Will this Tech Company Suffer?

Buck: Welcome everybody to the Stansberry
Investor Hour. I am Buck Sexton and with me
this week is P.J. O’Rourke to cohost at the
helm. P.J., great to have you, sir.
P.J.: Great to be here. How are you doing?
Buck: Yeah, you know, I’m all right. It’s
a crazy world we live in, P.J., which is what
we’re going to be talking about, at least
in part today, on the podcast. For regular
listeners, you may know this already, but
just a reminder that our fearless leader and
CEO, Porter Stansberry, is in fact away this
week. He is fishing in the White Marlin Open.
I told him to come back with the prize-winning
fish or on it or whatever the Spartans used
to say, right? Like, he’s got to get first
P.J.: And I told him that dough balls on bent
pins always worked very well for me when I
was a kid in the Midwest. Of course, I was
fishing for carp.
Buck: There we go. So we’ve got our good friend
and colleague here with us, P.J. O’Rourke,
editor of American Consequences. He’s going
to enlighten and entertain you. Also, author
of How the Hell Did This Happen, which is
a question we should probably just ask at
some point today, P.J.
P.J.: Yeah, and how long will it go on and
in which way, you know.
Buck: That, you know, as they say on social
media, that’s a title that has aged well.
How the Hell Did This Happen, from 2016, is
a title that aged well. So we also, by the
way, are going to be joined by Dinesh D’Souza,
who is an author, scholar, political filmmaker.
He’s got a new book out, The Big Lie, which
he’ll be talking to all of us about here.
And if you haven’t already, please do subscribe
to the podcast in iTunes on Google Play, or
wherever you find the podcast. Leave us a
review, by the way.
That’s very helpful and also, you can tell
us what we can do to better serve you here
on the show. It helps us grow and discover
the best ways to do this. And for those of
you who like to kick it old school with e-mail,
[email protected], investorhour.com.
If we use your question, we send you some
swag. So with that, P.J., let’s get it going
here. What is on your mind, sir?
P.J.: Well, one of the things that’s on my
mind is – is the Google diversity, anti-diversity
thing going on. I understand that there’s
an employee, a male employee, and I’m guessing
here, but a male white employee that published
in an internal e-mail – e-mails – if publish
is the word to use. But anyway, ranting about
this concentration on diversity. Now, I’m
a little skeptical of this guy, because it’s
a 10-page rant and if you’ve got a point to
make and it takes you 10 pages to make it,
that’s always a little bit of a worrisome
Buck: He could have done a bottom line up
front or given an executive summary or something
at the very beginning and it would have been
the following, I think, P.J. This guy’s suggesting,
and he’s a Google employee, and for those
who are wondering, I mean, this has caught
fire in Silicon Valley and now, of course,
it’s getting a lot of attention across the
You’ve got this guy who is suggesting, and
goes into some detail, as P.J. eluded to with
10 pages, that there may be fewer women in
engineering and tech leadership roles in Silicon
Valley and across the technology sector, because
women choose not to go into those sectors
and there may even be some gender differences
in interest and leadership style. This is
some too hot to handle stuff, P.J., so I’m
going to toss it to you.
P.J.: Yeah, well, first place, when it comes
to gender differences, I just consider that
a bunch of bologna. I mean, the – maybe
there are. You know, obviously there are gender
differences or I wouldn’t be married to a
woman. But when it comes to any given person
and their talents, it’s a complete tossup.
And I serve on the board of directors of the
Space Foundation, which is this nonprofit
that promotes space activity and gathers all
the people in the sort of astrophysicist space
exploration, space industry together once
a year and there are some powerhouse women
on our board involved in that.
Why there aren’t more women in this? I think
it’s a little bit kind of a boy’s club atmosphere.
I think that not every woman with the talents
for this stuff wants to get engaged in the
old boy network and put up with some of the,
you know, usual BS from men. I mean, being
a man, I know that one of our great features
as a male is being full of BS. And, there’s
– men can’t have babies and leaving all
that aside, I think the guy has his finger
on something, though, which I that we are
paying way too much attention to diversity
in outcome when what really matters is diversity
of opportunity. It doesn’t really matter what
percent of women are at the leadership level
in Silicon Valley.
What does matter is that if they so choose,
they have the opportunity to do that. And
we’ve got to quite measuring outcomes. Who
knows why there are more Asians in this business,
more blacks in that business, more whites
in this other business, more Protestants here,
more Jews there, more – Wall Street’s very
Irish Catholic. There’s a whole aspect of
Wall Street is very Irish Catholic. As long
as everybody’s got the opportunity, the outcome
is sort of nobody’s business.
Buck: You know in this – it’s called a screed
by some. I don’t know what we officially – they’re
calling it an anti-diversity screed on some
of the sites that I see. Are you familiar
with Jerry McGuire, P.J.?
P.J.: No, I’m not.
Buck: Oh, okay, a movie with Tom Cruise. He
circulates at a talent agency where he works,
what he calls a mission statement and other
people call it a memo and he gets very frustrated.
That’s part of Jerry McGuire, the movie. I
don’t know what this guy would call this internal
10-page analysis, but I will say that to your
point about there are fantastic women, you
know, from the Space Foundation who are incredibly
qualified, he’s not making the case that women
aren’t qualified.
He’s not saying that men are good at engineering
and math and tech and women aren’t. He’s saying
that in the aggregate, if you look at what
happens in the overall male and female population,
there are differences that when played out
lead to disparities of the representation
when it comes to leadership; engineering specifically,
the more sort of hard sciences aspects of
running a tech company. And that it’s not
based in old boys’ club bigotry or anything
like that. So this is a – this reminds me
of Larry Summers.
