All Episodes
Feb. 1, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
48:56
THE FACE OF INNOCENCE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep508
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, I want to cover the acquittal of Mark Hawk.
He's the pro-life activist who was charged with violating the so-called FACE Act.
I want to reveal why the left cannot and will not leave the Colorado Christian baker, Jack Smith, alone.
Media consultant Chris Ruby joins me.
We're going to expose the role of artificial intelligence, so-called AI, in driving social media censorship.
And I'll reflect on how the Big Bang points not just to the existence of God, but also to the attributes of God.
This is The Dinesh D'Souza Show.
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.
I want to talk about the case of pro-life activist Mark Houck for the simple reason that if it can happen to Mark Houck, it can happen to anybody.
We're not talking here about Trump.
We're not talking here about even the people who, on their own initiative, went to Washington DC on January 6th.
We talk about a guy who's involved in politics, but really not even so much at the ideological or partisan level, more at the ethical level.
Mark Hauck is a dad, he is a really nice guy, and he's a really dedicated guy.
So here's a fellow who drove two hours each way, once a week, to do sidewalk counseling.
And he would try to persuade women who are heading in to have an abortion that that's not a good idea, that there are other options available to them.
And he does this in a loving way and he does this in a way that is looking out for the welfare of these women and also of their unborn.
Well, it turns out that on October 13, 2021, Mark Houck, accompanied by his 12-year-old son, and that in itself is interesting.
He apparently was a dad who had a good relationship with his son.
His son too was involved in pro-life activism.
The two of them go together.
What happens is an escort at the Planned Parenthood facility starts harassing Mark Houck's son.
Not Mark, but his son.
And he starts making crude and antagonistic remarks and kind of going in the son's face.
And what does Mark Hauck do?
He pushes him away.
He pushes him away. So the guy evidently claims that he, quote, fell back.
But according to reports at the time, he didn't have any wounds.
He didn't have any injuries.
It's not like he fell on his head and cracked his head open.
None of that. By the way, there was someone called the local officials.
They came on the scene. They looked around.
They go, okay, well, this was an argument.
There seems to be no harm done.
Now, the escort...
The fellow who got pushed filed a criminal complaint, but it was thrown out.
In fact, it was thrown out because the guy didn't even bother to show up in court.
And so immediately after that, the DOJ gets involved.
And what do they do? They accuse Mark Haug.
Well, first of all, they raid his house.
15 to 20 armed FBI agents arresting him in front of his wife and children.
Think of the kind of trauma of that alone.
Then they accuse him of violating the FACE Act, and the FACE Act basically says you can't interfere with the provision of reproductive services.
You can't interfere, for example, with a woman, let's say, who has made the decision and is getting an abortion.
You can't block that from taking place.
This, of course, is at a time when Roe v.
Wade was in effect and abortion was obviously legal across the country.
So Mark Huck is facing 11 years in prison.
Imagine if this dad, this good guy, for pushing some guy for getting in the face of his kid gets 11 years.
And think of the injustice of that.
And the DOJ is okay with this.
In fact, they're pushing for it.
Well, the Thomas More Society, to their credit, decides to defend Mark Hawk.
It goes to trial.
And Mark Hawk, very happily, is acquitted on all charges.
Now, for a while there, for a day or so, the jury was deadlocked, which I find troubling.
This means that there were actually probably some people in the jury that perhaps wanted to convict him or just weren't sure.
And But I'm guessing that those people were a minority and the majority prevailed on them.
That's why you get the acquittal.
By the way, the acquittal is produced by all jurors agreeing that he didn't do it.
Now, let's just think about the—you have a FACE Act, which, by the way, is, I think, a stupid law to have in the first place, but you have it.
And the law prevents you from blocking someone from getting an abortion.
Well, was this escort getting an abortion?
No, he's a 72-year-old male.
He's obviously not getting an abortion.
He wasn't being deterred from getting an abortion.
He can't have an abortion.
Was he in the process of escorting a woman, a terrified woman, to get an abortion?
No, he was by himself.
There was no woman with him.
So, the FACE Act didn't even seem to apply here, and at one point, the judge himself acknowledged this.
He says during the trial, and I'm quoting him, quote,"...it appears to me that the U.S. government is stretching the statute of the FACE Act." In other words, manipulating the act to make it seem like he violated it.
I think these guys were hoping that this is like January 6th, and they're before a D.C. jury, and they're going to get him convicted no matter what.
