SO SATISFYING: D'Souza slams leftists—including professors—at Yale

Video Statistics and Information

Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
um I'd like to begin by thanking young America's Foundation for sponsoring this event yep round of applause especially mr. Pat Coyle just for his leadership he's just done great things they do a lot to promote free speech on America's college campuses and really beyond so this America our young America's Foundation event is part of the D'Souza Unchained lecture series it's a unique opportunity for Yale to really showcase its commitment to free speech and intellectual diversity and yeah just free opinions on campus I'm excited yep one step at a time one step at a time I'm excited to introduce to you our special guest speaker for this evening mr. Dinesh D'Souza born in Mumbai India mr. D'Souza came to the u.s. as an exchange student and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983 he was a former policy analyst in the regulan white house and he also served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University mr. de Souza's first book a liberal education publicized the phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses and it became a New York Times bestseller for 15 weeks since then he has had a very prolific career publishing many books as filmmaker also mr. D'Souza has been named one of America's most influential conservative thinkers by the New York Times magazine the world affairs council Liston's is one of the nation's 500 leading authorities on international issues we look forward to an evening of respectful discourse as I mentioned before with such a well known figure so please join me in welcoming to this gathering mr. Dinesh D'Souza [Applause] thank you very much Wow I'm excited to be here and looking forward to this I gonna speak for about 30 minutes then take some questions they're probably gonna be a lot of questions so I'll try to adopt the motto but King Henry the eighth used with one of his wives he said I won't keep you too long now I want to talk about the very peculiar atmosphere that has dominated American politics since the election of Trump a peculiar atmosphere that has metastasized onto the campus and is having the clear effect of corrupting intellectual debate and literally making people dumb I hope to not only talk about this would actually illustrate it by example this evening now since Trump's election there's been a whole bunch of issues that have surfaced none of which have actually been seriously debated we should be debating tax reform there really wasn't a tax reform debate there wasn't really a health care debate there's not a whole lot of gun control debate going on what you essentially have is an incendiary atmosphere in which when people say things you sort of get violent reactions that are a triumph of sort of attitude and emotion over intelligence and this has become the governing mode of communication in America today I'm going to try to depart from this mode and try to throw a light on a couple of very important issues that are both in American politics and also very relevant to the campus so the reason we haven't had real debates on issues is because two cards two accusations have been flying in the air almost non-stop since November of 2016 the first one is the race card and the second one no less inflammatory is the fascism card the race card is sort of older and in fact for those of us who have been in American politics now for a generation it has been customary to make the accusation that the Republican Party is the party of bigotry of racism and the Democratic Party is the party of civil rights of anti racism and this was of course transferred under Trump Trump is a racist the Republican Party now is the party of bigotry the second accusation is somewhat more novel and that is the Trump is a fascist now when I say it's more novel people would would fling this accusation at Reagan at Bush Reagan's a fascist but it was kind of a throwaway line with Trump it's intended and it's intended not only as an insult but it's intended to justify a whole series of behaviors that would otherwise be unacceptable so for example let's boycott the inauguration now if Republicans boycotted Obama's inauguration you can imagine the reaction let's violently disrupt the inaugural parties let's block speakers on campus let's try to get Trump out of there by any means necessary let's get him on obstruction of justice whether or not there was an underlying crime now as I say this kind of extremism is only justified if America today is sort of like Germany in 1933 if in fact Trump is a kind of Hitler then it might be warranted to use extreme tactics not excluding violence in order to prevent what might be even greater catastrophes in the future so what I want to do is actually beg the question I want to probe right into it and ask what is racism what is fascism and are these ideologies if we can call them that on the left or on the right I'm gonna begin by talking a little bit about fascism because fascism is actually a topic that is hardly understood at all when people talk about fascism they define it in a way that makes absolutely no sense Trump is a fascist because he's an ultra nationalist he wants to make America great again hey didn't Hitler want to make Germany great again this is the argument but it's not really an argument because nationalism has never been a core defining feature of fascism it is an attribute of it but it's not a defining feature of it and in fact nationalism is equally present on the left as on the right Gandhi in India was a nationalist Mandela in South Africa was a nationalist so was Che Guevara so was Fidel Castro all the anti colonial leaders were ultra-nationalists nakooma and Ghana for example many others Winston Churchill was a nationalist as was de Gaulle Abraham Lincoln was a nationalist as were the American founders