P.J.: I hate the social sciences. I think
the social sciences are kind of an enemy of
human liberty, you know. Because that kind
of thinking – I had a big go around with
Charles Murray, who’s a very good friend of
mine, about the Bell Curve. And I basically,
there’s one chapter in the Bell Curve, which
postulates that there may be inherent IQ differences
between ethnic groups and –
Buck: Well, aggregate – aggregate differences,
right? I mean, I read the Bell Curve, I remember.
It’s not – yeah.
P.J.: Aggregate differences. And actually,
it was another friend of ours, another close
friend of Murray’s who said if that were true,
why would I want to know? If there is some
inherent difference between men and women,
why would I want to know? As long as everybody
has got the freedom to pursue what they do
best and that’s not hindered by law or, for
that matter, by custom. You know, I wouldn’t
pass laws to make people give up their customs,
but, I would ask people to be, like, a little
aware and polite about this stuff.
If you happen to be in an industry that has
a tremendous number of, say, gay people in
it, I would ask those gay people to be polite
and kind and – and encouraging to a straight
person that got into that business. And so
on and so forth. I care about human liberty
and I am deeply suspicious of the social sciences,
which tend to, you know, concentrate on aggregate
differences between people. And I say what’s
aggregate difference got to do with any given
Buck: So what do you think about the Department
of Justice now launching an investigation
into discrimination? Because the aggregate
differences rubric or approach has been used
for decades, in fact, to the benefit of minorities.
The idea being that in the aggregate, certain
minorities are discriminated against and therefore,
should have privileges in the admission process
for schools and also in hiring.
So Trump’s DOJ is now looking at this and
this is going to have effect, I think, not
just at the university and college level,
but also in government hiring first and then
you’ll see it filtering out in the private
sector looking at discrimination against any
group. And that includes, most notably, at
the university level, Asian Americans.
P.J.: Yeah, I’ll be able to bring a suit on
my own behalf, because I smell bad because
I smoke cigars. There’s odorous prejudice
against me, because I stink of large, Cuban

Buck: Well, that’s only if someone thinks
cigars smell bad. I think a lot of the listeners,
P.J., probably are with you on cigars are
P.J.: Yeah, I don’t want to live in a society
that segregates itself and I don’t want to
live in a prejudiced or bigoted society. But
there’s such a weird limit to what the law
can do about this stuff. I mean, a lot of
these problems are class problems. People
who are poor, and it doesn’t matter what color
or what sexual tendency, or whether they’re
transgender or anything, people who are poor
have a much rougher time making it in the
world than people who aren’t poor.
Well, the first thing there would be to fix
our public schools, possibly by making them
unpublic and not just charter schools, but
vouchers so that people can send their kids
to good schools, as long as the kid behaves
pretty well and doesn’t hit anybody in the
head with a brick. But a black person who
grew up as the child of university professors,
astrophysicists, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s kid
is going to have as many advantages as a white
or an Asian or whatever kid who comes from
that socioeconomic background. So if you want
to concentrate on discrimination, it’s really
discrimination against the poor. And by the
time you get to college admissions or job
interviews and stuff, it’s too damn late.
Go back and fix that public education system
that allowed millions and millions of dirt-poor
immigrants with all sorts of prejudice going
against them, starting with the Irish, starting
with my family arriving illiterate in a potato
famine… but certainly Jews from Eastern
Europe. These people face enormous prejudice,
certainly more prejudice or as much prejudice
as there is on the basis of skin color in
America today and they were able to move forward
and why were they able to move forward? It
was a decent public education system. So I
think they’re grabbing diversity at the wrong
end. Again, they’re looking at outcomes, they’re
not looking at inputs.
Buck: Speaking of outcomes, the White House
is supposed to be a little quieter now or
a little bit more efficient since they brought
in General Kelly to right the ship. I have
to say the week of the mooch was one of the
craziest weeks that’s I’ve ever been covering.
P.J.: Oh, I love the mooch so much. I mean,
because I just thought he was – the White
House really needed a lightning rod other
than the President and the mooch looked like
he was just perfect for the job to stand on
the roof and attract all sorts of thunderclaps.
Buck: I have friends who say that the theory
here all along may have been that you bring
in the mooch as a cleanup crew to get rid
of Reince Priebus and force out some of those
guys and then you – either the mooch will
self-destruct quickly. So it sort of takes
care of everything. And in the process, you
make the President seem –
P.J.: Sane.
Buck: Even keeled and – well, you know,
it seemed like he’s – he’s a cool customer.
P.J.: I know you and I differ on this a little
bit, but yeah, you make him seem calm – cool,
calm, and collected.
Buck: Speaking of differing on this, so you
got Kelly in there now. He’s supposed to calm
things down.
P.J.: I met General Kelly one time. You wouldn’t
remember. It was like some Washington black
tie dinner, but I sat down next to him and
I said – I think he was like a three-star
back then or something. I said sir, in one
respect, I outrank you. My mother was a sergeant
in the Marin Corp. He said yeah, you do all
right. And my mom was, she was a control tower
operator down at Cherry Point in the women’s
marines and the first or second, one of the
early units of women’s marines. She went to
college in Lake Forest, Illinois and the whole
Kappa Kappa Gamma house signed up when World
War II broke out. And, if General Kelly can
bring the kind of order to the White House
as mom brought to my house, we’ll be good.
Buck: There we go. You could send him a note
and say hey, mom is watching, just FYI.