Why? Because the government says so.
They call him a bad guy, so he has to be a bad guy.
Well, fortunately, the jury did not agree.
Fortunately, the jury looks at the facts and they go, this is absolutely absurd.
The idea of putting, what is it, a father of five or is it six?
No, seven children away for 11 years.
The injustice of that would be really hard to take.
In fact, it would in some ways make you wonder what country you're living in when this kind of thing could happen.
So... We place a good deal of confidence in these juries.
And in this case, as in some other cases, Kyle Rittenhouse case, for example, the jury looks at the facts and the jury comes to, I think, the right conclusion.
Happy to say Mark Hauck is a free man.
I'm actually going to try to get him on the podcast.
It'd be great to... Hear from him directly.
Far from being a criminal, I think this guy is a role model.
He's obviously somebody who has strong convictions, convictions about what is right.
He's also, in a way, being the leader of his family.
He's providing an example to his family.
And there is his son following in his footsteps.
His son, by the way, testified on his behalf in the trial, a trial that I'm happy to say produced a good outcome.
Have you ever picked up a towel set because it felt really soft in the store, but when you get home to use it, it's not really very absorbent?
What do you do with it then? Put it on your head and become Yasser Arafat?
It's a towel that's basically leaving you out to dry.
This is why MyPillow has developed the MyPillow Towels.
These are towels that actually work.
I know it's kind of mind-blowing. Towels that actually dry you.
The six-piece towel set includes two bath towels, two hand towels, two washcloths.
They come in a variety of colors.
And right now, you can receive the six-piece set for just $49.99 with promo code Dinesh.
To receive this amazing offer on the six-piece set of MyPillow towels, just go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
That number, 800-876-0227, or just go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code to get the discounts.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
You might remember the name Jack Phillips.
In fact, I just was about to say Jack Baker, and then I realized, no, his name isn't Jack Baker.
His name is Jack Phillips.
He is, by profession, a baker.
I'm talking about the Colorado Christian Baker, who has become famous, or in some quarters perhaps infamous.
And as I think about this poor guy, in some ways he reminds me of Trump on a smaller scale, because he can't get a break.
They won't leave him alone.
And who's they? They, of course, is the left.
So, Jack Baker, Jack Phillips, I'm sorry, won at the Supreme Court.
He went to the Supreme Court in 2018.
He had been asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
And he goes, look, I don't mind making cakes.
You can buy any cake in my shop.
But if you ask me to make a cake that conveys some sort of a message, and that message goes against my political and my religious...
I won't do it.
And so he was appealing to conscience and the Supreme Court agreed.
And the Supreme Court didn't decide, unfortunately, in my view, the issue in principle and just say, listen, religious freedom is supreme here.
You can't just pass these so-called anti-discrimination laws and have them override the The First Amendment, the First Amendment protection of religious freedom.
But the court didn't kind of go that far.
They just go, in this case, we are going to side with Jack Phillips.
And so Jack Phillips comes home.
He thinks victorious. There's a press conference.
And guess what? Just exactly the time he's freed and he wins his case, he's sued again.
And this time, not by a gay couple, but by a transgender individual.
This is somebody named Autumn Scardinia, a transgender woman.
She comes in and demands that Jack Phillips make another cake.
And this is a cake supposedly for her, quote, gender transition party.
And the cake has to be blue on the outside and pink on the inside to reflect this transition, I guess, from blue to pink, from male to female.
And Jack Phillips again says no, and for the same reason.
He doesn't mind making cakes and anyone can buy anything from his shop.
And there are other people, of course, who would be happy to do the cake, but the point here is they're suing him because they want to force him to do it.
And of course, you have here not just the transgender activists involved, but you have the local government, which is in Colorado, which is on the transgender side.
They too want to ruin Jack Phillips' life.
And so Jack Phillips basically goes to court.
He loses at the local level.
He appeals to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
And this is the latest news.
he loses again.
So where is this headed?
Well, it looks like it's going to be headed to the Supreme Court.
The ADF, which is the Alliance Defending Freedom.
This is, by the way, a Christian organization that defends people like Jack Phillips.
They've already announced we're appealing this.
So it looks like we're going to have a familiar pathway back to the Supreme Court.
And I think Jack Phillips will win again.
But it's just a pity that this guy has got to be put through all this.