now it is beyond stupid to refer to all these people as fascists they obviously weren't so nationalism does not actually define who is or is not a fascist well Trump is is a fascist because he is an authoritarian he wants to throw out the Constitution he wants to end the democratic system by the way this argument is literally made by pundits on MSNBC on CNN it's literally made by comedians on every platform and these are people who are accusing Trump of vegan authoritarian when any real authoritarian would have shut them up in five minutes Mussolini would have send a bunch of goons down to the New York Times and beaten those guys to a pulp but the very fact that Trump is slayed every day in every platform for being an authoritarian kind of proves that he can't he isn't because he isn't doing anything to the people who are making these accusations so right away we see that we have to dig a little bit deeper and I want to suggest that the reason that we don't know a whole lot about these topics is partly because if we did the whole debate would change instantly for example it is not widely known that the founder of fascism the the the first fascist regime in the world was not was not Nazi Germany it was Mussolini's Italy established in 1922 now Mussolini was a man of the left he was in fact the most famous Marxist in Italy perhaps alongside Gramsci Mussolini and gram she were both admired by the Soviet Socialist in fact Mussolini was admired by Lenin when Mussolini started the first fascist party Lenin sent a telegram of congratulations why because he recognized that Mussolini was a fellow revolutionary of the left and fascism grew out of the crisis of Marxism in other words the Marxists realized that there that the predictions of Marx the expectations of a of a proletarian revolution were not occurring they hadn't happened anywhere and in trying to think about why Mussolini came up with the idea that perhaps it is because people are less attached to their class than they are to their country Mussolini noticed in World War 1 for example that the French socialists fought for France and the British socialists fought for Britain and so Mussolini since created National Socialism National Socialism it's a variation of socialism that does not displace class but simply adds the idea of the nation now Hitler as we all know was the head of a party called the National Socialist German Workers Party amazingly if you read commentary today there's almost a sort of comical effort to remove the socialism from national socialism to pretend as if the National Socialists weren't really socialists even though all their leading champions not only Hitler but Gorbals for example gurbles says between nationalism and socialism there has to be a priority which comes first the nationalism or the socialism answer he says socialism socialism is the noun and nationalism national is the adjective national qualifies what type of socialism were trying to do now all of this is camouflage today because in World War two we saw the communists on this side and the fascists on this side thus lending credence to the idea that if the Communists were on the left the fascists must have been on the right this is actually a complete non sequitur let's remember that ideologies that are very close to each other that are almost you may say kissing cousins have had fratricidal and genocide 'el wars that have lasted for decades if not for centuries consider the Shia and the Sunni the Shia and the Sunni are both inside the house of Islam they differ only by a hair in actual theological beliefs and yet the Shia and the Sunni have been fighting and at it for a long time fighting not only over fine points of theology but over territory and over power over power so fascism the word fascism literally refers to a bunch of sticks tightly bound together and fascism in its core meaning means simply collectivism the power of the centralized state that is the indisputable meaning of fascism this meaning was fully recognized by the fascists and by the anti-fascists so for example in the 1930s FDR was a huge admirer of Mussolini FDR saw Italian fascism as on the Left he knew that and more progressive than the New Deal FDR sent members of his braintrust the fascist Rome to study Italian fascism to bring some of those ideas to America Mussolini for his part reviewed FDR's book called looking forward in an Italian magazine and his review can be summarized in this way this guy is one of us he's a fascist so there was a mutual admiration society between the New Deal Democrats and the Italian fascists in the early 1930s but now I want to get a little more serious and talk about Hitler and in doing this I'm actually going to refer very specifically to the work of two very prominent scholars who are right here at Yale the first is James Whitman in a book that he published very recently called Hitler's American model and the other is Timothy Snyder prominent historian here at Yale I'm going to start with Whitman's book where he describes an inn so in the opening of the book in meeting in 1935 of the Nazis the leading Nazis who are in the process of drafting the Nuremberg Laws and the Nuremberg Laws for the laws that may Jews into second-class citizens they prohibited into marriage between Jews and other Germans they confiscated Jewish property they involve all kinds of segregation of Jews into ghettos and also state-sponsored discrimination against Jews and as the Nazis are in this meeting they had a stenographer present because they thought they were starting the world's first racist State one of the Nazis who had studied in America essentially put his hand up metaphorically speaking and said sorry we can't start the world's first racist State because the Democratic Party in the United States has already done it and the Nazis were like what they looked at each other and this Nazi explained that in the Democratic South and