P.J.: Mom’s watching. Mom’s watching from
Buck: Yeah, so now let’s get onto the latest
with Jeff Flake. I know this is something
you wanted to talk about, P.J.
P.J.: Well, I’m just wondering what Flake
is up to. You know, he’s a guy whose ratings
are not all that high in Arizona. I don’t
know, but everybody that knows him seems to
like and respect him. But boy, he’s come out
as one of the highest-ranking voices of the
anti-Trump republicans. And I have no idea
what his motives are or whether this is tactical
or strategical.
Buck: Right, he just released a new book.
P.J.: Yeah, he just released a new book and
he really lays into not only the president
himself, but the president’s supporters and
various ideas that they’ve had along the way
and is – is he positioning himself for some
sort of change with the experts within the
republican party, a return to a more goal
like conservatism or is he just mad? What’s
your take on that?
Buck: I think unfortunately it’s not going
to work as a resistance to the wave of Trumpism,
just because Flake is already a guy – first
of all, just doesn’t have the name recognition
at this point to be somebody that’s going
to change the narrative in any meaningful
way. I think that he has the –
P.J.: No, he’s not. I mean, he’s fairly important
in the Senate, but no, he doesn’t have that
– and of course with his last name, name
recognition is – may not help.
Buck: Yeah, it’s not necessarily the easiest
name to carry if you’re going to be the guy
who’s the steadfast hand on the wheel of the
Senate, right? Jeff Flake, but anyway.
P.J.: Right, vote for the Flake.
Buck: Yeah, but he’s trying to do what others
have been trying to do, I think, for a long
time. I mean, you’ve seen all the different
members of the GOP, whether it was Marco Rubio,
Ted Cruz going back into the thick of the
primary and they were making the same arguments
that Flake is making. I just think the problem
here is that I watched a video that he – and
by the way, I’m sympathetic to a lot of those
on the issue of style. I mean, I would not
approach – were I to be the president, P.J.,
which, you know, is never going to happen,
I would certainly –
P.J.: Yeah, me either.
Buck: …that President Trump does, but all
that said, he’s the president, I’m not, and
no one thought he would be the president,
so I do give him some degree of leeway, but
here’s the real place that I think it’s still
too early for there to be a real republican
political revolt against this president and
I think Jeff Flake is kind of hoping to get
that started. If you look at what has actually
been done and implanted this far, whether
you think it’s a lot or a little, it’s been
pretty good from the perspective, I think,
of a lot of republicans and conservatives.
I’m talking about the stuff that he’s done.
Not how he says things, not how he approaches
people. Forget about Russia, all of that.
P.J.: Right, not what he tweets.
Buck: Right, not what he tweets. I just mean
on a policy level, and some of these arguments
right now are compelling. He’s saying, look
at the stock market, highest it’s ever been.
Look at unemployment, 4.1 percent. We’re revamping
the immigration system to make it skills-based,
assuming that goes through, right? I mean,
a lot of this is policy that still hasn’t
been implemented. But, assuming that they
actually get something done on Obamacare,
which I don’t even think republicans want
to do, but the president’s at least been trying
to push whatever. You know, he’s basically
saying give me something to sign. On the regulatory
agencies, though, he’s done a good job with
fracking, with coal.
P.J.: I definitely agree there, yeah.
Buck: So this is where I think there’s a disconnect,
because understand all of the process and
personnel and style criticisms of the president
and, in fact, I agree with a lot of them and
I think people that try make them all sound
like they’re 4D chess. Do you come across
this, by the way? This is the – whenever
somebody wants to testify anything that Trump
does, it’s 4D chess. When people take 4D chess

P.J.: I was going to make that point where
we were talking about the mooch was that if
it was a plan, that presumes that there is
a plan over at the White House and I haven’t
– I mean, there are some very basic fundamental
ideas, but there doesn’t seem to be a plan.
Trump doesn’t rate high, in my mind, as either
a tactician or a strategist.
Buck: I will say that I interacted with the
mooch once over at Fox News and I was – I
was jaw on the ground when I was told this
guy was running Trumps transition team. I
was like you have got to be kidding me. And
this is after Trump had won. This was January,
this was when the Trump miracle or Trump catastrophe
or whatever you think it was had already incurred.
And I said no, come on, this guy’s not really
running a transition team sure enough, he
was, so we’ll have to see. The Pence 2020
rumors, though, that I’ve seen recently are
pretty funny.
P.J.: Yeah, I’ve got another take on this.
Why does Trump retain this core of support
and why are, like, rebellious republicans
going to have trouble with it was that first
place that Trump core of support is bipartisan,
it’s not particularly republican. But if you
are convinced, as many Trump supporters are,
and I sympathize with them.
If you’re convinced that the entire elite
structure of America; political, economic,
and intellectual, is hates you – hates you
and loathes you and your trailer park and
your, like, blue collar job, looks down their
nose on you, treats you with contempt, if
you feel that the whole system is against
you and I would argue when it comes to skilled
blue car labor and on down the line from there
that there’s more than a little truth in that.
In fact, quite a bit of truth in that. If
you feel that that system just loathes, despises,
or at best ignores you and you want to disrupt
that system and you elect a disruptor and
he is disruptive, are you going to be disappointed?
Buck: Yeah, I’ve been told that Trump – people
need to stop thinking of him – and this
is from some pretty astute journalists that
are not on the Trump train, but have seen
it coming and have been – you know, Salena
Zito is one who comes to mind. I think she’s
also the one who is attributed with saying
that the media took Trump literally, but not
seriously and his supporters took him seriously,
but not literally, which is one of the better

P.J.: Perfect. That is a brilliant analysis.