See, I think the torture of him, the traumatizing of him, the legal fees is intended to put him out of business and is also intended to send a message to other people, don't be like Jack Phillips or we can ruin your life also.
Now, I'm reading some of these statements that were made by the court in announcing this decision, and they're absolutely preposterous.
First of all, the Colorado court says, quote, there is no inherent meaning or expressed message in the cake.
Now, here's a case where not only Jack Phillips disagrees, but Autumn Scardinia disagrees.
And the reason Autumn Scardinia went to Jack Phillips and said, bake this cake, is that she, I say she in quote marks here, wanted to send a message.
And she knew that this is a message that Jack Phillips would not want to send.
So here's the court pretending...
Well, it's just a blue and pink cake.
There's nothing about two colors.
Just looking at the colors, if someone came from Mars and looked at the colors, they wouldn't even see the problem here.
Well, this is a kind of willful ignorance on the part of the court.
And the court, by the way, I'm just continuing with its rhetoric.
Again, what I'm saying is, in the abstract, this might be true, but symbols have meaning.
Let's say, for example, that someone goes into Jack Phillips' cake shop and says, I want you to show some individuals in white sheets and I want them to have a burning cross on the cake.
And the court goes, well, these are just people in white.
The cross is a Christian symbol.
What's wrong with burning a cross?
So this is pretending like you don't know the meaning of the symbol.
The symbol has a clear meaning.
Everybody else gets the meaning.
You're pretending that you don't get it.
So I think this is the problem here.
The court is being willfully stupid, which is another way of saying being willfully ideological.
Jack Phillips seems to have a really strong case, and I hope that the high court steps in and corrects this injustice.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints has been nothing short of amazing.
We used to get these aches and pains and now they're just gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation that's the source of aches and pains.
I've seen all these testimonies from people, the vast majority of them who try Relief Factor, they love it, they order more, because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer she can finally do the exercises that for a long time she couldn't do.
It's been a real game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, and for many other people.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
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. Guys, as you know, I like to cover the topic of censorship, digital media censorship on the podcast.
And I have a terrific guest, Chris Ruby, who's going to help us dive deeper into the actual mechanics, the mechanisms that drive this kind of censorship.
Chris Ruby is the CEO of Ruby Media Group.
She's an expert on artificial intelligence, so-called machine learning, as well as social media.
Chris, welcome to the podcast.
Great to have you. I think I came across this fascinating thread that kind of got me onto the work you were doing.
It was initially merely a conversation that you were having, a back and forth.
With a whistleblower at Twitter.
Talk a little bit about how you found the whistleblower and also what was the upshot of that conversation.
Sure. So thanks so much for having me on the show.
You're correct in that it did start out with just a conversation about some things that were going on at Twitter.
And I really wanted to understand what Guano meant in Barry Weiss's reporting when I saw that on the back end in that screenshot.
And from there...
I had a thousand other questions once I understood that that had to do with machine learning.
So really, that screenshot, I had more questions than we were really given answers, and that's what started my research and reporting here.
And from there, I discovered and received many files pertaining to how Twitter used artificial intelligence and natural language processing and machine learning to essentially moderate content All right.
So let's talk about that.
Because in the Twitter files, most of it has focused on the kind of internal communications at Twitter.
Yoel Roth says this to another guy.
And so these are human communications that have been extensively documented by a series of journalists, obviously at the behest of Elon Musk.
You have, you could almost call it the Ruby files, in which you're talking about the fact that these social media companies, they don't just operate by human beings looking at something and go, oh wow, that's misinformation.
They use algorithms, they use machine learning.
So let's understand some of these terms.
What is an algorithm?
Well, so what's interesting here is it's not so much the algorithms that I have as much as the list of n-grams.
So n-grams are used, I would say, in an algorithm as a series of keywords.
One of the n-grams that I noticed was something called 2,000 mules, which of course is how he got to where we are right now.
That's a perfect example of Political algorithmic bias, where Twitter deemed 2000 mules to be associated with political misinformation.
That was what I was told.
And therefore, if you were tweeting, if you were using the phrase political misinformation and election fraud and voter fraud and Dropbox, all of those terms together in context...
That would be flagged.
And it would be flagged by either a human for review or an algorithm.
But I think you really hit it right on the mark, which is that the majority of this content moderation is not being done by humans.
No one is belaboring over what you're saying.
If you're not you, or if you're not Charlie Kirk, or if you're not someone at a very high level, No one really cares.
