems to be a little different and I think seems to show that there's a lot more consistency in In the not-niceness of the Democratic Party than we are sometimes led to believe.
Is that a fair assessment?
Yes, I think we should begin by talking about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery.
Now, slavery was invented a long time ago.
Slavery existed since the dawn of man.
But never before the Democrats did anyone come up with the notion that slavery was good for the slave.
The Democrats were unique in coming up with this sort of positive, good school of slavery.
And later, after slavery, the Democrats became super embarrassed, and they tried to blame all of this on the South, as if the slavery debate was just one between the anti-slavery North Right away you see this isn't just a north-south issue.
The real Slavery debate was between the anti-slavery Republicans and the pro-slavery Democrats.
So that's the first chapter of this narrative in which you see the Democrats are really implicated in the worst horrors of modern history.
And, of course, a lot of times in these days, Republicans are sort of portrayed as a reactionary, racist, nasty group of people.
But from what I understand about the 19th century, the people who were trying to end slavery, the people who were trying to extend voting rights, there was, of course, a Civil Rights Act sponsored by Republicans.
They had black A congressman in the Republican Party in the 19th century.
Again, that doesn't seem to fit the existing narrative and therefore seems to have been expunged.
Dare I say whitewashed?
I think I dare say it.
Yeah.
Republicans, the party of emancipation, but the Republicans passed the 13th Amendment permanently ending slavery, the 14th Amendment granting equal rights under the law.
And the 15th Amendment granting the right to vote.
Now, amazingly, the Democrats opposed these amendments.
They opposed the 14th Amendment.
Every single Democrat in the Senate and the House voted against it.
You think voting.
Shouldn't blacks have the vote?
According to the Democrats, no.
Every Democrat in the House, every Democrat in the Senate opposed the 15th Amendment.
And then the Democrats became the party of segregation and Jim Crow.
Every segregation law, without exception, was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic governor.
There's, as I say, no exception to that rule.
And finally, the Democrats were deeply entangled with the Ku Klux Klan.
They founded the Klan.
They made the Klan the domestic terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for 30 years.
And this isn't me talking, this is a quote from the progressive historian Eric Foner.
So this is the actual sick, demented, perverted and violent history of the Democratic Party, one that to this day the Democrats have never acknowledged, they've never admitted it, they've never apologized for it.
And so when these sanctimonious characters in Philadelphia Go around pointing their finger at Trump on the stupidest of pretexts.
I mean, Trump crosses his arms and looks to the left.
Does that make him Mussolini?
Trump raises his arms to wave at somebody.
Does that make him a Nazi?
This is sort of like history for idiots.
These things like racism, fascism, white supremacy, they have real meanings, and the Democratic Party has a lot to answer for in all these areas.
Well, so the left will try to get things done from a legislative standpoint, and we've seen this all around the world where the left gets power.
Or tries to get power.
So they'll try to get things from a legislative standpoint.
But as we see from sort of putting their finger on the democratic scale by importing people who are going to vote Democrat, by getting very activist judges to get legislation across that they can't or won't bring to the American people, there does seem to be this approach that if we can't get what we want through democracy, we're going to try and get it through some other way.
And of course, a lot of the Democrats didn't want blacks voting and Part of the KKK, the genesis of the KKK, wasn't it partly to keep blacks from showing up at the poll booth?
Absolutely.
And then fast forward to today and look at this email scandal.
I'm talking about email scandal number two, in which it's now emerged that the Democrats were rigging, rigging their own election primary.
I mean, what is this?
The Soviet Union, a party that calls itself democratic, you think would at least be able to run a democratic election, but they're putting their finger on the scale.
The DNC colluding with Hillary against Bernie.
And then when you listen to how Democrats talk in private, very eye opening.
They call Hispanics the Taco Bell crowd.
They make fun of homosexuals.
They run down blacks.
They want to take advantage of Bernie Sanders' alleged atheism.
So when I say the Democrats are the party of bigotry, it's very clear that that bigotry hasn't gone away.
It's merely something that they keep under wraps.
That's the way they talk in private when the cameras are not on and no one is listening.
Now, of course, one of the reasons why people think that it's a non-racist party is, of course, because blacks will vote for the left.
Blacks will vote Democrat.
It's like 90%, 95%, depending on how you count or which election it is.
But as you point out, I thought the big turnaround was in the 60s under Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society that, you know, they were hoping to buy, as he put it rather coarsely, which I won't repeat here, buy the black vote for the next 200 years through welfare.
I think you've pointed out that it actually started quite a bit earlier, though.
Yeah.
When blacks switched from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party was emphatically the party of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.
So why would blacks switch into this bigoted party?
And the answer is the promises and the meager handouts of the New Deal.
Now, I don't want to be too harsh on blacks because it was the Great Depression.
People were starving.