Buck: Yeah, it’s one of the better encapsulations
of Trumpism in the political wave that I’ve
heard and she was saying that all along in
this whole process, the recurring theme that
she would hear, because she did this whole
trip across the country to talk to Trump people
and I’ve had her on my radio show a bunch
of times to have her talk about this, because
I think it is so interesting. You know, P.J.,
it’s this crazy idea. For journalists, instead
of assuming that they know what people in
West Virginia think, sometimes maybe it’s
good to go to West Virginia and talk to them.
You know, this is like a novel idea…
P.J.: Or, in the case of rural New Hampshire
where I live, just go downtown. Stop by – I’ve
got a bunch of old cars, so I spend a lot
of time at the mechanics, you know.
Buck: Yeah, ask people who are making a living
in these places, what it’s like, and what
it feels like and one of the recurring themes
– this is just to your point, was that Trump
wasn’t – they weren’t voting for him because
yeah, he was entertaining and they liked that
and he would say things to the media that
they liked, but more than that, it was about
being a weapon against the system. And they
don’t really care if the weapon is precise.
P.J.: Absolutely, I interviewed a guy during
the New Hampshire primary and he was a really
funny guy and I just really liked the guy.
I’m talking to him and he’s talking to me
about – he owns a car repair garage, towing
service, doing really well. He said I can
afford Obamacare. He said, we’re doing well,
but he said those idiots in Washington, they
never realize when they come up with some
bright idea, a giant pile of paper lands on
my desk. I’m a mechanic, I don’t have a legal
I don’t have a human resources department,
I don’t have an EPA compliance officer. It’s
me and my wife that run this thing and now
there’s, like, some endangered toad in the
junkyard behind my place that’s been – it’s
been a junkyard since the 1920s and now there’s
an endangered toad in there, and I can’t – I
mean, he had a long list of basically regulatory
complaints. Many of them state and local and
so he and I got to laughing. I turned to him
and I said okay, so electing a maniac fixes
this how? And he just laughed, he said I don’t
know, I just want to rip down the whole system.
Buck: Yeah, it was an extended – as I was
explaining to you, P.J., it was for many voters
just an extended digit at all the people who
said you can’t do that, you can’t vote for
P.J.: Yeah, this guy and I are talking, he
says it’s not like I want – yeah, do I think
Trump is vulgar? I don’t want him in my house,
you know. That’s not the point.
Buck: With the way things are going right
now, I’m wondering if anybody really thinks
they, including the administration, know what
the trajectory of all this is going to be.
I have my concerns. I think the special counsel.
All along here, I’ve been saying no one knows
where that’s going including the people who
are investigating it and so the White House

P.J.: Well, yeah, if you think about White
Buck: Yeah, and it extends over for years
and years and all of a sudden you get Monica
Lewinsky in testimony about a dress and all
that stuff and it started out with a land
deal in Arkansas.
P.J.: That’s right, right, and I’ve been there.
I actually went out to White Water. It’s a
nice little dumpy joint on the river in the
middle of nowhere, a bunch of lots that nothing
got built on.
Buck: We got Dinesh D’Souza joining in a few
minutes. P.J., I mentioned your book, What
the Heck Happened. If you were to do a precis
of an addendum chapter at this point, what
would it be?
P.J.: Oh, well I’m – for the paperback edition
coming out next year, I’m doing an addendum
Buck: Well, there we go.
P.J.: You know, how the hell did this happen
and how the hell long will this go on? It’s
basically my addendum chapter. I agree with
the Trump supporters that the system really
needed a good shakeup, but when you shake
things up, you never know quite what’s going
to fall out of the tree. You hope it’s some
delicious apples, but it might be a prickly
Buck: Yeah, the Jeff Flake, the John McCain,
the Marco Rubio you know is, well, maybe better
than the Trump you don’t know. They’ll have
to find out.
P.J.: Yeah, we’ll have to see and also, does
this result in a kind of a pendulum swing
back to a more sort of technocratic kind of
attitude toward government or we want people
who like cool heads and clear eyes looking
to see whether things are a problem and what
do you do to fix the problem, if there really
are problems.
Buck: I think it’s so interesting that the
democrats, P.J., have been running with this
idea of the resistance. You know, #theresistance,
and it’s fascinating to me.
P.J.: Yeah, what do they think this is? France
in 1944?
Buck: Les Resistance. No, they think that
they’re resisting Trump and they’re clear
that they want to do that, but I don’t think
there’s any sense as to who the leadership
is right now of the resistance, meaning, you
know, they haven’t coalesced around a few
top democrats. But more to your point a second
ago –
P.J.: It’s hard to tell when they’re all lemming
like, running off the clip to the left.
Buck: They’ve gone way too far on this whole
Russia thing, just whether it’s all true or
none of its true doesn’t really matter. They
haven’t been making enough of a case about
the economy, about everything else that the
Democratic Party should be focused on. And
I think that your point about technocratic
leadership, that they can either go in that
direction and say we need a calm, cool, steady
mind here, a hand that will come in and steady
the ship.
That’s one possibility for the democrats,
I think, and they get somebody with name recognition,
but also some real credibility and political
chops in office. The other option, though,
and I’m being – you know, The Rock runs.
Kid Rock is supposed to be running for senate
in Michigan. Maybe you have – people have
always talked about Mark Zuckerberg or Oprah.
These are real possibilities. I mean, it does
help, when you’re running – I mean, ask
Blumberg if you have – if you have unlimited
resources, it’s helpful.