And that's just the truth.
The machine learning will take you out.
That's the big smoking gun story here that I really think people don't get.
And then I think, unfortunately, the Twitter files somewhat misleads people to think that Yoel Roth is sitting there talking about their account where it's just not happening.
All of this is on autopilot in the background.
And when people really understand that and they see that story, they're going to be very, very angry because the truth is in the data.
The data doesn't lie, as you know as well from the work that you've done.
That's what I'm fighting for here.
I'm fighting for truth and transparency in those machine learning documents.
I have the data of what was deemed political misinformation with the engram list.
But that data has a connected underlying vocabulary to it.
By that, I mean when you say 2,000 mules, this is what it means, and this is why you market.
Those content moderators work off of those documents.
We need those documents released to the public so that the public can understand how the data I have connects to those training manuals that they have at Twitter.
Now, you've had an interesting exchange with Elon Musk in which you talked about this and he responded and I think said something to the effect of, this is interesting.
And you even asked him, is it okay if I release the data that I have?
And I think that he said, yeah, if you camouflage some identities, you can do that.
Are you saying that you think that these machine learning algorithms are still operating at Twitter despite the release of the Twitter files?
Yes, I am. I have no evidence that they're not because people are still getting suspended and removed from the platform for using the very same words.
But I think there's evidence of something else here.
I think when someone really understands how machine learning or natural language processing works and also what it means to be in compliant with current laws around speech...
There's no way you can truly have free speech on any social media platform with the state of AI being used in content moderation.
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
I'm not saying that someone's misleading, but I do think that we need a greater level of transparency and trust.
For ML to work, something has to be positive and something has to be negative.
What is Elon Musk choosing to be positive or to be negative?
We know that with machine learning or things like chat GPT, it works with reinforcement learning.
What behavior is being reinforced?
We don't have answers for any of that when it comes to the future of machine learning at Twitter.
That's very important information for anyone to know or to even question when we're talking about these terms.
And I will say this.
I think that really where we're headed is very scary with a lot of these quote-unquote responsible AI programs at some of the top tech companies in the world.
In my opinion, they are extremely irresponsible.
They are often staffed or they work directly with academic researchers who were funded essentially by the government.
And when I asked, who created these word lists?
Where did the word lists come from?
They said, well, we work directly with the CDC and the government and third-party agencies.
Who told us what word list to monitor because they're the experts.
So here we have a situation where data scientists are really actually doing what they're told to do.
They're not necessarily speaking out because they're doing their job.
They can't not do what they're told to do without risk of getting fired.
So I'm not even sure it's their fault.
This is so deep of how this is going on.
And no one's really questioning what machine learning fairness even means or what responsible AI means because we have a bunch of irresponsible people running it.
Let's take a pause. When we come back, Chris, let's dive a little bit more into the significance of this and what conservatives can do to fight back against it.
Sometimes we can all use a fresh start.
Now, the phrase literally means an opportunity to begin something again.
You know you need a fresh start in your eating habits, right?
How many times last year did you say to yourself, I need to start eating better?
Well, eating the right amount of fruits and veggies every day, not easy, almost impossible.
I have a much more convenient way for you to make that fresh start with Balance of Nature.
Now, sourced from 31 whole fruits and vegetables, you get maximum nutrition with Balance of Nature's star product, which is this, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Debbie and I take them every day.
I want you to do so also.
And right now, take advantage of Balance of Nature's New Year's offer, $25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies.
This is when you use Discount code AMERICA. The offer can end at any time.
So act now. Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA. Guys, I'm back.
I'm with Chris Ruby, the CEO of Ruby Media Group.
And we're talking about digital censorship and how it's driven by these things called, well, algorithms, but also machine learning, natural language processing, so-called NLP.
Chris, let me summarize what I think you're saying.
And that is that the content of what people see on these social media platforms is being manipulated.
I guess it's somewhat similar to saying that, when you go to the grocery store, there are certain things that are put at eye level, and you can easily see those.
And there are other things that are sort of tucked away and you can go looking for them.
And there might be a way to find them, but they're being suppressed.
They're not being encouraged, let's put it that way.
And you're saying that in the grocery store, you know why they do that.
They're trying to sell certain things.
Maybe they think there's a bigger market for this or for that.
But here, it's driven not only governmentally, but I think you're also saying ideologically.
It works in a manner that discriminates against conservatives.
