All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:42
WHO BUILT AMERICA? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep515
| 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... A Disney show insists that the slaves built America.
I want to argue on the contrary, that America was built by its original European settlers.
Debbie's going to join me for our weekly roundup.
We're going to talk about Twitter censors and the GOP, how cartels are upping the ante at the southern border, and whether it's time to rethink our support for the death penalty.
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.
America was built on slavery.
This has become a standard trope.
of critical race theory.
It is something that is taught in our schools.
It is something that has now surfaced on a Disney show called The Proud Family.
It's a kind of a cartoon show but weaved into it are themes of slavery and reparations.
And I want to just quote a line or two.
This country was built on slavery, which means slaves built this country.
It goes on to talk about why that creates a foundation, a moral foundation for reparations.
Now, this may seem like inarguable, which is to say self-evident.
I want to argue that's one of those things that we tend to take for granted so much that it takes a little bit of thought and scrutiny to realize that it's not true.
What is not true? This country was not built on slavery and slaves didn't build it.
And think of how, if what I said is true, it blows the foundation for reparations right out of the water.
The premise itself is false.
But how can it be false?
Didn't slaves, at least some would say, well, they certainly helped to build this country, didn't they?
And I would say, in a sense, no.
And the reason I say no is because it's not that the slaves didn't do any building.
Slaves, of course, there was some slavery in the North also before the American founding.
Most of slavery was either abolished or on its way to being abolished in the era of the American founding.
And then slavery became more regional.
It was in the South, mainly plantation slavery, small and large plantations.
Okay, so the slaves built the plantations.
But what happened to the plantations in the Civil War?
They were destroyed.
They were leveled to the ground.
Sherman burned Atlanta.
So at the end of the Civil War, what was left in the South was very little.
Just land.
Agriculture. The South had to sort of rebuild its way out of, you know, a kind of rubble.
So what the slaves built was destroyed.
During the Civil War.
And the idea that America today is somehow built by slavery is, I think, nonsensical.
Now, it's tempting for people to go from there to say, well, all right, but what about the immigrants, Dinesh?
Shouldn't the immigrants build America?
No, they didn't either.
Now, I'm not saying that the immigrants, again, didn't do anything, they didn't work, but the country was built by the original European settlers.
They are the ones who established the economic and political and moral foundations for a strong, prosperous, and decent nation.
And then, this is me tweeting, we are all living off the fruits of their labor.
Now, I knew when I said this, it would sort of set off a little bit of a social media stir, and sure enough, I get all kinds of comebacks.
And one of these comebacks is, well, Dinesh, you know, the settlers are the same as immigrants.
You're talking about settlers, but didn't the settlers come from another country?
Doesn't this make them immigrants?
No. Settlers are not the same as immigrants.
There's a real difference between a settler and an immigrant.
I put it this way. The settler is the guy who shows up and builds the country.
He's the first guy to actually create the recipe for society.
Now, if it happens to be a good society, good recipe, good society, then immigrants will leave their own country and move voluntarily to the better country that the settlers have created.
In other words, immigrants move to already existing established societies because they like the way that society is run or organized.
But who organized it?
Not the immigrant. And this is why the countless immigrants who have come to America over the generations, me included, all of us owe a great debt to the pilgrims and to the original settlers.
They are the ones more than anyone else, more than the immigrants, more than the slaves.
They are the ones who really built America.
So once I establish propositions that are hard to argue against, I get quibbles.
And here's a quibble that comes from somebody on social media.
Hey, Dinesh, care to weigh in on the assertion that European settlers weren't immigrants?
I'm sure lots of First Nation leaders, meaning Native Americans, would have a different interpretation of history.
And here I make the point that being here first doesn't mean anything.
I mean, does the first Bedouin who arrives at an oasis own the oasis?
No. European settlers are the ones who developed this country.
They built towns and cities.
They established the nation on a political and economic foundation.
They created this widespread opportunity and this widespread prosperity.
I think I speak for immigrants here.
We didn't come to the America the Native Americans created.
If the Native Americans had continued to run the show, I would still be back in India.
The reason that immigrants like me came to America is to be part of the country that the original settlers created here.
That's the America that we're grateful for.
Well, just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow are launching the MyPillow 2.0.