P.J.: Well, Mike wouldn’t be a bad president,
Buck: Oh, actually, it’s funny. There’s some
parts of policy that I vehemently disagree
with Blumberg on, but as a lifelong pretty
much New Yorker and someone born and raised
here, the city was clean, it was safe, the
government worked pretty well, the trains
were on time. Good governance is a seductive
– is a seductive thing regardless of someone’s
P.J.: Yeah, no, it really is. But the democrats
don’t seem to be going in that direction.
They seem to be on the lemming run.
Buck: Yeah, well they prefer the let’s have
one party government of every major city in
the country, pretty much, and let’s just run
it into the ground and turn around and say
well, we just need more tax dollars and we’ll
fix it.
P.J.: That’s right.
Buck: All right everyone, it’s time for the
guest interview here on the Stansberry Investor
Hour. We’ve got Dinesh D’Souza on the line.
He is a best-selling author and filmmaker.
His films are 2016 Obama’s America and America,
Imagine a World without Her. He’s also got
a whole bunch of books, but we’re going to
talk about his latest today, which is The
Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American
Left. Dinesh D’Souza, great to have you.
Dinesh: Hey, good to be on the show.
Buck: P.J., first question to you, sir.
P.J.: Well, Dinesh, for listeners that haven’t
followed carefully the history of totalitarianism,
give us a little background about how these
two supposedly antagonistic philosophies;
fascism and communism – explain for us a
little bit how they’re linked at the hip.
Dinesh: Fascism and communism are two sister
ideologies that are both committed to the
centralized, powerful state. Fascism actually
grew out of communism. It grew out of something
called the crisis of Marxism. Marx had made
a whole series of predictions basically expecting
revolutionary overthrows to occur in England
and Germany and so none of this really happened.
And so in the early 20th century, some very
smart people who were on the left sat down
and thought what’s wrong with Marx? How can
we come up with the revision of Marxism that
will actually work and out of that came two
things. The first is Leninist Bolshevism and
the other is Mussolini and Hitler-style fascism
and both of those came right out of the left
and they were in a sense – you may say bastard
children of 19th century Marxism.
P.J.: Yeah, that’s great. Let us never forget
that Nazi stands for – that the word socialism
is right there in the – and Mussolini, of
course, started out as a socialist.
Dinesh: Yeah, he didn’t just start out as
a socialist, he was a lifelong socialist.
He never rejected socialism. His point was
that socialism, in its kind of classic form,
was merely about class. In other words, the
working man is loyal only to his profession.
Whereas Mussolini goes wait a minute, the
working man is also loyal to his country.
In World War I, Mussolini saw a lot of French
socialists die for France and German socialists
die for Germany. So what basically Mussolini
did is he tried to marry nationalism to socialism.
That’s how we get national and socialism…
but they’re not. It’s a compression of that.
Buck: Dinesh, in your book, you make some
connections to the American Democratic Party
and some of the ideological crossover. Please
– there’s going to be some spicy parts of
this, I’m sure. I’m assuming that you’ll get
all kinds of college campus pushback when
you go to talk about the book. What are some
of the connections?
Dinesh: Well, you know, I started the book
by just noticing some very interesting similarities.
For example, in the 1920s, you have two racial
terrorist organizations, one on each side
of the Atlantic. In Germany, you have the
Nazi brown shirts, and in America, you have
the Ku Klux Klan. If you think about it, look
at these guys. I mean, first of all, they
both wear ridiculous costumes. Second of all,
they both carry weapons. Third of all, they
both target a kind of racial minority. In
the case of the Nazis, it’s Jews, in the case
of the Klan, its blacks.
And so they’re both racial terrorist organizations
and yet they are an extension of a political
party. In Germany, the Nazi party, in America,
the Democratic Party. So I started out by
just noticing these similarities, but I didn’t
realize that the Nazis actually got some of
their most destructive and homicidal ideas
from the progressive democrats. And in the
book, I mentioned several of those, but here,
I’ll just mention, for example, that the Nazis
got their blueprint for the racial state,
the Nuremburg laws, which essentially made
Jews second-class citizens.
Forbidding marriage between Germans and Jews,
keeping the Jews out of certain professions
in the form of segregation, allowing racial
terrorism against the Jews, and then later
confiscating Jewish property. The Nazis got
this blueprint directly from the democrats
of the American south. They thought that they
were starting a new racial state and then
some of the Nazis who had said, basically,
wait a minute, in America, they’ve already
done this. The democrats have already figured
it out, we don’t have to invent it from scratch,
we just need to take their laws, cross out
the word black, and write in the word Jew
and we’re home free.
P.J.: That is scary stuff and then also, there
was a perfectly respectable strain of 19th
century thought about drawing on Darwinian
theory about genetic improvement of the world
and it extended not just to races, but also
to people with disabilities and an otherwise
respectable person is Supreme Court Justice,
Oliver Wendell Holmes, allowed sterilization
laws to be permitted in states.
Dinesh: Yes, the word we’re looking for here
is eugenics, which actually just means sort
of an improvement, being well born. (Out of
Darwin’s survival of the fittest.) On both
sides of the Atlantic got the idea that gee,
we can actually improve the human gene pool
and we do it by encouraging or maybe even
forcing very successful people to multiple
and reproduce themselves and we’ve got to
get rid of what they call disposable or unfit
people. These are the worthless people that
contribute nothing to society. So in America
– American eugenics took off and became
the world leader and Margaret Sanger, the
founder of Planned Parenthood, for example,
was a member of this group.
Not the leading member, but just a member.