Is that a correct summary of what's going on?
And if so... Is exposure of this enough?
Or are there some steps that need to be taken?
Can the House GOP do something?
In other words, how do we stop this?
Yes, I would say that what you said is accurate.
I would also say that 99% of takedowns on social media platforms are really starting with machine learning.
That's what was so concerning here.
If we look at the data that I shared, that data, by the way, is not data that anyone reported.
Okay, so when we were 2,000 mules over and over again, no one is reporting a tweet that says 2,000 mules.
This is an algorithm through natural language processing in the background.
If you use a series of words, including 2000 mules, it's automatically being flagged.
And that's the scariest part of this because I think people are looking at the wrong thing.
They're looking at, oh, someone reported this and now a human's going to look at it.
No. We're not talking about that.
We're talking about a system that operates all the time, that is always running.
And if you're not programming that language, and if you don't know how to speak that language or understand that language, then you can't even ask the right questions.
That's what's happening at a congressional level right now.
So anytime these people are put on the stand...
They don't have the technical expertise to really question what's happening.
We saw that with Jack as well.
Did Jack lie or did he not lie?
Because he said he talked about using labels, but he talked about, to your point, the labels on the front end.
He's not mentioning the data labels on the back end.
He's not mentioning that 2,000 new rules is an NLP term.
He's not mentioning that voter fraud is also an engram.
To answer your question, what can be done?
The discrepancy is getting larger and larger of this knowledge gap.
When I asked how many conservatives were on that team and data science making these decisions, the answer was zero.
You need more people that are like, wait a second, I don't think 2,000 mules should really be an engram.
For all of this talk of diversity and inclusion, where is the political diversity and inclusion when it comes to algorithmic political bias?
My opinion is just not there.
So you seem to be saying not merely that the social media platforms aren't accommodating political diversity, but that a lot of conservatives, including a lot of congressmen and their staffs, don't have the background knowledge to be able to put these guys—I mean, they're lawyers, and so they're good at what they do.
But if you don't have the technical knowledge, I guess it's sort of like trying to examine a ballistics expert, and you don't know anything about ballistics.
So as a result, you ask really dumb questions— And the ballistics guy talks circles around you because he knows what's going on and you don't.
So what you're saying is the conservatives need to hit the books a little bit and master this, at least at a layman's level, so you can bring these guys in front of committees, ask them the right kinds of questions, because they're acting like the very mention of voter fraud is itself something that deserves to be A, flagged and B, potentially suppressed.
Correct. And the way they get away with it is because they add it to their terms of service under the header of civic and integrity.
They add it and say, oh, but they're only showing you what's on the front end.
The key is what is in data science on the back end.
And I feel like a lot of the reporting on this, the story's missed.
They're looking at engineering. They're talking about quote-unquote algorithms.
They're not really talking about data science at all.
That's where all of this is.
Are we really fighting?
I don't know what the purpose of the Twitter files is.
But if the purpose was actually about truth, then this is where they'd be looking.
That's what's frustrating.
The truth is in the data.
The truth would be in those machine learning documents that were used for content moderation.
Google, many years ago, they have something called the Quality Raider Guidelines.
Those that were leaked, and ever since, they have to make them public.
If Elon Musk is a man of his word, I don't understand why he won't do the same thing.
There's a difference between quote-unquote releasing an algorithm, which is something else, versus releasing the list of terms that are being used in natural language processing.
For example, do you think that you have a right to know that 2,000 mules was used as an engram by Twitter as political misinformation?
Should you have known that?
Absolutely. And by an engram, I take it that what you mean is it's a trigger word, right?
In other words, it's programmed in so that when people, even some guy with 10 followers, if he hashtags 2000mules or mentions it, he sets off the trigger and therefore he becomes a target for suppression or banning.
I mean, this is really scary stuff, Ruby.
And I think you're right that this...
At the very least, it complements the human dimension.
But in scale, it seems to be even more important than the human dimension by a huge factor.
So you've done really great work in exposing this.
And please keep this work up.
And we'd love to have you back to talk further as you make, as you surely will, more discoveries in this area.
Thank you very much. Thank you so much.
Despite the U.S. blowing through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January, the White House still refuses to reduce spending.
while our national leadership is buried their heads in the sand when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Hey, it's time to pull yours out.
Now would be a great time to diversify into gold with Birch Gold. That's why I buy gold in times of high uncertainty and instability.
