All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
54:33
READY TO RUMBLE? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep266
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
One quick announcement, guys.
Tonight is my live Q&A on Locals.
And you can participate if you go to dinesh.locals.com.
By the way, if you become a subscriber there, it's pretty cool because I'll be talking about stuff that I can't talk about on the podcast today.
And I'll also be giving kind of insider updates on the new film, which is coming out late April.
And so you can be kind of an insider on all that by coming on board at locals, dinesh.locals.com.
Now, I'm going to make the case today for why Joe Rogan should accept Rumble's offer and move over from Spotify to Rumble.
Lindsey Graham is pushing a South Carolina woman for the Supreme Court.
I'll talk about the insider motivations of all that.
General Milley says that Kiev could fall into Russian hands in short order.
And I'm wondering if Milley has some guys in high heels who have a plan to prevent that.
Author and philosophy professor Jason Hill will join me.
We're going to talk about reparations.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
There's a fantastic offer on the table for Joe Rogan.
This is an offer coming from Chris Pavlovsky, the CEO of Rumble.
And I'm going to kind of quote the money sentence, I want to call it.
How about you bring all your shows to Rumble, both old and new, with no censorship, for $100 million over four years?
And then he adds, this is our chance to save the world, and yes, it's totally legit.
Chris Pavlovsky actually texted me with that message when he put it out.
And I thought, this is fantastic.
This is Rumble making a big move.
And they're making a big move because they know that Joe Rogan will never, will never be safe on Spotify.
Why? Because there's a constant woke pressure for him to buckle, to conform.
Now, Spotify...
Has been apologizing to its employees.
I mean, think about this. This is a high-tech company basically saying to their employees, you know, we realize you're a little traumatized by Joe Rogan.
Traumatized? This is a generation that listens to rap music where the N-word is every third or fifth word.
And they go, oh yeah, great music.
This is awesome. Oh, Joe Rogan, I'm so traumatized.
I don't even know if I can show up at work.
It's all fake. It's all bogus.
I don't believe a word of it.
But this is the environment that Joe Rogan has to function in.
And we all function in. I mean, this podcast is on Spotify.
But with Rogan, because he's a target here, and I think that while Spotify has so far been protecting Rogan...
Spotify is saying, listen, we'll set up a fund for the marginalized, but at the same time, we're going to keep Joe Rogan.
Spotify paid Joe Rogan or has a contract with Joe Rogan for $100 million, and they certainly don't want to lose that money.
Joe Rogan is a big investment for them.
But, and this is the big but, What happens if Beyonce and Taylor Swift and some of the other just huge artists start pulling their music from Spotify?
In that case, I think it is sayonara to Joe Rogan.
Does Joe Rogan really want to wait for the axe to fall on his head?
I don't think he should. If I were Joe Rogan, I would say, listen, I'd rather go to a genuine free speech platform.
I can have all kinds of guests across the political spectrum.
Nobody can cancel me.
Nobody can ban me.
For this reason, I think Joe should really think about doing this.
The case against Joe Rogan is downright stupid.
The first point is that Joe Rogan used the N-word.
Well... He used the N-word, but by and large, when he was talking about comedians who used the N-word, or he was quoting people who used the N-word.
I remember a couple of years ago, I gave a speech at Debbie's alma mater, Texas State, and I was talking about LBJ and the bigotry and racism of Lyndon Johnson.
I used the N-word.
Obviously, I was quoting LBJ. LBJ was using the N-word.
That's why, in citing him, I said the word.
I said it out loud. I said it more than once.
And kind of a Christian magazine left-leaning was like, Dinesh used the N-word in his speech.
And it was, of course, fake news.
It was all bogus, because I wasn't using the word myself.
I was merely citing it.
Here's a leftist who claims that Joe Rogan is a right-winger, even though Rogan has said he's actually a Bernie Sanders guy, that he's a right-winger.
Well, so what if he is?
But they list a whole bunch of people.
So here are Rogan's guests on the left, and here's Rogan's guests on the right, and the right-wing list is much longer.
And I'm looking down this right-wing list, and I see, you know, Tilsey Gabbard.
She's a right-winger. Russell Brand, he's a right-winger.
The atheist Sam Harris.
He's a right-winger. Elon Musk.
Elon Musk is, I guess, pro-capitalist, but hardly a right-winger across the board.
Barry Weiss, who's at best kind of a moderate liberal who's opposed to political correctness.
Steven Pinker. I remember right after the election, a scene that I saw, I think this was on social media, but I'm not sure, Steven Pinker and his wife literally dancing in their living room to celebrate Biden's election.
Suddenly, this guy has now become a right-winger.
So... This is the way in which what the left is basically saying is, if you don't agree with us across the board, You're a bad guy.