Now, when Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could want in a pillow, but now, nearly 20 years later, he has discovered a new technology that makes MyPillow even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow, and now, with brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread, MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow You'll ever own.
Say goodbye to tossing and turning and flipping your pillow over in the middle of the night.
And more great news on the MyPillow 2.0 Buy One Get One Free offer with promo code Dinesh.
The MyPillow 2.0 is machine washable and dryable.
MyPillow 2.0 is made in the USA and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So go ahead, call 800-876-0227, that number 800-876-0227, or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code, D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Debbie and I are here for our Friday weekly roundup.
And it's pretty funny when we go around places, people are like, oh, I'd like to see Debbie on the podcast.
And I go, well, yeah, you do see her on Fridays.
We do the regular roundup.
I don't know if they're sort of implying that they need to see Debbie a lot more than Hey, I'm here every day.
I sit right over there and I laugh at all the things Dinesh says because, you know, as most of you know, he's not scripted.
So, you know, he doesn't use a teleprompter.
So I never know what he's going to say.
Typically, he shocks me.
Pretty much every day, actually.
But I think one of the things about it is in a normal week, you can come in your sweatpants.
You can actually be more casual.
Oh, yeah. I don't put makeup on.
I wear my glasses. I just come in.
And then on the days that I am on the podcast, I have literally stopped wearing false eyelashes.
I just won't do it anymore.
It's just like too much work.
So I just, you know, I do put makeup on at least, but I don't do any of the other stuff.
I don't even fix my hair anymore.
I've kind of given up. Well, the podcast itself is now, I mean, we're kind of in year three.
And what is our episode today?
How many episodes? So today is episode 515.
Wow. Yes.
So this has become a real content generating.
So we have essentially created 500 or so hours of content.
And I'm happy with the way it's going because I like the fact that we cover a pretty wide range of material.
It's not a hysterical podcast.
It doesn't scream at you nonstop the way some do.
It doesn't leave you depressed and wanting you to blow your braids out, which is also sometimes the case.
I mean, I think there's probably some people who like to be depressed.
They want to hear that things are worse than they thought and, oh, here's another outrage.
And I do. Not that I hesitate to point out when things are bad.
I try to be as savage and severe as is appropriate.
Yeah. But there's also more to life.
And every once in a while, I don't want to talk about politics, believe it or not.
I like to just kind of talk about other things.
Like, for example, murder trials.
Or something else, you know, that takes my mind off of these crazy people running the country.
Well, and sometimes as with OJ and so on, and even the Menendez case, there is a political meaning to these trials.
There is, but yeah. But not always.
Yeah, it's just more sinister.
And it's just like, you know, it really shows you just the lack of morality of the people that we've become.
I mean, really. But...
And just heinous crimes.
And a lot of times involving family members.
But, you know, this, I mean, goes back to Adam and Eve, doesn't it?
I was going to say, I don't know, because I don't know if you were implying that crimes have become like more heinous today.
And I suspect that, I don't know if they've become more heinous today, but I do think that they are more frequent today.
And I think the reason for this is the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of cohesive local cultural communities, which provided a sort of support structure and also a moral accountability structure.
And we have far fewer of those.
That's true. That's true.
So anyway, so hey, we were going to talk about the Twitter stuff going on.
Well, I think the question we were talking about is what's going to happen after the- See, this is the point.
I think Debbie's not alone in thinking nothing's going to happen.
I don't agree. For two reasons.
One is I think that it's really important.
Well, step one is get the information out.
That was the Twitter files. Step two, pull these guys back.
Under subpoena and under oath to give testimony—I'm talking about Eul Roth, Vijaya Ghade, James Baker, this whole corrupt gang—put them up against the wall, expose them, embarrass them.
And as I said yesterday on the podcast, you know, this is not a case where we no longer have the ability to get the message out.
We don't really care if the New York Times doesn't cover it or CBS because social media is bigger than all these media organizations.
They're struggling to survive.
They're leaning on social media themselves and many of them.
Some of them don't even have a social media as big as mine.
So we can get this information out and we're doing it.
And for example, I noticed the House GOP is getting much more sophisticated about releasing clips, one minute, two minute clips.
This is Representative James Comer.
This is Byron Donalds on a rampage.
And so this stuff then becomes infectious.
It's viral. We put it out there.