I want something dependable.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Think about this.
To dig our country out of this mountain of debt, every single taxpayer in America would have to write a check for two hundred forty seven thousand dollars and it's only getting worse.
So protect yourself with gold today by texting Dinesh to 989898.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold is who I trust to protect my future and yours.
So get started. Text Dinesh to 989898 today.
These days, especially in the domain of foreign policy, there's so much...
Misinformation and much of it deliberate, by the way.
And I don't just mean misinformation coming from abroad, but also misinformation coming from our own government.
And this is not something that we used to think about or say in the past.
You know, in the Cold War, for example, guys like me would say, oh, this is disinformation coming from the Soviets, from Pravda, from Izvestia.
But we would assume that the information coming out of the U.S. government was by and large reliable.
Not to say that in a Cold War there isn't some level of concealment or some level of even outright deceit.
But nevertheless, we didn't think it was of the same kind.
I think in the Ukraine war, there's no way that we can say that.
There's a lot of lies coming out of Putin, and there's a lot of lies coming out of the good old United States of America.
And one way that you...
There's an interesting theory I'm going to talk about regarding Ukraine.
One way you judge a theory is just to ask how well it fits the facts.
So I'm presenting the theory, and I want to give credit...
To a thread on Twitter, this is written by a guy named Clandestine.
In fact, his hashtag is at warclandestine.
And we have to judge this thread really by the merits of what's being said, not necessarily by the source.
And so the threat begins by saying, we've been sending all this money, I mean, tens of billions, hundreds of, over $100 billion to Ukraine.
Why is that? It doesn't appear that this is something closely related to our interests.
Or is it?
And whose interest? And the thread goes on to say, let's flash back to the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, where in the years after that, late 1990s but also early 2000s, there was a bipartisan coalition of American leaders.
In fact, at one point in 2005, Senator Obama from Illinois and Senator Lugar From Indiana, visited former Soviet biological and chemical facilities in Ukraine.
There's actually a photo of them doing this together.
And they kind of pioneered an act in which the United States, by law, took control of the so-called Russian bioweapons facilities, including facilities that make dangerous pathogens.
So the idea here was the United States is going to take over these facilities and shut them down, immobilize them.
Why? Because the Russians are engaging in chemical and biological warfare.
And notice that we didn't hesitate at that time to call these labs chemical and biological warfare.
But it turns out that the United States and its allies took over these labs and never shut them down.
In fact, We began to have big pharma in the United States do research connected with these labs.
Research that was, again, never said what the research is or what it's even for.
It could be some of it benign in an attempt to try to find vaccines and make progress in understanding biological specimens and so on.
But of course, there's no reason to believe that it couldn't also include research of manufacturing pathogens, gain-of-function research, making dangerous pathogens as biological weapons.
Except when we're doing it, we stop calling it bio-warfare and we start acting— in fact, here's an article. This is in the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler.
How the right embraced Russian disinformation about, quote, U.S. bioweapons labs.
By the way, these are the exact same labs that were called bioweapons labs when the Soviets had them.
Somehow when they come over to the United States and are kept open and are still functioning, it's disinformation to call them bioweapons labs.
They're not bioweapons labs anymore.
Now, the complication that this thread talks about is that the United States was humming along, doing really well in the Ukraine, controlling these labs when the situation kind of went south.
And what that means is that there was a sort of a civil war that broke out in the Ukraine.
And suddenly there was the risk that these labs would now be exposed, not to mention that somebody in the Ukraine could come to power and take a hold of them.
And so the State Department, this time now under Hillary Clinton, 2014, takes full control of the Ukraine's government, facilitates a regime change, basically sets up a big racket in the Ukraine.
This is, by the way, leading right to, remember, Biden going to the Ukraine and basically threatening to fire the state prosecutor because the state prosecutor was onto the Biden family's kickback scheme and was also onto the way in which the Ukraine had basically become a center of not only dangerous activities being conducted by the deep state, but all kinds of money changing hands, all kinds of payoffs going on to Ukrainian officials, no less than to to people in the West.
And this prosecutor wanted to expose it.
And so Biden wanted to shut that down and in fact did shut that down.
The prosecutor was fired.
And so the point here is that the argument that this threat is making is that the Ukraine war has nothing to do with Ukraine.
It has nothing to do with American interests or American safety.