And these eugenicists in America argued for
sterilization. That was – Sanger was right
on board with that one, but some of the other
guys also argued for euthanasia and one California
eugenicist called for what he called lethal
chambers. He goes, we can’t kill people one
at a time, it takes too long. We need to figure
out a system for killing them and he proposed
these kind of gas chambers to do it. Now,
again, this concept of the lethal chamber
was lifted by the Nazis directly from the
American progressives.
The Nazis used carbon monoxide gas. They euthanized
a couple of hundred thousand people and this
was, by the way, long before Hitler’s final
solution for the Jews. The original people
who were killed were the sick, the disabled,
the ill, the, what Hitler called “imbeciles.”
And then later that program was expanded using
not just carbon monoxide gas, but hydrogen
cyanide gas, so called Zyklon B. That was
then used in Auschwitz and other places for
the final solution.
P.J.: You know, we should probably interject
here that the American progressive movement,
it wasn’t just democrats. There was a whole
major progressive wing of the Republican Party,
which also bears some blame for this. And
then I don’t think we want to tar all the
mid-century American democrats with a blame
that goes mainly, I think, so the southern
democrats, the segregationist democrats.
Dinesh: In that case, yes, I agree completely.
But I do want to point this out and that is
that in the 1930s, the mainstream of the progressive
left was very fascinated by Mussolini’s fascism.
Not so much by Hitler’s National Socialism.
FDR is a really good example. President Roosevelt
sent members of his brain trust to Rome to
study Italian fascism, because he saw it.
He knew that fascism was on the left. He saw
fascism as sort of more progressive than the
new deal and so he thought they may have some
great ideas over there that I haven’t thought
of and so all these FDR progressives came
back from Italy full of praise of Italian
fascism. And by the way, Mussolini, for his
part, adored FDR. He reviewed FDR’s book in
an Italian magazine and he basically concluded
this stuff is fantastic, this guy is one of
us, he’s a fascist.
Buck: I know that’s the kind of stuff you
hear, P.J., and all of a sudden you’re like
they don’t teach this in schools, do they?
P.J.: We’re not talking about conspiracy theories
here, by any means. What we are talking about
is broad, intellectual, political trends.
It’s like a broad, intellectual net that gathered
up some kind of improbable and, to a certain
extent, otherwise admirable people into some
very bad ways of thinking.
Dinesh: After World War II, fascism and, of
course Nazism, became completely discredited
and stained with the reputation of the Holocaust,
the emaciated figures coming out of the concentration
camps. Obviously, the progressives who congratulated
each other for their impact on Hitler’s sterilization
laws in the 30s; obviously, the American progressives
who looked to Mussolini in the 30s, they didn’t
know that it was going to end up this way.
And so one of the things about history is
we have the benefit of hindsight, but obviously,
they didn’t.
Buck: Where are you seeing, Dinesh, these
days, a connection – I mean, there’s obviously
anti-fa, right? There’s this anti-fascist
groups that pop up across the country that
say that they are fighting Trump’s fascism
and they do this all dressed in black threatening
violence against people, engaging in violence
against people for their speech. And they
are the only ones, it seems, these anti-fa,
anti-fascist groups that don’t see the irony
Dinesh: I know. These are the guys who I would
say are the closest resemblance today to say
Mussolini’s black shirts in the 1920s. They
look like them, they carry weapons like them,
they use threats, intimidation, and violence
like them, and yet they claim to be fighting
Trump’s fascism. Well, part of Trump’s so-called
fascism is they’ve redesigned fascism to something
that it’s obviously not. Just being a demagogue
doesn’t make you a fascist. There have been
demagogues throughout history.
Even being a nationalist, it doesn’t really
make you a fascist. I mean, Gandhi was a nationalist,
as was Mandela, as was Winston Churchill and
de Gaulle in France. All the anti-colonial
leaders were nationalists. So Castro was a
nationalist. Obviously, it makes no sense
to call all these people fascists. So nationalism,
I would call it a bogus definition of fascism.
The real meaning of fascism is the strong,
centralized state.
P.J.: Right, which necessarily is a leftist
Dinesh; Exactly. Now, another thing is that
the Nazis in the 30s had a phrase called gleichschaltung,
which actually means coordination. But what
the Nazis meant is that we have to bring all
of society into line with the ideology of
Nazism. Nobody can march out and I say this
because this has a chilling similarity to
what we today call political correctness.
I’m not just talking, obviously, about getting
words right or using words in a sensitive
way. I’m talking about the fact that in the
media, in academia, in Hollywood, if you don’t
toe the line, they will brutalize you. I mean,
they’ll drive you out. They’ll destroy your
career. This kind of intolerance, institutionalized
intolerance, is also a similarity between
Fascism then and now.
P.J.: There’s a great Hitler quote. I think
it was from a speech… that we don’t socialize
industries, we socialize people.
Dinesh: Yes, and I think what Hitler means
by this is that fascism or Nazism – Hitler
really didn’t call himself a fascist just
like Mussolini never called himself Nazi.
There are some distinctions even there, but
the bottom line is Hitler saw that fascism
was more than just government control of industry.
Ultimately, the government control of your
life and so that subordination of the individual
to the state is the core meaning of Nazism.
P.J.: Now, Dinesh, I’ve got a more personal
question to ask you. You do a lot of speaking
and debating on college campuses and have
you been subject to the Charles Murray treatment
of harassment and abuse?
Dinesh: Happily, I have not. Now, I will say
that it is customary for leftists on campus
to do things like tear down my posters and
even something that seems so innocuous and
simple is actually very, very bad. It’s bad
in part because the point of view represent
is simply disappeared from the college campus.