You're an enemy of the revolution, and we have the right to get rid of you.
And I think what they're trying to say with Rogan is, if we can get rid of Rogan, and we don't really have to have a good reason, we don't have a good reason, but we don't need one.
Because an exhibition of our power is stronger if we don't have a reason.
Because it shows that, listen, literally anyone, anywhere, can be cancelled for any reason, or more accurately, for no reason at all.
Now, Joe Rogan may decide to survive precariously at Spotify, and it looks like at this point, if I had to bet, that I think is what he will do.
But I'm arguing here what he should do, and what he should do is look for greener pastures where he can get the same amount of dough and at the same time feel safer and where the air is more free.
Debbie and I, as you know, are MyPillow super shoppers, and I want you to be one, too.
Mike Lindell, the inventor and CEO of MyPillow, wants to make it easier for you to do that.
How? By giving you great deals.
For example, his Giza Dream bedsheets are 60% off, as low as $39.99.
Wow. Plus, with any purchase using promo code Dinesh, you're going to get a free copy of Mike's book.
And he's also offering up to 66% off on other products.
He has more than 150 products.
You can check them all out at MyPillow.
And all the MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number again. 800-876-0227 or go to mypillar.com.
To get the discounts, you've got to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
Something funny is going on with Lindsey Graham and...
The interesting thing about Lindsey Graham is that pretty much any fixed point in time you could say that.
There's always something funny going on with Lindsey Graham.
Sometimes it's funny that he becomes a Trump loyalist, but before that he was kind of a Trump antagonist.
And here's a guy who he kind of moves in unusual directions.
And he's doing something a little strange right now, which is he's lobbying Biden to pick a woman named Michelle Childs for the Supreme Court.
Michelle Childs is from Lindsey Graham's home state of South Carolina.
And I want to explore a little bit what's going on here.
Now, Biden, of course, has his kind of short list of candidates for the court.
And there have been, of course, all kinds of wild rumors.
What, is it going to be Kamala Harris?
Is he going to pick Michelle Obama?
I don't think he is.
He's probably going to pick someone who is a judge.
But who is that going to be?
Now, this woman, Michelle Childs, is not in the Court of Appeals.
She was nominated for that, but she's currently on the U.S. District Court of South Carolina.
And... And both Lindsey Graham and Jim Clyburn, who's also from South Carolina, the congressman from South Carolina, are pushing the same woman, Michelle Childs.
And so it seems odd. Why would a kind of a Republican, maybe an establishment Republican, but nevertheless, be converging with Jim Clyburn in picking the same woman?
Is this woman a leftist?
Is she a moderate?
What would she bring to the court?
Now, in the statement that he made in TV interviews, Lindsey Graham says this...
She's one of the most decent people I've met.
It would be good for the court to have somebody who's not at Harvard or Yale.
So it appears there's a little bit of sort of anti-Ivy League bias.
And it's true, the Supreme Court is a little densely populated with Yale and Harvard law school grads.
So it appears here that Lindsey Graham is saying, we need a plain-spoken, ordinary person for the court.
And And evidently, Michelle Childs got her degree from the University of South Carolina.
The head of the GOP, and actually a South Carolina official, was asked about this.
And he said, quote, there's a certain amount of state pride in seeking someone from South Carolina.
And I find it hard to believe that that's the actual motive.
What, you want to get someone in the court just because they're from your state?
By the way, I remember the last time this happened, it did not end well.
Governor John Sununu from New Hampshire recommended David Souter for the Supreme Court.
And Souter turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.
I mean, first of all, the man was kind of a freak.
He had lived even in his late middle age with his mother.
And so picking a hermit from New Hampshire and from the woods of New England wasn't exactly the right way to go.
We could have done without David Souter.
But I think that maybe what's going on here is this.
Lindsey Graham realizes that Breyer is a liberal.
There's going to be something of a liberal replacing Breyer.
We're not going to get a conservative.
No, it's not going to be, you know, Carol Swain or Candace Owens.
So anyone who's nurturing those kinds of fantasies can set them aside.
Biden's never going to nominate somebody of that ilk.
He wouldn't even nominate a highly respected black woman conservative judge.
And I think what Lindsey Graham may be doing is saying that, look, this Michelle Childs is a liberal, but she's not a far leftist.
I'm not saying she's not.
I'm saying maybe Lindsey Graham is making the judgment that she's not.
And he's taking the view that as the GOP moves toward the midterms, the African-American community, which is really not...
Hasn't done all that well under Biden.
And if you look at Biden's poll numbers among blacks, they're higher than any other ethnic group, but they're not where they normally are.
Normally, Democrats poll in the very high numbers with blacks, and that's not the case with Biden.
So it's almost as if Lindsey Graham is making a calculation here, I think.
Like, let's not poke the bear.
Let's not get the African-American community agitated because if this is the first, quote, female black woman nominated to the court, I mean, Republicans can vote against her, but they perhaps should not be unanimously against her.
So I think what Lindsey Graham is saying is, look, we kind of know the outcome of this.
Biden is going to be able to get a left-of-center justice on the court.
That actually doesn't alter the balance on the court.
And it looks like Lindsey Graham here is doing some Lindsey Graham tap dancing and positioning and saying, listen, if we're going to get somebody like that, it might as well be somebody from my state, might as well be somebody I know, might as well be somebody who owes me a favor if I support her nomination to the court.
And this, I think, is perhaps my best way of trying to make sense of the peculiar politics of one Lindsey Graham.
Most credit card companies do a good job of protecting you and your family against fraudulent purchases.
But what if a scammer files for unemployment in your name?
Or if your social media accounts are hacked?
What then?
With all the convenience the internet has to offer, our world is more online than ever.
Identity Guard can sound the alarm if your digital presence is at risk.
If you think it could never happen to you, think again.
You need Identity Guard.
They provide advanced monitoring to keep your online accounts, finances, and personal information safe.
Identity Guard keeps you in control and guides you through solving any issues.
With a Trustpilot customer rating of Excellent, you can feel confident that protecting you and your family's identities are Identity Guard's number one priority.
For a limited time, Identity Guard is offering my listeners a 30-day free trial when you visit identityguard.com.
Go to identityguard.com to get complete protection, huge savings, and a 30-day free trial.
Certain terms apply. See site for details.
The Biden administration and the U.S. military leadership appear to be preparing for some kind of Russian incursion into the Ukraine.
Biden just sent 3,000 additional troops.
He's of course sent a bunch of lethal aid.
He's not alone, by the way.
Other European countries and other Baltic countries have been sending aid to the Ukraine, including some anti-stinger rockets and ammunition, that sort of thing.
And General Milley testified Wow.
So, according to Milley's analysis, the Soviets, by the way, the Russians, not Soviets, the Russians have 130,000 troops on the Ukraine border.
I just saw some video on a military site of four Russian warships moving in the Black Sea toward the Ukraine.
And according to Milley's estimates, as reported, a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be short.
It would cost about 15,000 Ukrainian troop debts, 4,000 Russian debts and the Russians would have Ukraine.
I mean, from a military point of view, that seems like a very low price to pay.
Now, the Ukrainians have been urging calm and saying, listen, we don't think a Russian invasion is imminent.
And so it's kind of odd because you have greater alarm being sounded in the Biden administration and in America than you do from Ukraine itself.
If Ukraine itself was the antelope that was being on the eye of the lion, you would think that the antelope itself would be sending alarm signals.
Now, there are two camps in thinking about all this, and I'm looking at an article published in the New York Times by three very interesting guys, Saurabh Amari of the New York Post, an academic named Patrick Deneen, and Gladden Pappin.
And these are the kind of...
This is the movement to oppose...
The neoconservatism that has dominated conservative thinking on foreign policy.
The neoconservatives are in a sense liberal interventionists.
They want to spread liberal values around the world.
And the liberal values include democracy, include free speech, include respect for human rights.
Now, of course, many of us have become a little skeptical of this liberal project A, because it hasn't worked out so well in places like Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan.
B, because we're seeing these very same liberal values abrogated and abridged at home, so we don't...
It's like, wait a minute, you're trying to export things that you don't even practice here domestically.
But this critique from Amari, Deneen, and Papin goes further and seems to argue that we need a fundamental reorientation of America's place in the world, in which America does not see itself As the custodian and protector of world security, it doesn't see itself even as the world's sole superpower.
It modestly recognizes that there are many countries in the world and that other countries have interests just as we do.
They want to protect their backyard just as we do.
So Russia is right to be nervous about Ukraine and China is right to be nervous about Taiwan just as we would be right and were right to be nervous about places like Cuba which are in our, you may say, backyard.
And so what you have is a, I think, unresolved argument on the right about the degree to which the United States should even be involved in the sort of larger movement around the world.
And my view on this is...
I would say in the middle because I think that there is a midpoint between isolationism.
Let's kind of stay to ourselves except if somebody attacks us directly.
That's one point of view.
And that point of view is probably closest to the view that the American founders had.
But let's remember that the American founders were articulating that view in a very different circumstance when the United States had a very different level of importance in the world.
We were still an agricultural society.
And then on the other side, you've got the kind of neoconservative project, which is export democracy.
Let's get involved wherever we can.
Let's make the world a better place.
Let's make the world more like America.
And in some cases, in a progressive version of this, let's push gay rights and abortion on the rest of the world.
Let's force them to adopt our cultural values, which is to say leftist cultural values.
So the middle position of those two is, well, I'd call it the Reagan Doctrine.
And the Reagan Doctrine, as applied to a place like Kiev, is this.
The United States is not going to go to war over Kiev, nor should it.
In fact, it remains an interesting question if the United States should go to war over Taiwan.
I would say on the balance, no.
But that doesn't mean the United States should leave Taiwan and abandon Taiwan and say, okay, China, go for it.
It's kind of, you know, your morsel to gobble up.
Okay, Russia, go ahead and take the Ukraine.
What do we have to do with that?
That's not our neighborhood.
Why would we care? So I don't take that view either, because I think that the world...
Is a dangerous place, and it's full of bad guys who would love to gobble up their neighbors and use that power than to start gobbling up people outside the neighborhood.
I don't think there's any alternative for the United States to participate in this sort of power struggle that is going to happen no matter what.
And turning away from it, ignoring it, doesn't make it go away.
It just makes you, perhaps not the first, but in the end, the ultimate target.
I've been on Hillary Clinton's trail a long time in my film, Hillary's America.
I detail the dangers she posed to our country, and fortunately the American people got the message.
But there's still a lot more that must be done to reveal the ugly truth about the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and their corrupt ways, especially since the Biden family seems to view the Clinton example as a kind of how-to guide.
Now, you won't find the truth about Hillary in today's fake news media.
You have to turn to a powerful source like Capitol Hill.
My friends at Capital Research Center exposed the left like no one else can.
Now they've released an eye-opening new report that lays bare the corruption of the Clinton crime family.
It's called By Hook or By Crook.
Want to read it? Then go to capitalresearch.org.
You'll get the chance to order a free copy of By Hook or By Crook and learn the facts the mainstream media won't touch.
Once again, that's C-A-P-I-T-A-L, capitalresearch.org.
Check it out. Guys, I'm really happy to welcome to the podcast Dr.
Jason Hill. He's a professor of philosophy at DePaul University.
He's the author of five books.
He had a best-selling book called We Have Overcome, An Immigrant's Letter to the American People.
But the most recent book, the one we're going to be talking about, it's this one right here, What Do White Americans Owe Black People?
It's the issue of reparations, a very provocative and interesting book.
I just finished it, really enjoyed reading it.
Professor Hill, thank you for joining me on the podcast.
It's a book, of course, that's a meditation, philosophical, even psychological, on the issue of reparations.
Now, when people think about reparations, they think about this idea that America is being asked to provide a compensation, not to an actual victim, but let's say to an historical victim.
And I want to ask if that is a distinction, actual victims versus, let's call it, historical victims, that is one that is central to your argument or not.
Thanks, Dinesh, for having me.
I am a big fan of your work, so if I'm critical of you, it's in good faith.
Yes, the distinction is very crucial because I think what's going on right here is that The claims of reparations are predicated on a historical set of victims with no indication of separating who actually among those victims are actually deserving of reparations, like from whom was property actually stolen, as we can ostensibly identify in the case of the Holocaust.
Among the Japanese who were interred during World War II who lost property.
This is a case of collapsing all individuals into a collective and making a collectivist claim that just because you are part of a set of individuals who share a script of identity, you're deserving of reparations.
Now, you start this book, I think, in what was to me a surprising and very interesting way, and that is you begin really in Africa, and you talk about the fact that there was a slave trade going on within Africa.
African kingdoms and chieftains who were capturing slaves, and then they became part of the transatlantic slave trade.
And then you went in a direction that caught me by surprise.
You said, how did the slave become a slave?
And in one of your chapters, you have this amazing subtitle in which you talk about...
I'm just going to find it.
Give me just a second. You talk about how the African made himself into a slave.
Now, I've never heard it quite put that way, so say a word about what you're getting at here.
You're talking about the underlying, almost philosophical framework of ancient Africa and the way in which it differed from the framework of Europe.
What is that difference? The difference is that Sub-Saharan Africa was dominated by what I call an animist philosophy, in which one does not distinguish oneself from the earth, from nature.
One is a part of nature.
One cannot abstract oneself from nature.
And if one cannot abstract oneself from nature, as did the Europeans, then one cannot exploit nature.
To suit one's ends.
One becomes like an animal.
One adapts oneself to nature as opposed to adapting nature to meet one's needs and desires.
So in essence, the Africans, by their very primitive philosophy of animism, made themselves into slaves indirectly by making themselves indistinguishable from nature so that when the Europeans arrived as conquerors, They were as indistinguishable from water buffalo, from minerals, from anything on the earth and made themselves exploitable Now, this is such a startling point.
I think we need to dwell on it a little bit, because am I understanding you to say something like this, that if I see myself as not separate from nature in the way that, say, the Bible specifies, you know, human beings are special creation of God, nature and the animals are given to human beings in a sense for their care and use.
If I see myself as just part of nature, Are you saying that then I'm more like an antelope being pursued by a lion?
And I don't really have any moral complaint against the lion because the lion, too, is part of nature.
So, if there's a degree of exploitation, so-called, within nature, you don't have a ground outside of nature to criticize it.
We're all part of nature and we're all doing what, in a sense, nature commands.
Exactly. And I would agree with that.
And I would even go a little bit further and say that if you are not extractable or you do not abstract yourself from nature, you cannot devise the technological means to defend yourself from invaders or from rapacious exploiters.
You cannot devise the political vocabularies That discover or inoculate you from property rights, like the concept of inalienability, invaluable moral worth, because you do not seek to do so by the very nature of your philosophy.
So those who are chasing you are not necessarily chasing you because they see you as something different from themselves.
They're chasing you because they're seeing you as part of an inseparable heap of nature itself.
And that they're not saying, okay, these are...
Because the slave trade originated before the racial taxonomies.
I'm arguing that they weren't necessarily exploiting them as racial creatures.
They were simply exploiting them as part of nature, the way they would sort of exploit any kind of mineral resource or any kind of animal source that they came upon and would use as part of the resources that they needed for their survival.
And are you saying, Jason, that much of the accoutrements of modern civilization, which is now not just Western, but global civilization, things like the dignity of man, moral claims, you mentioned property rights, are you saying that all of that traces back to the sort of Is there any distinction that we find in the Bible and in the Western tradition of separating man from nature and giving man a status apart from nature?
Absolutely. I mean, we have found elements of it within Stoic philosophy, that is the sort of invalability or the intrinsic moral worth.
But I don't think it comes to full fruition until we come to the Christianity, where we see an image that's made in the image.
I mean, Christianity is a sort of eugenical moment because Through Christ, everyone becomes remade, metaphysically remade in the image of a new man or a new person.
And it's through Christianity that one really, really becomes endowed and suffused with the inviolability, the inalienability of rights that are deserving of one as a human being, that one is made in the image of God, which means one has a share in the divinity of God.
And that one, more importantly, is not most emphatically a part of nature, but one is separate from nature itself.
And that's what the animists have failed or had failed to discover, let's say, not create, but to discover, because one does not create these laws that are invariable that one discovers them.
Let's take a pause, Jason.
When we come back, I want to talk about the founding and, in fact, the supposed disagreement between you and me over the issue of the founding.
We'll be right back. Going online without ExpressVPN?
Well, that's like leaving your kids with the nearest stranger while using the restroom.
Well, most of the time it may be fine, but you never truly know who you're trusting.
Why would you ever risk it?
That's why you need to be using ExpressVPN.
Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in a cafe, hotel, airport, any hacker on the same network can gain access to your personal data.
It doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack someone, just some cheap hardware is needed.
Your data is valuable.
Hackers can make up to $1000 per person selling personal information on the dark web.
Now ExpressVPN is so secure that no one can get past ExpressVPN's encryption.
You just fire up the app, click one button and boom you're protected.
Works on all smart devices, so go ahead and secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Dinesh.
You can get an extra three months free.
Once again, go to expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
I'm back with Professor Jason Hill.
He's Professor of Philosophy at DePaul University.
We're talking about his new book, What Do White Americans Owe Black People?
As you can see, a very interesting book which explores things in a very fresh way.
Jason, I want to turn to your chapters on the American founding and, you know, the supposed disagreement between us, which I want to sort of get right to, part of it appears to be a disagreement about the three-fifths clause, so I'm just going to sort of restate my position and you tell me if you agree with it.
My position is that the Three-Fifths Clause was not necessarily a win for the North or for the South.
It was a compromise in which the North wanted the slaves to count for zero, and the We're good to go.
That the three-fifths clause is not accurately seen as a measure of human worth.
It was never intended that way.
It reflected, just like when we do gerrymandering today.
Obviously, some votes count more than others because of the way districts are drawn.
But nobody would derive from that the conclusion that certain human beings are intrinsically less valuable than others.
So I guess my view on the three-fifths clause is it was like that, a fight between two camps over representation, and it's misunderstood to be a kind of founder's proclamation on the intrinsic inferiority of blacks.
So that's my reading.
What's wrong with that?
Or maybe you agree? Yeah. You know, I think I agree with so much.
I have all of your books and I agree with so much of what you say that I think this might just be a sort of nuanced misunderstanding in the sense that I think what you're saying is that you're making the argument that the three-fifths clause was derived from political expediency.
And I guess I might have misread you or misunderstood you in saying that it was Also meant to shore up the humanity of the slaves themselves.
And I think there's a section in the book where I said, has anyone ever seen three-fifths of a person or something like that?
So I think it was just a very sort of minor disagreement that might have come from unintentionally misreading the Or reading too much into your reading of the 35th Clause and attributing to you something that you obviously know that I'm hearing you did not mean that they didn't mean to sort of shore up or to affirm the humanity of the slaves themselves.
It was more a position of expediency that was meant to be executed.
Jason, let's situate that in the larger context of what you're arguing about the founding.
Now, are you saying about the founding that it established the principle of human dignity and individuality that was not, in fact, realized at the time of the founding, or at least fully realized at the time of the founding, but it took the unfolding of American history through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement To make manifest those ideals?
Is that what you're saying? And for that reason, that American history is as much a history of emancipation as it is one of servitude.
Absolutely. That's succinctly and put in a very pithy way, Dinesh.
I think that the crucibles, and I argue that the crucibles, that black freedom was forged in the crucibles of 1776.
Because the language of inability, the language of inviolable moral worth, the language of that we are all men created equally in the eyes of our maker, If you look at Martin Luther King, if you look at the Civil Rights Movement, they did not create new moral vocabularies or political vocabularies.
They realized that they were, we all are, legatees of 1776 and of the vocabularies discovered or created, you could say, by the Founding Fathers, which were derived from Judeo-Christian principles.
And so the very fact that Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement and the subsequent 1964 Civil Rights Act itself was predicated on those moral vocabularies shows us that there is no separability between Blacks, metaphysically speaking, There's no strong chasm or bifurcation between the agency of blacks and really the founding of America.
It's just that it wasn't fully recognized.
It wasn't brought into full circle.
It took 200 and something years for the journey and for the moral progress and for the evolution of human consciousness.
To take its moral toll, really, on the rest of humanity.
But the individuals who say that 1776, the inception of this country, is something that is completely apart from Black people.
I would differ from that.
I would say, no, they were just not properly recognized by But if they were, we could never have had the amendments that we had.
We could never have had a civil war in which thousands and thousands of black and white soldiers fought to free black slaves.
We would never have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
We would have had a situation in which blacks would have been kept outside the domain of the ethical and outside the panting of the human community.
Justin, I think you're making the very profound point that the movement for black freedom is not a movement away from the founding, but rather toward the founding.
In other words, a movement to the full recognition and implementation of the founding principles.
As I move toward the latter part of your book...
You have, I think, a beautiful exhortation of what it means to be a free individual, and it seems at the end that what you're arguing here is against a doctrine of collective identity and collective rights.
You're arguing, are you not, that we are all in this world a minority of one?
We have been made unique and distinct creatures by God, and we are, in a sense, put in command of our own destiny and Say a little word about this notion of a freedom realized through individual consciousness and individual self-making.
Well, yes, I think that a sort of a collective, a script of identity might have been necessary from the position of advocacy, as we found in the civil rights movement, where you're using your racial identity in a strong way, but not even in such a strong way, as a position of advocacy to realize certain rights or to derive certain rights that were deprived of you.
But we are now in a situation where Blacks have been granted full legal standing before the law, We're living in the age of where legal oppression and legal racism has ended.
We live in a post-oppressive age.
And so I sort of end the book with this call for a radical individualism, I think, that Blacks ought to occupy now, and also radical forgiveness and love, which I think is a much, much better option than reparations.
The reparative moments have been paid through affirmative action programs, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Act, and a rugged individualism that is not separate and not in concert with one's fellow compatriot is what I'm asking for.
That it's time for us to, as Black people in this country, to stand on our agency, not have our agency be expropriated anymore by a managerial class.
And to practice radical love and forgiveness to all Americans who might—I'm not an American, but I wasn't born here, but I'm an immigrant—but to those Americans who think they might have been harmed, to practice love and forgiveness and to realize that we all have a common identity as Americans.
Jason, you've written a very thoughtful book here, and I've got to say I resonate completely with its message, our minor disagreements notwithstanding.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I hope I can have you back on the podcast sometime.
Thank you, Dinesh. It was my pleasure.
If aches and pains are the problem, well, relief factor is the solution.
A lot of people just accommodate themselves to aches and pains.
They're like, this is just the way life is.
But no. Now there's a 100% drug-free solution and it's called relief factor.
Relief factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
And inflammation is the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try relief factor order more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Now, Debbie's a true believer.
She has frozen shoulder, and Relief Factor's been a total game changer for her.
She tried it, it works, and she knows if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain's gonna come right back.
So she's like, I'm never gonna be without this again.
Being able to lift her arm and exercise is super important to her.
Relief Factor's the tool she needs.
She's glad she's got it.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself, you'll see.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com.
Or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
That number again, 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. Attorney Michael Avenatti has been found guilty of what?
Stealing $300,000 from his own client, Stormy Daniels.
And now Avenatti is headed not to the But just to refresh, I've talked about this case before.
Avenatti was accused and he's now found guilty of doing what?
Well... When Stormy Daniels signed up to write a book, she was apparently offered an advance of $800,000, but payable in three installments.
So she got the first installment, but then Avenatti, when the second and third installment were due, Avenatti set up his own account.
And he essentially masqueraded as Stormy Daniels.
And he got the money sent not to Stormy Daniels, but to his account.
So he intercepted her money and took it for himself and used it on his own luxuries and to buy this and to buy that and to settle this debt and so on.
And so Stormy Daniels is like, where's the money?
And Avenatti kept sort of putting her off and lying to her.
And in any case, so she finally reported him.
And so... It turns out that he was found guilty not just of theft, but also of wire fraud and of impersonating another person.
So this is bad, because when you add all this up, we're looking at, well, the aggravated identity theft charge, that carries a mandatory two years.
So we know we're not going to be seeing Avenatti for the next two years unless he's going to be doing CNN interviews with Brian Stelter from prison.
Brian Stelter, what happened?
What happened to you?
I thought you were such a promising prospect.
And then of course there was Anna Navarro who compared Abinadi to the Holy Spirit.
So the Holy Spirit is apparently now going to be eating prison food.
But the wire fraud charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Now, do I think Avenatti will get 20 years?
No. But he's going to get some years, and those will be on top of the two years.
So this is a guy we may not be seeing for a while.
And of course, here's Avenatti to the jury.
I was her advocate.
I was her champion.
I put everything on the line.
But this is the standard recipe of it.
I was doing her a favor.
You know, robbing her was really in her own best interest.
And Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Sobelman, quote,"...the defendant was a lawyer who stole from his own client.
She thought he was her advocate, but he betrayed her, and he told lies to try to cover it up.
The defendant's lies and betrayal were all exposed." I can't say, well, I don't feel a schadenfreude or just sort of delight in Avenatti's misery, but this is a vicious dude who thought he was unstoppable, who was apparently, you know, Trump's going to end up in jail.
I'm going to make sure that Trump ends up in jail.
And of course, Trump, it's not Trump who's put Avenatti in jail.
The guy who's responsible for Avenatti heading to prison is none other than Michael Avenatti.
Ronald Reagan saw it 40 years ago, massive inflation that we haven't seen since then, well, until today.
In Reagan's own words, inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hitman.
Right now, your retirement accounts are under attack, thanks to the inflationary policies.
of this administration.
The solution is to call Birch Gold.
If you haven't called Birch Gold, these are the people I trust to help you diversify your 401ks and IRAs into gold, then you're missing the boat.
Actually, you're treading water without a life vest.
Birch Gold has your life vest.
Let them help you convert an IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
With thousands of satisfied customers and A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you can trust Birch Gold to protect your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898 to get a free information kit on gold.
Reagan knew the biggest threat to our wealth.
Protect yours now.
Text Dinesh to 989898 and get your free information kit on gold now.
For the last several decades, the topic of evolution has been a controversial one, particularly among Christians, some of whom seem to believe that evolution is inconsistent with the description of the origin of life as given in the book of Genesis.
And for this reason, they believe that evolution must be wrong and Must be, in the end, unscientific.
Must be some sort of an atheist program to work against Christianity.
Now, I don't share this view, and in my work, My Christian Apologetics, my book, The...
What's So Great About Christianity or even my book on life after death.
By and large, I embrace the evolutionary paradigm.
I don't agree with all its detail, but nevertheless embrace the general paradigm, the general Darwinian insight.
And of course, I recognize that Darwin became in life an atheist.
He called himself an agnostic, but I think it's actually fair to call him An atheist.
But as I looked into it, I discovered that Darwin's atheism had more to do with his quarrel with God and less to do with evolution itself.
In fact, when he first published his theory of evolution, toward the end of the work, in fact, the very last sentence, he referred to the Creator.
He saw evolution as a description of how God went about doing it.
All of this is a little bit of background to a very interesting study I've just come across.
It's a study that is published by scholars in Israel and Ghana, and it's published in a reputable medical journal called Genome Research.
So I printed out the study, and a lot of it is rather technical, but I want to give you the bottom line, because the bottom line is that there's a finding in this study that calls into question the whole Let's call it the neo-Darwinian framework itself.
I've never seen anything quite like it.
I want to describe what this is about.
So these researchers were studying a mutation that's called the HBS mutation.
And the HBS mutation is a mutation in the human species that protects people against malaria.
Malaria. Now, I want to step back for a moment and talk about how Darwin views mutations.
Darwin didn't have a full understanding of genetics because Mendelian genetics was sort of invented by the monk Gregor Mendel.
And Mendel, although he made his findings in the 19th century, they were not known immediately.
They came to light a little bit later, the early 20th century.
So that came after Darwin.
So neo-Darwinism is essentially a reconciliation, a combining of Darwin's theory of natural selection and Mendel's theory of genetics.
But the basic idea is really simple.
The basic idea is that That we have inside our cells.
Mutations. Mutations occur.
And these mutations, and this is the key point, occur randomly.
They occur randomly in the same way that, say, new variants might emerge.
They emerge through a kind of accidental errors in the copying, if you will, of the cell replication process.
So you get these mutations.
They occur randomly.
And then certain mutations prove more beneficial than others.
So certain mutations survive.
Why? Because they're better suited to the environment, and other mutations don't survive.
And this is key to the whole neo-Darwinian theory, that the mutations have to be random, and then the environment, in a sense, selects or sorts out which mutations are going to persist through reproduction and survival, and which mutations are going to die out.
Now, the scientists who were looking at the HBS mutation for malaria made a very startling discovery.
They were basically testing the prevalence of this HBS mutation, a mutation that helps you fight malaria, in various populations around the world.
And you might expect that since human beings are scattered all over the world, that if a mutation is truly random, you would find it in roughly equal proportion among, let's say, Africans, Europeans, Asians, and so on.
Why? Because this is kind of like tossing a coin.
If you toss a coin in India, you have a 50% chance of getting heads or tails.
And if you toss it 100 times, you're going to get roughly 50 heads and 50 tails.
It'd be very odd if you got 99 heads and one tail.
And the same is true in Europe, and the same as you do the same experiment in Africa, you're going to get the same result.
So, truly random events are equally dispersed.
But, but, and here's the payload, these scientists who were looking at the HBS mutation noticed that this mutation is vastly more prevalent in Africans where malaria is more easy to get than it is in Europeans or Asian populations.
Now think about this.
What they're really saying is that this is not a random mutation that sort of just happened to develop in the human populations and it's proving to be beneficial in Africa because there's malaria in Africa.
What they're saying is for some odd reason, Africans are more likely to develop this malaria resistant gene.
Africans are more likely to have this mutation.
So why should it be that a mutation that is beneficial to Africans, enables them to survive, happens to occur more in Africa?
The point is this. I'm now going to quote the lead author of this study because he kind of spells it out, I think, beautifully, the implications of the finding.
And what he says is that, quote, he goes, this is Dr.
Adi Livnat from the University of Hyphae.
He's the lead researcher.
And he goes,"...this sort of result cannot be explained by neo-Darwinism." Therefore, the implications are that there is an empirical finding that neo-Darwinism really cannot explain, which challenges the notion of random mutation on a fundamental level.
So even though this is just one study, the point is that if you find a single mutation, an important mutation, that's not random, Darwinism can't explain that.
Because it is the key premise of Neo-Darwinism that these mutations are always random.
It's kind of like if you find out that in a certain place on Earth, when you toss a coin, instead of a 50% probability of getting heads or tails, it's a 70% probability over there.
It's a 70% probability over there, but not elsewhere.
Now, why would that be?
Why would it be that in the one place where you have to fight malaria, there is a kind of favorable malaria mutation occurring in that population but in no other population?
So, this is going to, I think, raise eyebrows in the scientific community.
It probably will raise eyebrows in the atheist community because the one thing that people like Richard Dawkins have always railed against, it's the idea that evolution is in some way purposeful.
Evolution is directional.
Evolution is not purely random.
Evolution is part of a guided process.
And on the macro scale, it's pretty obvious that evolution is part of a guided process.
And I say that because if you look at the evolutionary process, you see what some scientists have called the arrow of evolution.
In other words, you begin with unicellular or single-cell organisms.
Then you go to multicellular organisms.
Then you go to organisms that are conscious.
Then you go to organisms that, like us, are self-conscious.
Then you have organisms that can actually turn around and understand the evolutionary process itself.
So where is the randomness in that?
I see a movement toward greater complexity.
I see a movement from matter to mind.
This is very evident.
I'm not making a religious point here.
This is simply evident if you observe the evolutionary process itself.
So on the macro scale, I think It's quite obvious that evolution is directional, but what this study is showing that that may also be true on the smaller scale.
At the level of mutation itself, the neo-Darwinian paradigm might prove to be, in the end, insufficient.
▲
Export Selection