It is protecting some highly valuable deep state resources in the Ukraine, namely dangerous chemical and biological weapons labs that are being operated in the Ukraine, possibly because they can't be operated in the West.
Possibly because here, they're more likely to be discovered.
People are more likely to demand an investigation.
People want to know what's going on.
But if you do it in Ukraine, it's kind of like farming it out to a faraway country where you can do whatever you want because you control the apparatus, you control the government.
So the Ukraine war, in this view, and this is a theory that, like I said, needs to be matched up against the facts, the Ukraine war is a proxy war that is being fought by the United States not to protect us, But to protect the deep state and to protect the covert facilities, including possibly gain-of-function research going on in all kinds of bioweapons labs in Ukraine.
So this is the perhaps untold story of the Ukraine war.
I'd like to invite you to become a subscriber, an annual subscriber to my Locals channel.
Locals is a censorship-free platform and you get Dinesh unleashed.
Dinesh uncensored.
All the stuff that I can't talk about on the podcast, I talk about on Locals.
Debbie and I were actually in Miami recently.
We stopped by the local studio there, and we did kind of a live discussion from that studio.
I also do a weekly live Q&A, and you can ask me questions directly.
I just did one last night.
And I also have some cool movies up on my Locals channel, including 2,000 Mules, but also terrific movies by other independent producers, not just me.
You can watch all of them for free just by becoming an annual subscriber.
It's $50 a year, less than $5 a month.
Plus, you get all kinds of exclusive content, as I mentioned.
Sign up at dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
That website again, dinesh.locals.com.
Why do highly successful companies attempt suicide?
What I mean is, why do they attack suicide?
Their own customer base.
Why do they cut themselves off from their own customers and thus put their own existence, their own profitability, their own success in danger?
I'm thinking of places like Victoria's Secret, which was a very successful company until they decided to go super woke and essentially put a dagger into their own chest.
Disney, which, again, had a marvelous brand, pro-family, a brand that conveyed Americana, and then they decided to go woke and create problems for themselves.
And the case of Disney is kind of instructive because it is a lot of the activists, a lot of the left-wing activists and the gay activists inside of Disney.
Let's remember, Disney is just full of gay employees.
These are people who are illustrators and they do this and that.
So they're able to exercise an internal power that changes the, you may say, the culture at Disney.
And the CEO then sort of gives in or relents because these are the people that he hears from every day.
He doesn't hear from the customers every day, but he hears from the employees every day.
I think something very similar is going on at, of all places, Harley-Davidson.
So recently, the CEO of Harley-Davidson, a guy named Jokin Zeitz, was quoted saying the following.
At some point in time, Harley-Davidson will be all electric.
Now, he goes on to say that's a long-term transition that needs to happen.
It's not something you do overnight.
But the statement itself kind of caught me by surprise because I thought to myself, wait, Harley Davidson is kind of going woke?
Harley Davidson now is into electric vehicles?
And this would seem to be kind of a political slap in the face to a lot of people who ride Harley Davidson bikes.
Even despite the qualification, it's not happening immediately.
When he says it needs to happen, he's conveying to the liberal media, to the left, I'm one of you.
Hey, I'm on your side. We're not going to do this overnight, but this needs to occur.
We're going to go all electric here at Harley.
And I thought to myself, how do CEOs get so out of touch that they come to these conclusions?
And I think the answer is the same as Disney.
The Harley-Davidson guy probably moves in liberal social circles.
He probably has a liberal wife, or if not a liberal wife, he has a liberal college-aged kid who's come home from spring break.
Oh, Dad, I don't understand all these noisy vehicles that make all this internal combustion engine, this thunderous sound, all these guys with tattoos and cut-off shirts driving around.
You've really got to change the culture.
And the dad goes, Yeah, I think it's a great idea, son.
I think I'm going to start talking about that in interviews.
And so here's the point.
Harley-Davidson makes a decent bike, but you know what?
And here, I mean, I'm not a biker, so I don't claim to be speaking here from personal knowledge.
But there's an interesting article that came out, and it has a whole bunch of people who are Harley riders or people who ride bikes responding.
Here's a guy. I'm a motorcyclist with 50 years of riding under my belt.
He goes, I've never owned a Harley.
My preference is the Japanese bikes, which are cheaper and better engineered.
Well, this is a way of this guy saying, who buys a Harley?
Basically, it's people who want to buy American.
Basically, it's people who want to make a whole bunch of noise on their bike.
Basically, it's people for whom the bike is a symbol of resistance, of rebellion, and of freedom, the open road.
Those are the kinds of people who drive a Harley.
And here is the CEO of Harley telling those kinds of people, I'm not with you.
I'm not one of you. Our bikes are not for people like you.
Our bikes offer a whole different kind of rider.
Here's another guy commenting on this report.
He goes, if there's no big V-twin tractor motor in Harley, he's talking about the motor that goes, then it is no longer a Harley.
He goes, I wouldn't trade my old Harleys for any high-tech spiffy bike on the planet.
The sound of a Harley reminds me of the sound of the old radial-engineered B-29s, kind of like an old B-29 airplane.
It's music to my ears that a jet engine or the sound of a Beamer or a Goldwing whooshing along will never replace.
It's the sound of American freedom.
So I think Harley better be careful lest it go the way of Victoria's Secret and the way of Disney.
I'd like to conclude today my discussion of the Big Bang by coming back to the fundamental question.
If there was a beginning, if the universe had a beginning some 14 billion years ago, how did that occur?
There really are only two possibilities.
Somehow nature created itself out of nothing.
In other words, nature somehow popped into existence without explanation.
Or something or someone The idea that nature created itself or just somehow popped into existence makes absolutely no sense.
Whenever we see things that happen, we demand to know what caused them to happen.
You see a big crater in the ground, you go, how'd that occur?
You don't just say, well, the crater just simply popped into existence.
No. Something landed there, or there was some sort of an earthquake which created the crater.
You see, you look down an alley, you see a head rolling around.
You never go, well, did that head just pop into existence?
It got there somehow.
There was some sort of a suicide or a homicide that produced that.
You may not know who did it, but you know that someone did it.
So, this is the point that...
That we don't know what kind of creator made the universe, but we do know that the universe was created and that someone made it.
We also know that this someone is not a material object, but rather an immaterial object, which is to say that it is spirit and not matter that created the universe.
Now, it takes no faith, by the way, to believe the things that I just said.
This is simply a reasoning from what we know about the universe having a beginning.
Now, it might seem that we've established that there's We don't know any of the attributes of that creator, but I would say that this is really not so.
Some of the attributes of the creator remain hidden, but there are some conclusions that we can reasonably draw from what we do know.
So, as the universe was produced by a creative act...
It's reasonable to infer it was produced by some sort of mind.
So mind is the origin of matter, and it's mind that produced matter, not the other way around.
As the universe comprises the totality of nature, containing everything that is natural, The Creator must be outside nature.
The Creator didn't use any natural forces to create the universe, and so the Creator is literally, by the very definition of the word, supernatural.
As space and time are within the universe, The Creator is also outside of space and time, which is to say eternal.
Notice that I'm using a definition of eternity that doesn't just mean stretching out space and time to some kind of infinite point, but rather something that goes beyond space and time.
As the universe is material, the Creator is immaterial, which is to say spiritual.
As the universe was created from nothing, the Creator is incomprehensibly eternal.
Powerful, which is to say omnipotent, and also knowledgeable, which is to say omniscient.
So notice how we've derived all these different features of the Creator from the simple act of creation itself.
In other words, it must be some kind of a being that did this.
What can we tell about that kind of being?
So now we come back to the question that we began with.
When I first started this many days ago, is the cosmos all there is, or was, or ever will be?
And the answer is absolutely not.
This idea is nonsense, and it unfortunately comes from people who should know better.
Steven Weinberg says the laws of nature give, quote, no hint of a divine plan or creator.
That's a very foolish statement.
The laws of nature don't just give a hint.
They seem to point directly, if not definitively, to a creator.
So to a dogmatic atheist, this is like science fiction.
This is like a recurring nightmare.
But you can't get around the scientific fact.
The finding of modern physics is that the universe has a beginning in space and in time.
And that seems to meet E.O. Wilson's litmus test.
Let's remember E.O. Wilson's litmus test.
That points to a god or a divine creator.
This would be one of the most astounding discoveries of all time.
And I guess what I'm here to say is that that astounding discovery has in fact occurred.
And it requires nothing more than a contemplation of what we know about the origin of the universe combined with a little bit of reasoning for how that origin came about.
So... The Big Bang provides for all those who take the trouble to understand it and reflect upon it.
Powerful and convincing evidence of the existence of an eternal, supernatural being that created our world and everything in it.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
Export Selection