That's step two. And step three is, and I agree for step three, we need the White House.
But there's no reason that if we get the White House in 2024, we can't go back and lock all these people up.
In other words, we can't go back and indict them.
And this time, indict them in areas where we have conservative juries.
We do the opposite of what the January 6th committee was doing.
You don't indict them in D.C. You indict them in places where you've got conservatives who are going to go, you know what?
They weren't just doing this to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
They were doing this to me.
And I'm now in a position to do something about it with regard to their future.
So here you go. And so I don't think it is outside the realm of...
There was a while ago where we could have said the Republicans are never going to do this.
But I think that we will.
You should have just watched the hearings yesterday, the day before, I guess.
There was a molten rage behind it.
And even, you know, people say, well, Nancy Mace is a rhino.
You know, she's not a Trumpster.
Nancy Mace was furious.
Well, you know, I mean, okay, fine.
That's great. That's a beginning, right?
But again, it's when we get to those positions where we can do something about it, will we?
We all know our digital privacy is under attack.
Big tech steals your private information, your pictures, your chat and email.
This is very bad stuff.
So is there a better way?
Fortunately, yes, there is.
I want to tell you about Secure.
It's spelled S-E-K-U-R.
Secure offers secure instant messaging and email hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms and using Swiss privacy laws, which are the strictest in the world.
Debbie and I just signed up for Secure.
We're using it.
We love it.
Secure's proprietary technology allows you to communicate privately without fear of spying from big tech companies, your email provider, or hackers.
Use Secure to chat or email with everyone, including non-Secure users, thanks to Secure's unique features, Secure Send and Chat by Invite.
Secure is a separate email and messaging application that guarantees your privacy.
Check it out. Go to secure, that's S-E-K-U-R dot com.
Use promo code Dinesh.
You'll get 25% off for the next 24 months.
Again, that's secure.com, S-E-K-U-R dot com.
In this segment, Debbie and I want to talk about the border.
Now, we're actually heading to the border soon.
Yes. In fact, this coming weekend.
We never see mom that often.
So when we do, you know, and I have friends that are like, hey, when are you going to come visit and all that?
And it's like, listen, because of COVID, you know, we've been very...
Like, distant, really, with mom.
I mean, obviously, the last few years.
Oh, your mom's 86. Yeah, she's going to be 87.
She turns 87 next week.
And I want to do something really special for her.
But she's my priority.
So, you know, right now, you know, it's all about mom.
Well, it's interesting to drive...
Through South Texas toward the border, because you see things that you don't see elsewhere in the state.
It's the way that the border is sort of dealing with the problems over there.
Well, here's a very interesting, this is from Arizona, not Texas.
Migrant shot dead by Arizona rancher.
Held on $1 million for murder charge, was deported several times before.
So let's recapitulate.
There's an Arizona rancher.
A migrant shows up on his property, in his vicinity, in his venue.
He shoots the migrant.
The migrant is apparently a repeat offender, has been multiple times deported before.
But here's what you have as a result.
Dead migrant. Arizona rancher is now in prison awaiting trial for, is it what, first-degree murder or second?
First-degree murder. First-degree murder.
He's accused of killing this guy in cold blood.
And number three, there's obviously a ranch family that now is missing their father.
I think these are elderly people, so it's just the wife.
And so she's running it by herself, the ranch, by herself.
So we don't have to get into the circumstances of what exactly happened because we're not trying to resolve this case.
We're making a bit of a broader point, at least I'd like to make a broader point, which is that none of this would have happened if we had control of our border.
If the federal government was doing their job of protecting American citizens.
Yeah, and you even told me this morning, you're like, shouldn't we be able to sue?
Yeah, yeah, the wife.
I mean, can't she sue the Biden administration for the damages that her husband is now incurring because he alone had to defend their property because the federal government is not doing it?
Well, I mean, morally this is true because you can say, look, what is the purpose of government?
What is the first and main reason that we, you know, let's think about why do we leave the state of nature, philosophically speaking, and enter into a society?
Well, the number one reason is protection.
We do it because, and in fact, this is why we give up the power to, in normal circumstances, protect ourselves.
We say, okay, we'll let the cops do it.
Now, obviously, if somebody shows up in a home invasion, the cops aren't there.
You have every right, in a sense, to go back to the state of nature and protect yourself.
But the point being that the Biden administration is flagrantly violating its responsibilities.
Sadly, I don't think you can sue them.
You don't have a legal case.
Any more than you have a legal case, you can say, you know, I have a son or daughter who was harmed in a crime.
Why do we have such a high crime rate?
My government is not protecting me.
I'm going to sue the government. That's really not going to get anywhere.
You can't sue the government for the failure of its own bad policies.
The only remedy is really at the ballot box.
Yeah, that's true. And speaking of continuing to speak about the border, there was a meeting, a Border Patrol, I guess, met with, I don't know if it was the, yeah, I guess it was before Congress, Chief Border Patrol Agent Gloria Chavez.
She held a meeting with local law enforcement in Westlaco, Texas, describing the administration's plan to release In mass immigration, I guess, foreign nationals into the U.S. when Title 42 ends, which means that, you know, 15,000 a day are coming in through the southern border, right?
Down in the valley where we're going, where we're headed.
And she's saying that they're going to be released into the communities.
Some of these people, as we know, are criminals, right?
A lot of them are criminals.
Yeah, Title 42 is essentially a COVID restriction.
And it said that there should be a restriction on the amount of illegals let into the country because they could be bringing COVID. So it seemed like a very practical point.
But Biden was like, it's time to get rid of that.
It's time to set aside Title 42.
And their plan was, then we can go nuts.
That we can just let illegals in all over the place, dispatch them all over the country.
So you can see here that there is a democratic strategy.
And look, I'm not endorsing some kind of quote, great replacement theory where they're trying to swap out the population for another population.
But on a very simple level, they're trying to add future potential voters.
That are going to be habitually dependent on government and habitually democratic.
What they're doing is that they're unleashing future potential killers, criminals.
And look, they don't care if they kill a Democrat or a Republican when they're here.
So do they not know that?
Look at this. So this past year, Border Patrol agents were assaulted.
17 Border Patrol agents were assaulted.
That's the highest number in history.
So again, that's a small reflection of the broader crime problem.
It is. And all these people from Cuba, interestingly, are coming in through the Mexican border.
Why? Because they get deported if they go to Florida.
They get deported immediately.
But they get asylum if they go through Mexico.
So we're seeing just, you know, an explosion of this.
The very fact that you're seeing, you know, Iranians and Pakistanis and Cubans showing up at the Mexican border shows us that this has now become an absolute free for all.
If all home air purifiers are the same, why did the U.S. Department of Defense select EnviroCleanse to protect and purify the air on board our Navy ships?
Well, it's because EnviroCleanse has advanced mineral technology.
It goes beyond ordinary HEPA filters to destroy airborne illness causing cold and flu viruses including COVID. And ViroCleanse is the new science in air purification and now you can order one for your home.
This is how you help stop colds and flu from taking your whole family down.
This is how you destroy allergy, inflaming toxins and mold from the air your family breathes.
In fact, this hospital-grade technology is so powerful it promises far fewer colds and allergies and better sleep.
Visit EKPure, EKPure.com and use code Dinesh for 10% off your ViroCleanse home air purification unit.
There's a germaphobe in this family.
She made sure we ordered for the whole family like us.
You'll also get a free air quality monitor plus fast free shipping.
That's $150 savings.
So go to EKPure.com, code Dinesh.
Again, that's EKPure.com, code Dinesh.
I thought it'd be fun to get Debbie on here to talk with me about Madonna and about the Grammys and the so-called Satan performance that they did.
By the way, interesting about that is I saw an article that Said that the choreographers, the Sam Smith fellow, knew exactly what he was doing.
He was trying to create a massive incident.
He said before the Grammys, wait till the right-wingers see what I have in mind for them.
They're going to go nuts. They're going to go crazy.
There won't be... They won't be able to contain themselves.
So this was not something where they put on an interesting performance and then conservatives kind of just took it the wrong way.
They did this as a sort of deliberate act of moral provocation.
In fact, it supports Sarah Sanders when she goes, this is a left-wing culture war that we would rather not fight, but we're forced into it, we're dragged into it, because they want us to worship at their false idols.
So worship not only at sexual perversion, all kinds of other perversion, but also, evidently, worship at the shrine of Satan himself.
Like Pan.
Right? Like Pan.