When I was a young Reaganite in the 80s, we
had these debates and the campus is maybe
liberal, but they were at least exposed to
what a conservative is or was. Now –
P.J.: I agree with you, I was doing quite
a bit of speaking on college campuses back
then, too. And yeah, I absolutely agree.
Dinesh: Whereas today, if you go on a campus
like Yale or Princeton and you ask, what do
conservatives believe? What is that they want
to conserve? The typical student will give
you a completely gaping, slack jawed, confused
look and what it means is they don’t reject
conservativism, they just don’t know what
it is.
Buck: Yeah, they’re all about the fashion.
Progressivism is a fashion on campuses. It’s
what the cool kids believe. It’s what the
nice kids believe. It’s what the good people
P.J.: Yeah, but there’s always been a lot
of that. I think there’s been a real sea change.
You know, I’m a product of the 60s and even
at the height of campus radicalization, there
was a considerable counterweight. In fact,
I think me and my fellow campus radicals actually
represented a considerable minority. There
were lots of conservative professors and sort
of middle of the road professors. There were
active libertarian and young republicans,
young Americans for freedom. Timothy Leery
spoke on our campus, but so did Bill Buckley.
Dinesh: Exactly, and you mentioned, part of
what drives progressivism today is the idea
that what the professors tell the young people
is you are on the side of progress. You are
the good guys and the other side are the bad
guys. And the real point of writing my book
is not just to vindicate Trump. I devote just
really the first chapter to dealing with Trump.
But then I examine this deeper question about
whether fascism is on the left or on the right.
What happened is after World War II, the progressives
who were coming to power in academia and the
media, also Hollywood, they were the ones
who moved fascism from the left wing column
to the right wing column and they did it partly
by redefining fascism in things like it becomes
nationalism, it becomes demagoguery. They
stripped away, you may say, the socialism
out of National Socialism. So this is the
big lie. That’s why that’s the title of the
book is The Big Lie is the idea that fascism
is a phenomenon of the right. It’s not.
Buck: And everybody listening should check
out the book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi
Roots of the American Left. The author is
Dinesh D’Souza, who was kind enough to join
us for this Stansberry Investor Hour. Dinesh,
always a pleasure, sir. Thank you so much
for hanging out.
Dinesh: My pleasure.
P.J.: And been too long since I’ve seen you.
I hope we’ll get together soon, Dinesh.
Dinesh: Look forward to it.
Buck: So we got a few odds and ends to pick
up here. First, before I get into our mailbag,
P.J. American Consequences. What’s coming
up this month in the issue?
P.J.: Okay, this month is – boy, you got
me confused, because I’m all thinking about
September, which is the innovations issue.
But the August issue is mutant capitalism.
Some of the most successful companies in America
today either aren’t making a profit or they
aren’t distributing that profit to the shareholders
and they seem to have a model – a corporate
strategy and corporate tactics that really
put the old robber barons of the 19th century
to utter shame, make them look like a bunch
of wimps. Jeff Bezos’ campaign to take over
the world and so we take a long look at whether
this is a good thing, what does it mean to
investors, whether – and what extent it’s
a creepy thing. So the new mutant capitalism
is our theme.
Buck: And where can people go, by the way,
to subscribe, download, check out American
Consequences magazine?
P.J.: Their computer. I mean, you just Google
it in and it pops right up at the top.
Buck: Fantastic. Just Google American Consequences.
P.J.: But let me say one important thing that
I understand and that the old – every listener
will understand no matter how tech challenged
you are. It’s free.
Buck: I know, a fantastic addition to it.
It is in fact free, everybody. So now with
that, we’ve got – I’ve got P.J. O’Rourke
here, of course, the editor in chief of American
Consequences. Also, author, raconteur, writer,
analyst, man about town, cigar aficionado.
We could go on for quite some time. But I
want to get into our mailbag just real quick,
because we ask everybody. And if you want
to send us e-mail, Investor Hour is where
you go, where you send that stuff. [email protected]
So first, we’ve got “Hey guys, love this week’s
episode with Richard Mayberry, which is episode
11. I’m laughing hysterically just like Porter.
Thanks for bringing the horse laugh back,
Buck. Richard Mayberry’s always a pleasure
to listen to. How come Porter hasn’t acquired
Richard’s publishing business yet? I’d love
to see some sort of lifetime offer for Richard’s
newsletters come out of Stansberry or better,
included with The Capital Portfolio.
Ariana Huffington’s unexpected commentary
was even more thought provoking than Richard.
You must have her back regularly.” That’s
from Matt. Well, Matt, we appreciate that
and I’m happy to help bring back Porter’s
laugh. Pleasure’s all mine on that one. You
know, P.J., I don’t know if you’re familiar.
We have a special correspondent, because Ariana
Huffington is running Uber. So we bring her
on the show and she tells everybody that she
can maybe bring them to work with her at Uber,
I don’t know. She pops in sometimes. She has
so many companies to fix and make pretty.
Yeah, she’s a –
P.J.: I’m willing to do some Uber driving.
Buck: I was – in a sense, I’m amazed. The
woman seems to be an expert in nothing and
yet has expertise in everything. I don’t know
– it’s an amazing skillset to pull off.
P.J.: And has made a lot of money from it.
Buck: Only in America, my friends. So anyway,
we got our second piece of mail here from
– this is – well, oh, Gary. “Porter and
Buck, thank you very much for putting the
Investor Hour on YouTube. Spread the word.
Thanks again.” Thanks, Gary. That’s correct,
we have a YouTube channel for the podcast.