They were ill.
But nevertheless, The black switch was not due to racial reasons.
Many blacks switched very reluctantly and they felt pain doing it.
They said, I'm leaving the party of Lincoln and I'm joining the party of people who do night riding on horseback and actually want to suppress blacks.
Now, the other thing about the so-called big switch that you mentioned earlier Is this idea that the racist Democrats all became Republicans.
We have a very eye-opening scene in the movie where we make a list of all these racist Democrats.
There are about 1,200 of them.
And then we say, how many of them switched?
It turns out less than 1%.
I believe the actual number is around 14.
14 out of 1,500.
It's a tiny, tiny percent.
And so the vast majority of racist Democrats never switched.
The big switch is actually a big lie.
Well, and of course, Donald Trump gets sort of metaphorically thrown up against the wall, his arm twisted, you know, disavow this David Duke character who was in the KKK for a year or two when he was in his late teens or early 20s or something like that.
Donald Trump can barely remember the guy if he even remembers him at all.
On the other hand, of course, there are direct mentors of Hillary Clinton who were in the KKK for a lot longer than David Duke, and the media never seems to press her around disavowal or any of the racist legacy that might have transferred down that mentoring line.
Look at the way that the Republican Party has treated David Duke versus the Democratic Party treating someone like Robert Byrd.
So the Republicans repudiated Duke.
He's a controversial figure.
They wanted to throw him out of the Republican Party from the beginning.
Robert Byrd was a hero in the Democratic Party, even though it was well known that he had spent a good deal of his career in the Klan, the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, when Byrd died in the year 2010, not so long ago, Hillary Clinton said, he's my mentor.
Bill Clinton and Obama actually went to Byrd's funeral.
Obama didn't touch The topic of his Klan membership, but Bill Clinton did, and he said something very interesting.
He said, well, you know, you can't be too hard on Byrd for being in the Klan because you had to be in the Klan to advance in the Democratic Party.
Think about that.
You had to be in the Ku Klux Klan to advance in the Democratic Party.
I'm no lawyer.
I don't think that's a very strong defense myself.
Right.
In 1924, there was a resolution to condemn the Klan at the Democratic National Convention.
It failed.
The Democrats voted down the concept of condemning the Klan.
Because why?
Because the Klan was doing their dirty work for them.
The Klan was going around terrorizing blacks, not just blacks, white Republicans.
And this is how the Democrats were able to maintain white supremacy through much of the South.
Right.
There was, of course, a second wave, and I remember David Patrick Moynihan's famous report in the 1960s talking about the degree to which the welfare state would be undermining the black family.
And, of course, everyone thought it was a terrible thing to say, and he was completely wrong.
Tragically, of course, by the time everyone realized he was right, it seemed that the giant ball of social decay was in motion.
But I think there was another round in the 60s That really decimated a lot of black communities, created a lot of single mother households, and the attendant dependence upon the handouts from the state.
Yeah, this in the movie, in Hillary's America, I call this the urban plantation.
And it's actually remarkable how similar the urban plantation is to the old rural plantation.
This is not just some kind of general analogy.
Think of the ramshackle dwellings or slave quarters on the slave plantation.
You can find those in inner city Oakland.
Think about the amount of violence that's necessary to hold the place together because slavery was based on force.
Similarly today, cops have the toughest jobs in the inner city just holding the place together.
Think about the family breakdown on the old slave plantation where you could sell off kids.
Illegitimacy was widespread.
That's the case today on the urban plantation as well.
And finally, you had a meager provision for people.
They got health care.
They got food.
But no opportunity.
You couldn't get ahead.
There was nihilism.
There was despair.
And that is life on the new democratic plantation as well.
So it's really incredible that the same party that ran the old rural plantations is now running the new urban ones.
And not just for blacks.
They have plantations for blacks, reservations for Indians, barrios, ghettos, and slums for everybody else.
This is the terrible, sordid legacy of the Democratic Party.
So when I see people who have done so much damage, Strutting around like overseers, proudly congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back, it's really a sight that's almost too much to behold.
Well, of course, as you point out, they have significantly sort of walled off areas for certain groups of society and very well patrolled gated communities for themselves.
It's sort of this Brazilian model where we're fine inside our enclave.
And in a sense, as long as we continue to get political power by bribing people with pittances, we kind of don't care, in a sense, what happens outside the gates.
Yeah, the plantation is about the same as it was in 1968, but look at the Clintons.
Look at the way that they have gone from zero to $300 million at warp speed.
Now, these are people on a government salary.
How do you accumulate that kind of cash, $3 billion in the foundation?
How do you get that kind of money They didn't invent the iPhone.
They didn't start a business.
They've done nothing really productive.
They have figured out a way to cash in on public policy.
So this precious resource that represents the aspirations of the American people, our domestic policy and our foreign policy, these two thugs, this Bonnie and Clyde operation has been renting it out to the highest bidder.
Selling off the Lincoln bedroom, taking pictures off the wall in the Oval Office while they were there, selling pardons to big-time criminal racketeers and felons.
And so, I don't really know.
Are these the people that we actually want to put in the Oval Office with the levers of power?
It's almost terrifying to contemplate.
Well, of course, if this is how much money they can make when not in the White House, imagine how much more they could make when they have that access to that much power.
Now, I've heard a little bit about your childhood and your, I think, mid to late teens arrival in America.
And it has struck me that where you grew up, pretty corrupt, and you can mention a little bit about that.
I wonder if that gave you sort of a sensitive antennae to corruption that other people might sort of take for granted.
Yeah, I grew up in a middle-class family in India, and so I didn't have great luxury, but I didn't lack for anything.
Coming to America has meant, yes, I am materially better off, yes, I've seen the American dream in my own life, but I think one of the best things about coming to America is I've been able to live in a country where there are ladders of opportunity, where you can write the script of your own life, and where you don't always have to bribe people, and you don't have corruption, and a place isn't run by gangs.
This is the America I came to at the age of 17.
And so when I see people like the Clintons, who are essentially like third-world gangsters, I mean, these are, you know, they bring to mind Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Mugabe in Africa, people who essentially see their job as one of looting the treasury.
They come to politics to make money and get rich.
It's very sad to see America going down this third-world path.
Right.
One of the things that's fascinating as well is you obviously have a great commitment to storytelling.
I mean, all of the fantastic and important facts in the world usually don't work very well without that narrative, that emotional connection, that throughput.
And as you pointed out, Michael Moore has, of the top 10 documentary films, he's got five because he is, for all of his perhaps ideological flaws, he is a great storyteller.
And I would imagine that in sort of designing the film and storyboarding the film, the documentary that you've made, That the narrative and the story and the emotional impact was very important.
Yeah, one thing that Michael Moore does understand, I mean, his films intellectually are a nullity.
They're a complete zero.
But he understands that movies are for entertainment.
People don't go to the movies for messaging or even to learn.
They go to have fun.
And we know that.
That's why we try to make films that are very entertaining.
This new movie, Hillary's America, it's kind of a thriller.
It's a detective story because Hillary is a subject that involves elements of the horror genre.
Couldn't stay away from that totally.
But we end on a very inspiring note.
So the film is a narrative and it appeals to the head and the heart.
Because the film makes so many factually arresting claims, I mean, I say, for example, in 1860, the year of the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave.
None.
All the slaves in the entire country were owned by Democrats.
So that's a very startling statement.
Well, this is why I wrote a book, Hillary's America, same title, to back up these claims and have all the evidence, all the supporting documentation, so that these factual claims would not be subject to attack.
They would, in fact, be very sturdily supported.
Right.
No, and that is obviously very, very important.
The more startling the information, the more footnotes, which generally don't work very well in a film, So we'll also link to the book below.
Now, the role of the media.
It's impossible for me to talk about the Democratic Party without talking about the media.
Because, you know, every self-interested organization is going to pump out all the brochures about its own virtues and the evils of its opponents from here to eternity.
But none of this would really work without the involvement of the media.
And how far back does that go and how deep do you think it goes?
I think it's not just the media.
I would say the media, academia, and the entertainment industry, by which I would include Hollywood, but also include the comedians.
I mean, look, the left has Colbert, Jon Stewart, they have Bill Maher.
We have nobody, nobody, and nobody.
A lot of young people get their information from comedians.
So when you own largely the three biggest megaphones of our culture, You can put out a lot of propaganda and there's no one loud enough to contradict you.
And this is why I actually went.
I'm a think tank guy.
I was a writer of books and speeches for many years.
The reason I went to movies is I wanted to plant a conservative or even just a dissenting flag right in the middle of Hollywood.
We can't concede that territory to the other side permanently.
Otherwise, we'll never win long term in politics.
Well, of course, because a lot of people are emotionally primed For particular facts and particular arguments by a uniformity of emotional preparation.
And again, that's through art and that's through academia and so on.
And so what they call triggered now seems to be any facts that go counter to a leftist narrative seem to be like triggering for people to the point where their emotional reaction overwhelms their capacity to analyze information from a sort of reason and evidence standpoint.
And you're right.
I mean, this is an old statement that Breitbart made about the politics is downstream from culture.
And if you can help people to absorb information that goes against the narrative, you kind of open them up to being able to use reason and evidence to explore things more objectively for themselves.
Completely.
So that's why I hope that our films are a gateway and encourage conservatives, Christians to make films, to go into the creative areas of American politics and express things in ways that reach the people that we need to reach.
Was it a hard movie to make from a funding and resource and manpower perspective?
Well, it was an easy movie to make from that perspective because my other two films have been very successful.
So I talk to investors and I use the term recycled philanthropy.
I say, look, you give me a dollar, I'll work really hard in the market to get it back to you and then some.
But my purpose is so you can do it again.
I can make the same dollar run around the block multiple times.
But this was a hard movie to make conceptually, because Hillary Clinton is a more difficult, because she is a less interesting subject than Obama.
Obama is not that interesting now, but four years ago he was pretty interesting.
He came out of nowhere, intriguing figure with a very interesting family history.
And so I could make a movie about him and people wanted to know about him.
By and large, if you look at Republicans and conservatives, they don't want to know about Hillary.
They know too much about her.
This hag has been around with us for way too long.
And if I put Hillary's face on the screen for 90 minutes, most people would want to blow their brains out.
So the challenge of making a Hillary movie is how do you make it interesting?
And the way I make it interesting is I say, okay, I'm not going to make a movie just about Hillary.
I'm going to make a movie about the Hillary gang because Hillary's head of a gang.
It's this progressive gang, this democratic gang.
And I'm going to tell the story about the gang, how it got started, how it ran its early heists and rackets, how every time it got busted, it creatively moved to a new racket.
How it covered up the old racket.
What it sort of pitches.
When I was myself in a confinement center for a technical violation of the campaign finance laws, I learned the kind of modus operandi of crime.
And I realized, wow, this is kind of exactly what the Democrats do.
Think of a bunch of criminals who are trying to rob an old lady.
It's better, they can kick in her door, but it's easier if they can convince her to lift the latch herself.
They have to sweet talk her to do that.
That's called the pitch.
So when I listen to all this stuff coming out of Philadelphia, I go, oh yeah, I know what's going on.
This is the same thing as convincing the old lady to lift the latch.
That's what Bill Clinton is doing.
That's what Obama's doing.
These are perfect Pitchman.
And the reason that Hillary wanted Bill and the reason that they have this sick thing that they call a marriage is because Bill is Hillary's pitchman.
She's needed him from day one and there he was kind of doing his payback to her for all the sexual enabling and all the sexual predation that she's covered up for and blamed the victim for.
There was Bill finally returning the favor.
Now, I'm old enough to have been shocked and appalled in the 90s when Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct came to light.
But of course, a lot of my listeners are younger and look at him as, you know, perhaps a wizened old cryptkeeper who looks like he could use a little bit of sunlight and maybe some fresh virgin blood or something.
But from your perspective, how would you like to help younger people to understand the sort of sexual history of Bill Clinton and the degree to which she seems to have enabled that behavior?
Well, you know, Bill Clinton is a kind of wizened old pervert.
I mean, he's a guy who is, this is not a matter of philandering.
This is a guy who has essentially been a sexual predator and he's been accused by multiple women.
Now, Hillary herself has tweeted and made public statements of the effect that women who allege sexual harassment have a right to be heard and she adds to be believed, to be believed.
Now, apparently She wasn't thinking here of Bill's victims because there's a whole procession of them.
And ironically, not only does she not believe them, she has actually been terrorizing them, going after them, trying to discredit them, covering up, if you will, for Bill.
And I call her an active enabler because I don't think this is passive enabling.
This isn't just Bill is that way and so I've got to stand by my husband.
It's more that Hillary is like, look, I need a way to cement Bill to me because otherwise Bill's going to run off with someone else.
If the guy has an addiction and I take advantage of that addiction and I provide a useful service in covering up for Bill, he's going to be beholden for me his whole life.
And he's going to deliver for me when I need him to.
And boy, does she need him to right now.
Well, yeah, as she's pointed out, he's much more of a natural politician than she is.
So...
Dinesh, how has it been for you having the film released?
What has your experience been?
From what I've seen, the feedback is very, very positive.
What's it like emotionally for you to get something like this out into the world?
I mean, obviously, it's a huge labor of love.
It's exciting.
It's tiring.
It's a little exhausting at times.
But at the end of the day, I think it's very well worth it because the film reaches people and reaches them in such a powerful way.
We opened the film in just three theaters, one in Dallas, one in Houston, one in Phoenix.
We jammed those theaters.
This enabled us to have a big national release in 1,200 theaters.
Within five days, we propelled into the top 10 We're good to go.
I wish that Trump and his buddies would see the movie.
I wish the RNC would see the movie.
I wish the Super PACs would see the movie.
They have the ability to get it out to people far more widely than I possibly can.
So here is a very useful weapon and a very critical time in our country's history.
And I hope that the people who can actually get it out there as widely as it needs to be gotten out there will do it.
Well, I can tell you we have a lot of Trump supporters who watch this channel, so if anybody has Pipeline through to the DJ, please remind them that Dinesh D'Souza has this fantastic film out, and of course it's out as a book as well.