I should pause here to make an observation because the Nazis happen to know something that we don't know because it's not in our textbooks and that is that every segregation law in the Jim Crow South going back to the 1880s and continuing through the 1950s and 60s without exception was passed by a Democratic legislature signed by a Democratic governor and enforced by Democratic officials the Nazis knew this but you might notice it is somewhat downplayed in the American textbooks of the 21st century so the Nazis go all we have to do is take the Democratic laws cross out the word black right in the word Jew and we are off to the races we're home free and this is what the Nazis actually did in other words what I'm saying is not that there was a surface resemblance between the Democratic laws and the Nazi laws what I'm saying is and I'm citing professor Whitman in my defense he says that the Nazis lifted took as a blueprint the laws of the Jim Crow South now here's something very interesting one might expect professor Whitman's book to be called Hitler's Democratic model but it's not it called Hitler's American model in other words what professor Whitman does is he puts the blame not on the Democratic Party which actually passed the laws but on America in general now this makes absolutely no sense because as we all know going back to the Civil War America has been divided on issues of slavery segregation Jim Crow the Ku Klux Klan this has been the subject of ongoing battle sometimes physical battle between the two parties but what I'm trying to say is that in some sense what seems to be going on here is then there is an effort to cast the blame on America as a whole whereas these actual offenses were perpetrated by some Americans while other Americans tried to stop them Timothy Snyder has a very important book called blood lands in which drawing on other historical scholarship he makes a second observation which is he points out that Hitler got his idea for conquering in Europe in Europe from the Jacksonian Democrats in the United States again I pause for a moment because this will strike you of some of you as being pretty far out it is never told or taught to us not only in our textbooks but either and even in the media that the Nazis actually derived important ideas from progressives and from Democrats in the United States we don't learn this we're never told it but it's true it's true basically Hitler's problem was that he wanted to compete with the English and the French and he noticed that the English and the French had colonized most of the world they already had taken most of the real estate there was to be had and so Hitler sitting in Landsberg prison was like where is the real estate for Germany to conquer and then Hitler remembered Hitler was actually a big fan of Western novels he studied the United States and he read others who reported on the United States and he remember that in the 19th century the Jacksonian Democrats had taken the American Indians flung them off their land killed the ones that resisted tried to enslave the ones who remained and Hitler said I think I'm gonna do that I don't have to go to Asia I don't have to conquer India or Africa I'm gonna stay right here in Europe I'm gonna throw the poles and the Russians and the Slavs and the Eastern Europeans I'll drive them off their land if they resist we'll kill them if they stay back we'll enslave them and we will loot their possessions and their land so that Germany can prosper so once again what Professor Schneider points out is that Hitler actually used the American example in this case example of the 19th century Democratic Party but once again the blame is not placed on the Democrats it's placed on America in general America is culpable now I've said a couple things about fascism I could talk about the Nazi sterilization laws and the Nazi euthanasia laws I won't go into that because of time but here's what I want to say in the fascism debate as in the race debate important roots that we should know that should actually govern the debate are suppressed in other words it's very sad that we live in a time not only a fake news I don't care about fake news but I do care about fake history I do care about fake scholarship and I do I do care about bogus narratives that camouflage what's actually happened in this country when I released the movie Hilly's Hillary's America last year I'd been speaking on many campuses and typically when I would talk about slavery and make the point that the secession debate was between the north and the south but the slavery debate was between a pro-slavery Democratic Party and an anti-slavery Republican Party in other words the Democrats of the north were equally complicit as the Democrats of the south in protecting slavery as an institution that's the key point inevitably some pompous professor would stand up and say well Dinesh your comments although true in and of themselves are a wee bit simplistic you have to realize that there's plenty of blame to go around we can't simply fault one party or the other party both parties were you might say accessories to the historical crime etc etc etc and whenever I hear this this to me is the proverbial squid-like cloud of rhetoric that it's very important to dissipate because it's actually intended to muddy the waters not to clarify things and so in Hilary's America I decided let me push the envelope and make a categorical scientific statement scientific in the sense that it's eminently refutable and so I did in 1860 the year before the civil war I said no Republican owned a slave not no Republican leader owned a slave but no Republican in the United States owned a slave all the slaves in the entire country four million of them were owned by Democrats now this statement I want to tell you appears in no history book no textbook it has never been never appeared to my knowledge in an article it has never been uttered by anyone on television or in the History Channel or in a documentary and yet as I say it's eminently refutable all you have to do is give me the names of five Republicans who owned slaves and I would have to take it back but to this day and to this moment not a single counterexample has ever been provided not one one PhD researcher wrote me several months ago and he said I got you - I gotcha ulysses s grant inherited a slave on his wife's side a solitary slave and I pointed out to him I said that was almost a Touche my friend but you've got to remember that at the time this happened ulysses s grant was a Democrat only later did he move over into the Republican column no I mentioned this because this is actually history it's indisputable it's in the record professor Whitman has the transcripts of the Nuremberg meetings so the question I want to ask is why don't we educated people in America know this stuff why is it the case that when you turn on the television there's Rachel Maddow there's Van Jones there are all these guys bloviating about fascism without the slightest clue about what fascism is without any knowledge of the deep intimate connections between American progressivism on the one hand and the actual real-life fascists on the other and so here we are in the middle of what may be called a big lie a big lie and what is a big lie well we know what a small lie is a small lie is a easily verifiable untruth if somebody tells you something that it's false you can check it out the problem with big lies is that they're so big that you can't get your head around them and therefore they're much harder to refute it's much easier to sell a big lie than a small lie what happened in America very sadly this distortion about fascism did not start with Trump the big lie about Trump actually began in 1945 the moment that American soldiers went into the concentration camps the moment they saw those ghostly emaciated tottering figures come out the moment fascism was permanently discredited and Nazism immediately something else began at the same time progressive revisionism progressive revisionism the progressives coming to power in ninth in the 1940s in the Academy in the media in Hollywood basically said we cannot afford to let your future generations know what fascism actually is we have to reinvent fascism we've got to create if you will a new fascism and we've got to move fascism from the left-wing column where it's always been into the right-wing column so we can now use it as a bludgeon against our opponents this is the biggest of the big lies and it is no less true I'm sorry to say of racism than of fascism just want to make one point one more point before I move to my conclusion it is widely believed by many people that the civil rights movement of the 1960's was effectuated was passed by the Democratic Party and some people believe with the resistance of the Republican Party this is actually not true in fact it is the opposite of the truth in fact more Republicans proportionally voted for all the civil rights laws by which I mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the fair housing bill of 1968 than Democrats the opposition to civil rights came from the Democratic Party and if the Congress had had no Republicans only Democrats none of these laws would have passed now that is a fact and again it is a fact easily verifiable we live in this wonderful age of technology where you don't have to take my word for it you can look it up but in the moment I say this on campus people say to me people Dinesh but don't you know there was a big switch the party swapped sides the Republicans became Democrats the Democrats became Republicans I'm like really you mean like the cops became robbers the robbers became cops when did that actually occur how would that even be possible did they actually exchange flat-4 so the argument here basically is that the racist Democrats the infamous Dixiecrats the people who for example broke with Strom Thurmond in 1948 who voted against the Civil Rights Act these Dixiecrats these racist Dixiecrats became Republicans it cept they never did accept that this is itself a big lie and it is the easiest lie to check I simply made a list of all the Dixiecrats in the Senate there are about 35 of them in the Congress about a hundred of them you add in the governor's it's a group of about two hundred two hundred races dixiecrats let's count how many of them moved over to the Republican Party answer one one guy Strom Thurmond nobody else everybody else remained in the Democratic Party and was lionized for it when robert byrd former Ku Klux Klansmen died in 2010 there was Obama at his funeral there was Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton actually addressed the fact that Robert Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan he goes let me tell you why Robert Byrd was in the Klan you had to be in the Klan in those days in order to get ahead in the Democratic Party kind of an eye opening statement you had to be in the Klan that was the only way to get ahead now now we have all these and Tifa guys crawling out of their moms basements putting on their black outfits looking for their missing by clocks right and going around knocking over monuments let's get let's go get robert e lee well properly Lee why don't you go get Robert Byrd half of West Virginia's named after Robert Byrd Robert Byrd hi ray Robert Byrd school Robert Byrd Medical Center Robert Byrd is untouched the Senate Russell building there are huge buildings in America named after Democratic racists and segregationists who are never touched by an Tifa never attacked by the progressive left standing in Chicago is a huge monument to Stephen Douglas Stephen Douglas was the leader of the northern democratic faction that was pro-slavery when lincoln described what he called the four the four men for slavery we can call him the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse he named Roger tawny who signed the Dred Scott decision he was a southerner although from Maryland the other three guys Pierce Buchanan and Stephen Douglas all northern Democrats the point I'm trying to make is that what we have seen now is a very interesting move in progress of scholarship to lift the blame off the Democratic Party and pin it on the South pin it on America but take it off the actual party that explicitly said we are the party of the white man we are the party of slavery when I'm trying to say is that the Democrats invented the doctrine of white supremacy so the very people who poisoned the wells today magically showing up as the water commissioner we're here to fix the problem what problem well the problem we created and and this is the missing landscape of the American race debate and the fascism debate so I come full circle you would like to see I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that we're discussing racism or fascism it's a good thing on the balance we should be discussing other things too but we should be discussing these things also but my objection is to the dishonest intellectually shameful degraded way in which these topics are discussed or very often not discussed so for example as I mentioned on CNN places like this you have all these pundits who talk about fascism I publish a book about fascism the big lies a detailed examination of fascism you think these guys would love to have it out in an argument on Rachel Maddow show to discuss who's the real fascist is it Trump or is it Hillary in fact they won't touch this kind of topic they would like to have some buffoon on that they can that they who knows nothing about the topic that they can make fun of but if somebody actually knows what they're talking about know that no desire to have a conversation with that guy and this I'm afraid also extends to intellectual academic debate our professors I don't name names but it's true in general are scared to debate they say things but they won't stand up behind them they rely on their own hospitable crowd of well-wishers to endorse what they say amplify it they want Michael Moore to make a movie on it and they want they wanted what they want to be in the New York Review of Books but they won't stand up man-to-man in intellectual debate and allow their ideas to be tested in the manner that John Stuart Mill said we should have if we're going to come toward something approximating truth so ultimately to me it's not about Trump it's ultimately about free speech but not just free speech people say well we got to protect your right to Nash to say these things I don't actually care about my right to say these things I care about what I'm actually saying I care about the merits of what I'm actually saying and I'm actually inviting people to challenge me not on whether the First Amendment is good or not but whether or not it's true that fascism is and always has been on the left so I leave you with the thought that I don't expect you in a single talk where I introduce a lot of new things to agree with me just by hearing me I invite you to check them out investigate for yourself actually read Mussolini was a prolific author for example he wrote innumerable scholarly articles he edited the socialist journal called Avanti read his work and ask yourself is this a man of the left or is this a man of the right make your own decision that's ultimately I think what education is all about thank you very much [Applause] okay okay thank you mr. de souza so we'll have time for some questions so if anybody has a question what I'll have you do is we'll have a line here if you're over there if you could make your way kind of hoarse sure around I'll have the microphone ask your question keep it brief one question two person and yeah feel free to come up we'll also just get priority to Yale students so if you want to jump to the front of line okay okay so I have a couple of questions but I'll defer to used to how many I can ask just just the one okay see so you I think you rightly mentioned the the fascist and racist behavior of Andrew Jackson and but in a comparison to Trump Trump has been the the president in recent memory has been most complimentary of Andrew Jackson just from memory I believe he is asked for his room to ask for him to remain on currency notes has said that he is that the Jackson's legacy has been unfairly maligned in the history of the Civil War believe he also said that had Jackson been around the Civil War wouldn't have happened because he'd had dealt with it or something to the of this nature I mean I think if you were to draw a line between Jacksonian the Jacksonian Democratic Party and fascism which I think it's legitimate you should also draw a line between that legacy and the legacy of Jax at the Trump seeks to well I don't know if glorifies the right word but it's certainly more complimentary Tudor than recent presidents have been this is a case where this is the case where Trump is absolutely wrong and and absolutely right now the question I have to ask is how did Trump become so deluded about Andrew Jackson and the answer is he went to the Jackson presidential very I know if you ever been to a presidential library I was at the Clinton Library several years ago if you walk into the Clinton Library in Arkansas you will see on the wall right as you walk in data about it says things like this in 1992 only 3 percent of Americans owned a cell phone in 2000 this was when Clinton left office it was 68 percent and this kind of data is all given on the wall and and and and silhouetted against this is a large beaming smiling credit taking image of Bill Clinton essentially he's taking a bow and saying I did all this I did all this now I mentioned this not to not to ridicule Clinton but because this is the mode of the presidential library unadulterated shameless propaganda if you go to the Nixon Library in Whittier California I assure you that when you walk out of it even though you've listened to the Watergate tapes Nixon railing against the Jews and all this stuff you'll come out and you'll say that Nixon was a great man was a great man and so Trump this is not his area I have to say thinks that Andrew Jackson is was a tough guy was a patriot was his guy there were good things about Andrew Jackson I won't deny that but there were a lot of very bad things about Jackson as well and on the balance on the balance I think that the founder of the Democratic Party was an all-around bad guy okay sorry for my heavy accent first I am recent immigrant to this country and when we come here all we see at a local state and federal level all the black people are Democrats including mr. Obama and what you are saying if it is true then how all these black intellectuals we consider and we look up to are they all ignorant and they don't know what because from what you say the Democrats are not friend of the slave black Americans so I was wondering are they really that ignorant this is a very this is the kind of question that I like a lot because it actually pursues the premise that I put forward if it is true that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery segregation Jim Crow racial terrorism the Ku Klux Klan I assert that all of that is true and why would it be that a this fact would be downplayed even my african-american scholars and be why would they still be unapologetically loyal to the Democratic Party now this is a very complicated question now I won't do full justice to it here I'm actually writing about this now but let me say a couple things ask yourself this question it is true that African Americans as a group did move over from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party 90 percent of African Americans today vote Democratic here's the question when did that shift occur the general assumption is it must have occurred sometime in the 1960s because Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 African Americans now realize that the Democrats are friends let's move over the Democratic Party but it turns out that this is even though plausible is actually not what happened blacks moved over to the Democratic Party in the 1930s in 1932 Hoover got two-thirds of the black vote but by 1936 two-thirds of the black vote went to FDR in four years in four years blacks flipped from the Democratic from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party now amazingly at this time the Democratic Party was explicitly the party of segregation in the Ku Klux Klan so blacks left the party of Lincoln and joined the party of the KKK in the 30s why did they do it well the obvious answer to it but it's not the answer that the progressives want to hear is it was the economic promises of the New Deal it was the heart of the depression Black's lived in terrible circumstances I don't fault them for a minute but what I am saying is it was the economic benefits of the New Deal many New Deal programs were segregated many of them excluded blacks but even so the crumbs that FDR offered were apparently enough to convince a very downtrodden group to switch its political allegiances so the reason the story is not known it doesn't fit the narrative blacks are supposed to be finding their civil rights friends in the Democratic camp that's not what happened so what I'm getting at is to ferret out the true story of America takes a little bit of work but it takes a lot of intellectual bravery and that intellectual bravery is really scarce in America today you know when someone like me stands up to say these things in a campus like Yale we always have to what worry are we gonna be allowed to speak if we are allowed to speak well we'll be shouted down if we're not shouted down will we be summarily dismissed without any effort I mean I've put at least half a dozen very powerful facts on the table in just 30 minutes either I'm right or I'm wrong if I'm wrong show me I'm up as public a figure as you're gonna find it's gonna be very easy to expose my facts as flawed on social media or anywhere else no one does no one does and so what I'm suggesting is we have to go back to the drawing board we have to re-examine I'm an immigrant as you are when I first came to America I went to Washington DC in the 80s I went to a reception by now Senator Schumer he was then a congressman from New York and he is a bunch of us Asian Indians and he made a very interesting statement he said you Asian Indians he goes you never asked for anything he goes you just come to America you work hard and you try to move ahead he goes you don't understand that that's why we're here the Democratic Party is here so that you can make demands of us and we will deliver for you in exchange for your vote so I listened to this and I was like could this really is he actually saying this but he was he was actually offering the deal that the Democratic Party offers not just blacks every ethnic group they basically say we will we want you to come together as a group this is by the way why the Democrats are so big on race matters because they need to have each minority group hang together because they want to they don't want to convince them individually they want to get them as a group and and the politics of the Democrats are the politics of ethnic identity let's get the blacks third 12% let's get the Latinos they're 13 percent that's 25 right there we get the Asians that's another five then we're already at 30 we only have to get to 51 maybe we'll get some feminists maybe we'll get some gay rights activists whoops there we are we've got a majority so it is not a politics of the common good it is a politics of cobbling together ethnic coalition's in order to loot the rest of the population once I figured that out [Applause] hello so I apologize but I want to jump a bit off-topic so based on the occurrence that just happened in Florida with the mass shooting Donald Trump had said that he was wanting to arm the teachers I was wondering if you had agreed with that and if you don't agree with it then what would be your solution in that case well first of all you know I made a mistake myself in a tweet that I did myself about the Parkland students it was in the heat of social media and social media I think you know is somewhat something of the Wild West and so here we are in the social media debate the give-and-take of Twitter and you know here I'm turning on Twitter and I see you know this the student is being coached by the CNN producer he keeps stopping when he's speaking they keep telling him what to say they drag him down so then I see a meme of the Florida Legislature voting on a gun ban and I see the students magically appear there and reacting to this legislation so anyway I just sarcastic tweed basically saying gee you know this is the worst news they've heard since their parents made him get summer jobs insensitive I must admit and because my target was the manipulation of the students and not the students but but that's that was a case where I basically missed my target you know now ironically the gun issue is not my main issue and I'm not you know since I'm not running for office I don't have to I don't actually have solutions to all the world's problems I try to focus on things I actually know about I don't know a lot about guns I don't know what an ar-15 does I don't know if it's a good idea to arm teachers or not I have instincts about things and and I am quick to spot hypocrisy in arguments in other words I've been hearing now for 20 years that you can't outlaw abortion for example because people will still go and get an illegal abortion they're gonna get they're gonna do it but some that logic has never applied to guns you can't outlaw guns because people are gonna go out and get a gun I say to myself in this case in the parkland case we know that the FBI got some tips about this guy we know that there were sheriff's deputies on the scene so here we have we have the FBI we have the sheriff's deputies we have let's say the NRA now which of these three were in a position to prevent the shooting the first one which was in a position to actually disrupt it and stop it the second the third has the least to do with it and is in fact by and large as far as I can see been a pretty responsible advocate for responsible gun ownership and yet the political blame is all falling on three so we're in a very peculiar situation where were blaming inanimate objects the gun when there are actual this actual flagrant violations of human responsibility which are eminently correctable if we would actually Zeus oh my that's my take on the part line situation I'm sorry I did the tweet I apologize for it I take it back but these are my thoughts about the issue in a nutshell okay heydo national want to thank that you offer being here so I've noticed that when leftists like to argue about things like evolution and climate change which granted a lot of people on the right agree with that stuff too they often they always use the claim like well it's because of science you guys are science deniers but then when it comes to like transgender stuff and abortion people the left completely abandoned science and biology and they just go for emotion and feelings when you know the facts are there you know there are males and females that you know what's inside the mother is in fact a human but the left just goes for it that's a person's choice or you can't tell someone that that person's not a male if he if she identifies as a male I'm just wondering what your take on that is I do think that that science is it's not new that science is being ideologically deployed that's actually been going on for a long time I think what's new is the is the political correctness of it so for example if you're a climate scientist who descents from the prevailing orthodoxy they'll try to make sure you don't get a grant don't try to make sure that you can't be at the RAND Corporation oh they'll try to make sure that if you if you're publishing a book they'll contact Oxford University Press and tell them not to publish your book now that is that is a whole new level of dangerous you know because when people do that and when people say even even even with regard to my tweet you know people like let's make sure that this guy doesn't speak anywhere let's make sure this guy so I'm singing myself that's not even the Second Amendment now we're talking about the First Amendment so so to me science is not free of public policy debate it should be debated but you're right there are double standards that are blatantly employed in which science is convenient when it's used and then completely ignored in other areas it's almost as if see I think what's happened in our society is that there's a new sense of identity which is seen as subjective the Trump's biological reality it's almost as if there is a me apart from me that gets to adjudicate what and who I am it's a very strange idea if you think about it but it's it's an idea that's been brewing in America for a while it's even behind it like when I go talk to my dad and tell him hey dad I don't want to go to business school I want to become a writer what do I appeal to I appeal to this inner me you know this sort of sort of inner self as the final adjudicator of which way I should go these ideas are very American but we should but reflecting on them intellectually it's part of what we should do on a campus okay all right due to the time this will be the the last question so first I want to say thank you for coming out especially to a canvas for a lot of people disagree with you but I have to say like I'm one people who is probably like disagrees on with you on a bunch of stuff and I want to ask about so basically a lot of your arguments seem to be based in history and the idea that fascism is historically rooted in on letterings left-wing side but you don't say anything about how that reflects on the current day and there was the point where you mentioned like hillary clinton's fascism but you didn't really talk about the fascism on the left today i feel like that would be a stronger argument and can you say anything about that certainly actually what a fantastic question it's one thing talking about racism historically where's the racism now it's when we talk about fascism historically where's the fascism now all right so let me let me point to two fascist modes that are on the left very visible right in front of us the first is ideological and the second is tactical okay so let's start with the ideology what is the meaning of fascist economics so the fascist was socialists but they were a very special type of socialists the fascist believed that instead of the government nationalizing the corporation's which is basically what socialist countries like India would nationalize the banks so nationalize the airlines or nationalize the energy sector and so on the fascist solution was was different the fascist solution was will let the companies stay private but we will have the government control them the government will be like a quarterback or a muscle man directing these companies as to what to do and it'll be so state regulation of private business was the fascist mode of socialism now interestingly in the Obama era over the last eight years we have seen essentially the federal government take control of the banks the investment sector largely the energy industry through the EPA the healthcare industry every hospital every hospice now again we have private insurance companies but the way this worked is that Obama got them into a room and strong-armed them he said listen I'm gonna take you over and you're not gonna like that but I have a sweetener for you I'm going to force tens of millions of Americans who don't want to buy health insurance to buy it and that's gonna mean untold profits for you guys so you need to buy ads supporting my program which is what the health insurance companies did so this was the dirty racket called Obamacare but my point is not even to complain about the racket but to point to the fascist element of it the idea of government control of the private sector I mean here's Obama firing the head of General Motors only in a fascist country does the president of a democracy get to fire the head of a private corporation so that so that's ideological fascism in the economic sense now we turn to tactics and many people are when I say this expect me to say antiva and again it's not an Tifa the most dangerous guy in Berkeley is not an Tifa it's the mayor of Berkeley Jesse Aragon he's the guy who has the power to call off the cops the real fascism that we're seeing today in America is the use of the instruments of the federal government against political opponents that's pure fascism in other words if I'm the president and I'm able to use the FBI the CIA the Justice Department now if I'm gonna mobilize SWAT teams to go after to audit to arrest to lock up people who don't agree with me this use of the state thoroughly undemocratic is classically fascist now Trump's not doing this Thompson but increasingly there's creeping evidence that the left is I'll just give you a tiny example from my own case because I'm gonna talk about what I actually know the Congressional Oversight Committee has a copy in their hands of my file and this is my case in the Obama administration for exceeding campaign finance laws did I exceed campaign finance laws yes but no American has ever been locked up for eight months for doing it right now when you open up my file you see in it highlighted the Sousa is a prominent critic of the Obama administration and made a movie very critical of Obama and so even though my case involved $20,000 the FBI on its own assigned a hundred thousand dollars to investigate my twenty thousand dollar case that's abnormal so when you see the government jumping in to target somebody and they say it in part at least because he is an opponent of our team that's bad news even liberals should be up in arms about that but in fact I don't have any liberal defenders why because to them I'm an anti Obama guy I'm an Obama critic and the less we see of you the better so we're in this gangster ish mode in American politics I came of age in the 80s in the Reagan era and while Reagan and Tip O'Neill were fierce adversaries they'd go out for beer afterward I mean they could ultimately say we disagree I care about this you care about that let's meet in the middle that politics has gone from America and I mourn it I think it's a pity that is gone but I find myself in this new environment and having to fight in it so there's no point in nostalgically harkening back to reaganism we have to actually surf on the wave we have to swim in the water that we're given and we have to hope for a better day in America in the future so thank you all for coming I really enjoyed it thank you very much you
Channel: undefined
Views: 380,382
Rating: 4.9079456 out of 5
Keywords: Dinesh, DSouza, Hillary, Clinton, Barack, Obama, Donald, Trump, Hillarys, America, Documentary, Movie, Filmmaker, Author, Speaker, Fox, TheBlaze, Breitbart, Newsmax, Hannity, Kelly, Election, Pence, Kaine, Schweizer, Benghazi, State, Department, Emailgate, Rush, Limbaugh, Politics, Republican, Democrat, Party, GOP, DNC, RNC, Reince, Independent, Swing, Debate, Christianity, Capitalism, Patriotism, Progressive, Kings, College, NYC, Policy, Communism, Socialism, Conservative, Prosperity, Racism, Illiberal, Education, Lynching, Palin, Voight
Id: crhgpbzV8sM
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 57min 19sec (3439 seconds)
Published: Tue Mar 06 2018
Related Videos
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.