You’re going to find all the episodes plus
any of the exclusive extra video content we
post, like Porter’s stock valuation video,
which everybody, it is really popular. You
can check it out there. Just go to YouTube.com
and search for Stansberry Investor Hour.
One more bit of mail here. “Hi Buck and Porter,
and P.J., obviously, the Investor Hour is
absolutely fantastic. You keep getting the
best guests and there’s so much to learn.
I can’t wait to hear from my lifelong favorite,
Bill Bonner, and what he has to say. Sorry,
Porter, you’re up there, too. I’m most appreciative
of the transcripts. Please keep them coming,
Buck, Porter, P.J.” That’s from Michael. What
do you think, P.J.?
P.J.: Well, I think that’s great and I definitely
think we should do a transcript of that – that
interview with Dinesh. First place, because
it’ll be easy for me as an editor, because
Dinesh speaks in complete sentences, as you
may have noticed. And so you don’t have to

Buck: Yeah, he speaks in essay form.
P.J. Yeah, yeah, he really does. You know,
whenever you render something into a transcript,
if it’s not for, like, police or court work
or something, you have to clean it up a little
bit, because people don’t talk in the – quite
the same way that they write. And there’s
a certain number of you knows, like I just
said. You know, you knows, which you take
out. Otherwise, like, it gets very irritating
in print. And I was really impressed with
Buck: I agree and thank you, Michael, by the
way, for that e-mail. We’d love to see you
post those comments up on iTunes or Google
Play, wherever you listen to the podcast.
It helps us out to rate it, to post some comments,
and obviously to share it. And speaking of
Bill Bonner, yes, he will be on the show next
week and Porter will be back in the saddle
as well. We are assuming, P.J., that he will
be basking in the glory of first place in
one of the biggest prize fishing tournaments
in the world. That’s what I keep telling him,
first place.
P.J.: Yeah, yeah, hope he gets a big carp.
Buck: That’s right and only with your – aren’t
carp the ones you get with your hands or is
that catfish?
P.J.: That’s catfish. They’re good, too.
Buck: Yeah, they’re good, too. So for the
transcripts of the show, everybody, just log
onto your Investor Hour account at StansberryResearch.com
website. You can get transcripts of the show
there and for current Stansberry subscribers,
you’ll find Investor Hour on your subscription
menu once you log in. If you need a free Stansberry
account to view the transcripts and access
all the extras from the podcast, just go to
InvestorHour.com and enter your e-mail.
Have you – have we delighted or inspired
you today, as Porter likes to say? Let us
know. Write to [email protected]
If we use your question, we’ll send you some
Stansberry Research swag. Love us or hate
us, just don’t ignore us and with that, P.J.
O’Rourke, editor in chief of American Consequences
and author of – your latest, right, is What
the Heck Happened?
P.J.: Uh, How the Hell Did This Happen?
Buck: Sorry, I get – How the Hell Did This
Happen? There we go. Which is – which is
a more accurate way of putting it, given what’s
going on. We’re way past hack, P.J. We’re
at what the hell’s going on.
P.J.: Yeah, we are, we are, yeah.
Buck: Any closing thoughts, P.J.? Anything
you want to tell the folks listening to the
Investor Hour for this week?
P.J.: No.
Buck: All right, buy P.J.’s books and, by
the way, do download American Consequences.
Read it online. It’s free, it’s great, and
I’m hoping P.J. will take an essay because
I like to write.
P.J.: And Buck’s in it. Buck has the closing
Buck: Very exciting stuff and by the way,
we are at many times some of the long-established
journals of political opinion that are out
there. I mean, I think we are at four or five
times with the new republic subscription base
was, when I last heard what it was a few years
back. So it’s growing rapidly.
P.J.: It is indeed, yeah. I mean, we’ve had
a very gratifying response to this and I had
a great e-mail from two people; one person
upset that we supported Trump and the other
upset that I had voted for Hillary. And I
said you’re both right. I said basically,
you’ve reached some sort of perfect compromise
when everybody is mad at you.
Buck: That’s right. In the current political
climate, if people are mad at you from both
sides, you are being thoughtful and probably
being honest, so there you go.
P.J.: And you’re probably right.
Buck: And with that, we’re closing out. Thank
you everybody, this is Stansberry Investor
Hour. P.J. O’Rourke and Buck Sexton. Oh, by
the way, before I go, Buck Sexton, With American
Now is the radio show. Download it on iTunes
and you can also listen on the I Heart radio
app five days a week, 6:00 to 9:00 eastern.
Download the I Heart app, it is free, it is
three hours, it is me. P.J., thank you so
much, Sir.
P.J.: Oh, you’re very welcome, Buck. Always
a pleasure.
Buck: All right everybody, that’s Stansberry
Investor Hour. See you next week.
Thank you for listening to the Stansberry
Investor Hour. To access today’s notes and
receive notice of upcoming episodes, go to
InvestorHour.com and enter your e-mail. Have
a question for Porter and Buck? Send them
an e-mail at [email protected] If
we use your question on air, we’ll send you
one of our studio mugs. This broadcast is
provided for entertainment purposes only and
should not be considered personalized investment
advice. Trading stocks and all other financial
instruments involves risk. You should not
make any investment decision based solely
on what you hear. Stansberry Investor Hour
is produced by Stansberry Research and is
copyrighted by the Stansberry Radio Network.
[End of Audio]

1 thought on “Will this Tech Company Suffer?”

  1. Excellent show. I particularly liked the discussion between PJ O'Rourke and Dinesh D'Souza about progressivism and fascism. Buck, as usual, was an outstanding host.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *