Zero hedge exclusive Dinesh Dsouza talks new police state film

Table of Contents

Zero hedge exclusive-Dinesh Dsouza talks new police state film

Dinesh Dsouza: A good way to think about what’s happening is that the police state in this construction. It’s not a full-fledged police state. If it were a full-fledged police state, first of all, you and I may not be able to have this conversation. Second of all, I would not be able to make this movie. So, in the full-fledged police state, the news has already completely tightened and then, your options are really limited. In fact, I think your option is only one and that is to run to try to get out, get your family out, get your money out, to try to escape and we have a character in the film Yunmi Park, refugee from North Korea and she was one of the lucky ones who did get out. In fact, I think she told me this is not in the film, but there’s something like 200 escapes from North Korea out of the tens of thousands who have tried to do it. Only a small fraction have in fact succeeded.

Alright, Now states that are under action and there are two features about them that are important. One is that they are not going to disrupt the immediately the life of the ordinary citizen because they want to lull the ordinary citizen into a feeling of complacency. It’s a little bit like the predator that wants to jump on the antelopes that are grazing. You don’t want to start just charging wildly out there. You want to move stealthily and you want to give the herd a sense of security before make your move. And so, as a result our police state has no intention of interfering right now with people in the conduct of their normal life. You’re only a target if you threaten the police state in some way. If you’re inconvenient to it. If you’re a dissenter, if you’re a troublemaker. And so, people on the left will say to me, I don’t worry about getting banned on social media and I don’t think the FBI. And my answer is you’re right. And the reason you’re right is you’re helping to build the police state.

The police state recognizes you as part of its constituency. And so, groups like the FBI protect the Democrats. They protect the crimes of the Democrats even. Because they know that the Democrats will protect the crimes of the FBI. So, there’s a kind of reciprocity between the constituency or party building the police state and the kind of organs of the police state itself.

Question: Are conservatives embracing the police state in response to Israeli war?

Dinesh Dsouza: So, the first one is was about the kind of war machine. And I think that the underlying logic is this. The people who want a police state or moving toward a police state have fully recognized the benefits of the politics of fear. And they have been using the politics of fear in one way or another now for about years. You think about well that there was a panic in the 1970s believe it or not about global cooling. You’ve heard about the warnings that the world is running out of food. The ozone layer is disappearing. Global, you know was it 2000, was it Millennium 2K remember all the devices are going to fail. After 9/11 of course the panic of 9/11. More recently COVID. They’re trying to now do the same thing with climate change.

So, the point is that that under of fear people do things that they would not otherwise. They surrender liberties they would not otherwise. And so, I think war is just one part of that. We all know that there are suspensions of civil liberties in war. So, the Democrats under Covid tried to create wartime restrictions. Now the other point about Marjorie Taylor Green I think is more subtle and, on that point, I think it is worth asking this question. How can you deter the Democrats from their systematic aggression against our liberties if you do not put their liberties in peril as well? Now it seems contradictory to do that, because it seems like we should be in principle of holding the liberty of everyone. But now ask yourself this question: If the Democrats can say, we’ll try to pack the court and we might fail. But if we fail it’s no risk to us because the other side is so convinced that the court should have nine and nine members only that they would never dream of packing the court on their side.

Or you put it differently: We can go after filmmaker Dinesh and try to jail him because no matter what Republican comes into office, they’re not going to try to do the same thing to Michael Moore. We can use the weapons of the government against our opponents because they are so principled, so they insist that they’re better than us. So, we never have to fear that they will use it against us. Now I think the problem here is that the American founders realized that our liberties are not protected by a piece of paper. There’s no parchment protection for our liberties. At the end of the day, the majority and the minority are deterred from aggression against each other by having a rational fear of each other.

In other words, the majority fears what the minority can do and the minority fear is what the majority can do. So, this is what the founders really meant when they talked about things like checks and balances. What they meant is that the bully in the playground is going to be checked by the idea that even though he can beat up every guy who’s smaller than him. It’s possible for the smaller guys to come together and collectively be stronger than the bully and then stamp on his feet and kick him in the shins, and it could be that that’s the only way to stop the bully. And no amount of lecturing the bully about the evils of taking away your rights is going to be effective.

So, I think this is the psychology of Marjorie Taylor Green. She’s like, listen you know what? If you’re going to do it to us, we’re going to need to do it to you to teach you a lesson so you stop doing it. I mean, think for example about when Elon Musk banned some of these leftists from Twitter for one day. They went nuts. They began to start, suddenly, they discovered the virtues of free speech. I mean, they were quoting John Stewart Mill and so the point is that while they were happily censoring other people, it was no big deal. Free speech was not important to them but at the moment it became their free speech, they became highly protective of it.

So, anyway, I don’t think this resolves the issue, but I just wanted to lay out what I think is a more sort of combative Republican psychology that is emerging in response to the police state. I mean I do think it is good to hold the justice department to account and in a sense raise the question, hey, listen if these guys have an immunity into being able to do this and this is normal political protest. How could you got people sitting in jail for doing exactly the same similarly that if the lawyers for January 6 defendant should be raising the same issue with the court. Playing these videos of people quote parading in a public building. I don’t know if they were obstructing an official proceeding, presumably some proceedings were going on. I also know in some of the January 6 cases there were people who were convicted of obstructing a proceeding even though the proceeding had been adjourned and they got in the building after that. But they were still held to account for obstructing the proceeding that wasn’t actually happening.

So, I mean I think there are two types of I wanted to show in this film. The first is whistleblowers and informants. In other words, people who have direct knowledge of the police state and its imaginations and could explain the architecture of the police state. How it works, and because how it works is often complex. Censorship for example is typically not state sponsored in a direct way. It involves a number of other actors. It involves academia, academic researchers who kind of make lists of people who supposedly purveyors of misinformation. Then you’ve got non-profits that often serve as the intermediary. They take the list from the Biden regime and deliver them to the digital platforms. The media, cheerleaders, the whole enterprise.

So, this is an octopus stretching across the private and public sector. So, I wanted to show people this is kind of how this machine of the police state works. And the other thing I want to do is show a number of ordinary people in various walks of life. The guy who goes to DC for January 6th, but doesn’t go into the capital. Or even some guy who goes on January 6th or January 5th to DC for a business meeting. Doesn’t even go to the rally. But nevertheless, finds himself on a kind of air marshals list where they’re still following him today on to various business trips because simply and this is really how police states they operate bureaucratically. They operate by lists. And then of course moms who are involved in protest what’s been taught at schools and some guy who gets involved in a pro-life protest and facing years in prison, because he pushed some guy.

So, all of this is a way of telling people that it’s not just about Trump and it’s not just about the guys who got into fights with the cops on January 6th. A lot of ordinary citizens are finding themselves ensnared by the police state or in some cases even having the to use Orwell storm the boot stamping on a human face.

The Real Jan 6 story:

Dinesh Dsouza: Well, here’s why. And I think this is a very subtle point and a very good one for you to include. And that’s this: The propaganda of January 6th is such that the motive of the FBI and the motive of the police state. And in fact, the motive of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats is hidden. So according to the official narrative, the reason that the Trump stores had every motive to go into the Capitol was they wanted to stop the official proceeding. And what was the official proceeding the certification of the election Joe Biden.

Now let’s say that that premise is wrong. I think it is wrong. Why? Because the actual proceeding that was going on when the Trumpsters got into the building was not the certification of the election but the questioning of the election. Ted Cruz was up there, mainstream Republicans were challenging and had every intention of challenging Georgia and Arizona and other swing states where the election was decided. It was that proceeding that came to a grinding halt. And so, and I fact after that as we know there was a kind of wall of censorship and you couldn’t even in social media question the election. So, think about it. Apply the old investigative Sherlock Holmes Guy Bono. I mean who benefits? Who benefited from the shutting down of the questioning of the election? Not the Trumpsters. They wanted that to continue. It was the Democrats. It was the left.

So, the point being once you supply the motive, you now realize, okay, this wasn’t just a matter of them having undercover agents in the crowd to kind of keep things under control. In fact, they did very little of keeping things under control. The real motive was something different. They recognized the possibility that hey, if these guys get into the building, we can now scream insurrection. We can now treat this as a kind of rice stock fire event. We can use it to completely shut down the questioning of the election and in fact, we can even censor future discussion of the questioning of the election and that is in fact what happened.

So, by the very fact that this was the procedure that was going on and that was the outcome. I think this is a way to start thinking really differently about January 6th, but the way to do that is to begin by attacking the hidden premise, and the hidden premise is what was the official proceeding that was going on and that came to a grinding halt.

Man: Yeah, that’s I actually I didn’t even know that. I must have missed in the movie as well.

Dinesh Dsouza: All eager to challenge the election and after January 6th they were like okay that’s it. We’re done. We can’t do this anymore. Let’s just sort of [INAUDIBLE WORD 12:52]. We’re done with this. And so that is in the film. And it opened the door to censorship on eight other topics. I mean I don’t think that they could have gone straight from censoring just COVID or health information to saying, okay, now we’re going to censor climate change. We’re going to censor abortion. We’re going to censor the trans issue. They could never have done all that. But what happened is you had one round of censorship that was justified by COVID. And then a second round of censorship that then was election fraud. And that was like oh okay well we’re censoring basically left and right now. And so, let’s just add on some additional topics. And so, we then saw this kind of expanding cone of censorship.

Important Events on the Horizon:

Dinesh Dsouza: I think there’s some critical things coming up. I mean the Missouri versus Biden case is going to go probably before the Supreme Court. That’s very important. The Supreme Court has a real chance here to deliver a crushing blow not even to censorship per se, but to the government involvement in censorship. And I hope that that happens. The other thing is I think next year is going to be critical for the simple reason that not just because it’s a presidential election and an important one. But because we were facing the surreal possibility that we could have the nominee of one of the major parties having been convicted of felonies maybe multiple felonies and could in fact be incarcerated could be running for president from jail. I mean this is stuff that Americans are simply not even familiar with it.

So, I mean have no way of seeing how something like that would play out. So that could be an event that slams the jaws of the police state shut or conversely prize them open. It could be in either direction. I wouldn’t venture to predict which way. I mean all I could say is that I see this film as a sort of a warning. It is a notification basically the American people that look in the America that I came to in a generation ago. We could take the basic liberties the Bill of Rights for granted. Here is just a brief enumeration. Right to free speech, right to the free press, right of conscience, right of assembly, right to petition the government for grievances and equal rights and equal justice under the law.

And as I understood it from my courses of dark met. Look the beauty of this is that these rights are not subject to political negotiation. A majority does not have a right to take away your right of freedom of speech or my right of conscience. These rights are in that sense unalienable. And now I say look around. Is a single one of those rights I just mentioned completely safe? No. So we are in a new environment in which I would have to say if somebody would ask me straightforwardly is America today a free society. I’m reluctant to just say, “no,” but I also cannot in good conscience say “yes”. So that gives you an idea of the alarming state that we reached.

Question: How do we reach the left?

Dinesh Dsouza: Yeah, there’s only one way. I mean the way is for the film to break out. And by breakout, I mean you just get people talking about it. It’s the film that people are talking about. People in the middle go, gee, I hear a lot of people are mentioning this police station. I think I better go check it out. You get the ordinary guy. Not the hardened leftist per se, but the guy who’s look got an open mind and wants to figure out what this is all about and checks it out and then goes, oh, I now understand better. And so, that’s kind of what I’m hoping for is and I think a platform like X like Twitter is very helpful to achieve that.

I mean when you have all the platforms coordinating with censorship, it becomes really difficult to break out. But to be honest to some degree 2000 Mules broke out and when Rasmussen did a survey, they found a lot of Democrats and the vast majority of Democrats who saw that film basically said yeah, there is systematic election fraud. I may or may not say that Trump won the election but I will say that there this this fraud is a big problem. So, I was able to get to some of those people and I’m hoping to reach even more of them with police state.

Disclaimer

The Consider Podcast attempts to express opinions through God’s holiness. Nothing concerning justice or injustice should be taken as legal advice or a call to action. There is no political agenda. There is no individual moral life advice. Indeed, each person is solely responsible before God and man for their actions or inactions. The Consider Podcast is narrowly focused on one thing, and only one thing – the need for all to surrender to a life of repentance according to the whole gospel.

The Consider Podcast
Examining today’s wisdom, folly and madness with the whole gospel.
www.consider.info

Twilliams
Latest posts by Twilliams (see all)
X