Explain what you mean by Pan, because people may not know.
So Pan, that was one of the gods that was back in Jesus' time.
And they had this place in Caesarea Philippi.
Is it Caesarea Philippi?
Caesarea Philippi.
You know, the non-believers.
I guess they were non-Christian.
They were non-Jews. Non-Jews and non-Christian believers, or they didn't believe in Christ, or they didn't think Christ was the Messiah.
Anyway, these people worshiped gods, different gods, and Pan was one of the gods.
But they also sacrificed their, you know, children, people, animals, you know.
And so it was really creepy when we went to it, and it just gave me an uneasiness.
Well, watching just the clip of the Grammys kind of gave me the same uneasiness as that.
When I debated these atheists in a kind of flurry of debates that I did over two years, 2008, Actually, 2008 to about 2012, four years.
A lot of them were advocates of, I would call it, the worship of science.
So their idea is the universe is so large and astonishing in its magnitude and its beauty.
We should worship that.
But I don't think that that's emotionally satisfying.
And so when Hitchens, for example, outlined this worship of science thesis at a debate I did with him at the University of Colorado in Boulder, I noticed that the so-called seekers, and many of them were like hippies, but these are the type of people who tell you, I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious.
But they were not marching to Hitchens' music.
They didn't like what he was saying.
They were kind of turned off by it.
They were friendlier to me Even though I was arguing for a very orthodox and traditional Christian point of view.
And I think what the left is doing is they've realized we don't really need this kind of science worship.
We need to go more toward ancient paganism.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so I think- Because they think it is a more provocateur or Moulin Rouge's more interesting way of doing it.
And not to mention, even when I was a teenager, I really liked Madonna.
And I liked her music, even though, as you pointed out, Madonna has been mocking Christ since she started singing.
You know, she would wear these crosses and she would sing these very explicit songs and all of that.
I wasn't even paying attention to the lyrics, to be honest.
I didn't even know when I was singing Like a Virgin what I was literally singing about.
So, you know, it was one of those things that I just thought she was cool and pretty and all of those things.
And there was an irresistible beat to her music.
Yeah, exactly. And I like dancing to her music and all of those things.
But I do think that now there's a more sinister...
I mean, look at her now.
She literally looks demonic.
She didn't look demonic then, but she looks...
Well, she looks like a Chinese demonic woman, basically.
Well, I think this is a case where...
She's like seven years older than me.
And she's about my age.
She's about two years older than me.
I'll turn 62 this year.
She's 64. So look at it.
I mean, the thing about Madonna is that she's obviously raging against nature and she's raging against God.
And I think those two things are connected.
So her point is that I don't want to get old.
I've got to fight it. And so as a result, massive plastic surgery to such a point where, as you say, she's starting to look like she's from Beijing.
Yeah, she's ugly.
I mean, you know, she just, you know, listen, women, and I know, look, I'm there with you, okay?
I'm 57 years old.
I don't like it when women my age or near my age think that these cosmetic surgeries make them look younger because it actually makes you look older.
It makes you look like you've had cosmetic surgery.
You know, I'm getting little wrinkles here and there, but I want to grow, you know, listen.
If, like in a couple of years, if in a couple of years my lips are three times the size they are now, okay, then, okay, I'm eating my own words.
But, like, I don't think so because I just, first of all, I don't...
And again, I think your view on this is, I mean, you've told me this before, that it's not like you're in principle against, you know, Botox.
I'm against it. Yeah, I've never had Botox.
No, but my point is, your point is that when people do it to a certain point, They start to look like freaks.
Well, they start to look a little plasticky, you know, and I don't really want to look plasticky.
I want to have good skin.
I like to take care of my skin, but I'm just afraid to go too, you know, too much in the cosmetic surgery thing.
So anyway, but all that to say is that this Grammy, well, I don't watch it anymore.
I used to love the Grammys.
And even when I was a singer, I thought, you know, it'd be really cool to be nominated for a Grammy.
Wow! But those days are long gone.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are 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 a bunch of testimonies for people who use Relief Factor.
They just rave about it.
And most of the people who try it order more for the simple reason it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer she can finally do the exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a real game changer for her, her aunt, other members of her family, guys here in the studio, and many other people.
Now you too can benefit.
Try it for yourself.
Order the three-week 833-690-7246 to find out more.
That number again, 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. We now turn to our crime correspondent, Deborah D'Souza, for an update on the Brian Kohlberger case.
You're my source of information.
I guess I am, aren't I? Wow.
In fact, you just told me. I just saw something.
I just see a notification coming in about...
Well, you know, I think the larger picture here that we were going to talk about was simply the death penalty because, you know, as you know, I feel like the...
The death penalty is extremely appropriate for a person such as Brian Koberger.
I mean, assuming that this is the guy and he did what they say.
Assuming that he's found guilty, right, of four counts of first-degree murder, just the way he did this crime, the heinousness of this crime, I believe he does deserve the death penalty.
If there is absolutely no doubt...
That he did it, right?
My concern is when we have a little bit of a doubt, or, I mean, obviously a reasonable doubt, right?
When we do the death penalty for cases like that, I become super...
I don't want to say I become, you know, super liberal, like on the liberal side of the spectrum, as far as the death penalty is concerned.
But it does...
It really does concern me when we put people to death...
And we're not exactly sure that they are guilty.
Now, earlier in the week I did a segment on the podcast where I talked about The distrust of the state, distrust of our institutions of not just health, but the FBI, but also criminal justice, producing the kind of verdicts that we can rely on.
Look at January 6th. Look at the arbitrary imposition in those cases of extreme punishment.
But it causes a general distrust and loss of faith in the system.
If you have a system and people are like, we have the best system in the world, Dinesh.
We have the... Yeah, if we have the best system in the world and it's producing so many bad results, manifestly bad, then you begin to distrust it in other cases and say, how do you know it's not producing bad results in those cases too?
But you're making a different point, which is not that you distrust the state per se, but when you have a case where...
It may even be probable that he did it or she did it, but you're not positive.
Yeah, well, there's one such case, and that is with Darlie Routier.
Darlie Routier, I think that's how you say Darlie Routier, yeah.
She was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of one of her sons.
Now, interestingly, the other son was also killed.
She has still not been, you know, tried for that murder, but she was tried for for Damon's murder and and he was six years old. So anyway, so the thing about about this case is there have been so many things that point to doubt.
For example, one of the two of the things that I think the jurors were convinced that she was guilty of was that the that the boys had life insurance policies on them equaling $10,000, okay?
Her husband's life insurance policy was $800,000.
Why didn't she kill her husband, right?
So, anyway...
Makes no sense. Makes no sense.
The other thing is the jurors saw this video of Darlier and her family...
And celebrating her son Damon's would-have-been-seventh-birthday at the cemetery, and she had like silly string, and they had balloons, and she was laughing and smiling.
And they thought that that pointed to her guilt.
Well, hello? I mean, that is just ridiculous.
Well, I mean, it's very difficult to interpret the manifestation of...
The combination of grief over the loss of your children combined with the fact that it is my child's birthday, I can see a certain mindset that goes, you know what, we're going to sort of have a party, we're going to celebrate.
I mean, you cannot draw too much out of that.
And the third thing was the so-called blood spatter evidence in this case.
Right, the blood spatter evidence, which again, you know, if the expert...
Again, she could have been at a point of impact where the killer was, like literally next to the killer.
So the spatter would have been identical to her as to the killer.
The other thing is they said that, you know, everything looks staged.
Well, listen, her injury came like, I think they said like two millimeters or two milliliters, like really, really close to her carotid artery.
Self-inflicted wounds would never be that way.
Well, the point, yeah.
So she claimed that there was an intruder who had committed the murders.
And what Debbie's saying is not only was there some foreign DNA found at the scene, but also if she, quote, did it to herself, she's not going to stick herself with a knife at the very place where she might actually go wrong, cut her carotid artery, and kill herself.
Right. So the bottom line of this, I think where we're going with this case, and we're glad we're going into a little bit of detail of it, is We're not saying she didn't do it.
We're saying we can't be sure.
We can't be sure. And again, this woman, Barbara Davis, wrote a book called Precious Angels where she kind of alluded that, yes, she was guilty.
However, she has since changed her mind.
She no longer thinks that, and she's now helping to support Routier.
And in fact, all the proceeds of that book are going for her defense, really.
I believe there have been a couple of appeals that have been denied, and maybe the legal path has been exhausted.
We don't really know. But we're citing this as an example where, if you are not sure...
And I wonder if juries these days understand the true meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean, you know what, he probably did it.
You know what, if he didn't do it, why would he be here?
How come the guy went out and bought a gun?
No, you need to put the different factors together and be positive.
If you have any reasonable doubt, That it could have been someone else or that it wasn't done in the manner described by the prosecution.
In other words, it wasn't a premeditated murder.
It could have been in the heat of anger.
It could be second-degree murder.
Then you should not vote guilty because it is innocent until proven guilty.
And proven here means proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
Locals is a platform that is owned by the video platform Rumble.
And I put up exclusive content on that channel that's different than you can get anyplace else, different than you can get even here on the podcast.
Let's remember there are topics that are censored on YouTube, censored on Facebook, topics I have to kind of tread carefully on or stay away from.
Well, in Locals you get Dinesh unleashed, Dinesh uncensored.
And you can also join a weekly Q&A in which I interact directly with you.
You're able to ask questions.
I answer in real time.
It's really fun. I do that typically on Tuesday night at 8 p.m.
Eastern. I also have films up on my Locals channel.
And if you are an annual subscriber, you can also subscribe month to month.
It's $5 a month.
Or if you subscribe annually for $50, you also get all these films for free.
So $50 a year, exclusive content, live Q&A, uncensored stuff.
Go to check it out to dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
Debbie and I are doing a daily read-through of the entire Bible, but we are not far into it.
We started this, what, two or three weeks ago.
We've been reading a chapter, sometimes a little more, two chapters a day.
I think we're at like Genesis book 40 or...
Yeah, we're close to the end of Genesis.
Yeah, we're close to the end of Genesis.
And what a marvelous exposition.
It goes from creation and the creation of man.
This is basically Genesis 1, 2, and 3.
The temptation, the fall, the expulsion from Eden.
But then it goes into the kind of depiction of a real-life ancient traditional society.
I'm just thinking of the life of Abraham and the life of Isaac, of Jacob, and now we have been on several chapters that deal with Joseph.
Marvelous Joseph stories.
I can kind of see why they made a Broadway musical about it.
What's your take as we read about these ancient communities and their relationship to God?
Well, I think the main thrust of Genesis really is that God's words to Abraham, you know, when he gets to Abraham, and he says, I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
So I believe that Genesis is setting up for what we now know as Israel.
And when people say that Israel, you know, is the land God gave Israel to the Jews and all of those things, you know, people always think that, oh, you know, how do we know this?
How do we know this?
Well, Genesis tells us this.
So it's a very important thing.
And it says it says it repeatedly.
The idea here is that God, although he is the God of everybody, we heard a very interesting line when we were in Israel that stayed with me.
And I think it was said by the former Israeli ambassador in a conversation, interestingly, with Pope, the former Pope Benedict.
And Benedict said to the former Israeli ambassador, well, you know, we speak of Israel as the holy land, and we speak of Israel as the promised land.
And the Pope said, it is the holy land for everybody.
It's holy for all.
But it's the promised land to the Jews.
So the promise of that land is to one people.
It's not offered universally.
And that distinction, I think, is actually critically important.
And it may also be the reason why Genesis focuses on a lot of genealogies.
The lineage. Of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Every time people say, yeah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that's what they're referring to, is that God made this promised land blessing, or gave the blessing of this land to the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Another point you were making, and I think this is actually true, is the...
Very close relationship that is observable in the early books of Genesis between God and humans.
First of all, you see it with Adam and Eve in the garden, but you see it also with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
They either talk to and with God.
They have communication with God.
The communication is very often, it's not kind of what you think.
God isn't issuing only commandments.
In fact, we are a long way from Moses, which of course comes in later book of the Bible and the Exodus and so on.
But here, Abraham's bargaining with God.
He goes, listen, you want to destroy the city because there are so many evil people.
How about if I find a few who are not evil?
Will you spare the city for their sake?
God's like, well, So that theme is God and humanity.
That's where we see that theme right there.
You know, what does God do to the reaction of the human, the human reaction, right?
So that is very clear at the very beginning of the structure of Genesis.
And then, of course, then the second movement, of course, is God and Israel and Abraham and Isaac.
And so...
So it's very interesting how...
And then, you know, we were talking about the fact that they hear God.
And when God tells them something, they know God is telling them this, whatever it is.
There's no doubt. It's not like we had a dream.
We don't even know what the dream means.
It could be God. It could be not.
No, there's a clear sense that they are...
Or even if God appears in disguise, in some cases, in one case, the Bible talks about a man who shows up to Jacob.
Jacob is at this point, I think, called Israel.
And he wrestles with Jacob.
And that's then described a few verses later that Jacob was wrestling with God.
And so, clearly God was there.
I think Jacob even knew it was God, even if God came in a different kind of manifestation.
I think all of this, in a way, shows how we see the Old Testament God interacting with man, and then later, of course, we'll see God becoming man.
In the person of Jesus, that of course becomes the Christian scriptures and the New Testament.
So this is an exercise I would recommend to you.
The idea of just taking the Bible almost as if you've never read it before and then day by day just reading a little bit, just as much as time permits, a little bit of reading and then a little bit of discussion and reflection.
And very important, go to Israel because the Bible just becomes super alive when you go to Israel and you see These places play out in real life.
And in some cases, the footprints and imprints of the very people in the Bible.
Amazing. I'm talking about multiple universes.
This is the proposition, the hypothesis, that we can explain the fine-tuned universe, a universe that seems highly fine-tuned for life and for us.
We can sort of explain this by saying, well, yeah, it seems unlikely by itself.
If there was only one universe, then it's very improbable that you could have this kind of design or appearance of design without a designer.
You can't have a fine-tuned universe without a fine-tuner any more than you can have a fine-tuned musical instrument without somebody who tuned that instrument.
So the scientific way out of this is to posit, again, posit not really with empirical evidence, but posit imaginatively or mentally the notion of, well, what if there were just an infinity of universes where kind of everything happens?
Maybe there's another universe where...
Dinesh is a female or another universe where Dinesh is a Democrat.
So all logical possibilities are exhausted in this kind of plethora of universes.
I guess the point I want to drive home is, to me, it takes more faith to believe in multiple universes, an infinity of universes, none of these universes, by the way, that you can see or observe or for which you have one iota of evidence whatsoever.
It takes far more faith to believe in that.
Than simply to believe that we live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life and fine-tuned for us.
And a fine-tuned universe implies an intelligent and very powerful, maybe not all-powerful, but seemingly all-powerful, fine-tuner.
There's a principle in logic, and it's widely accepted in science, called the principle of Occam's razor.
And it means that the principle basically says that when there's a variety of possible explanations, Choose the simplest one.
It's almost like saying that you're trying to make your way from point A to point B, and there may be 50 different ways to get there or 50 potential ways to get there, but if there's a straight road, that's probably the best one.
Take that one. And avoid the zigzag route, both in reality on a road, but also avoid it intellectually.
And Let me illustrate the value of Occam's razor with an example.
Imagine if I find a coin and I start flipping it.
It comes up heads. I keep flipping it.
Heads, heads, heads, heads.
And I do this 10,000 times.
And I get 10,000 heads.
Now, there are two possibilities.
I could say, A, the coin is rigged.
It's not a normal coin with an equal probability of going heads or tails.
It's a fixed coin.
It's fixed to come up heads every time.
But there's, of course, a second possibility, and that is, perhaps there are an infinite number of coins in circulation, and given infinite tossing and infinite time, one set of tosses was bound to show this coin.
Otherwise implausible result.
In some scenario, you could, in fact, unlikely though it may seem, get 10,000 sequential heads.
Now, which of these two possibilities is more likely?
The rigged coin or the fact that there's an infinity of coins, infinity of tosses, infinity of time?
Obviously, the first one makes more sense.
Everybody would go for that one.
So, the serious objection to all theories of multiple universes is that they violate Occam's razor.
They invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances.
Why? All in order to explain one single case when there is a much simpler and more obvious explanation.
The anthropic principle can, using Occam's razor, be far more credibly explained by simply saying that, listen, We have a universe that's designed in this way because it was designed.
Someone designed it.
You don't need to make up a hundred billion universes you know nothing about in order to account for the only one singular universe that you can possibly experience.
And yet, this is really what a lot of scientists do, including, by the way, a physicist I admire, Stephen Hawking.
He recognizes the kind of implications of the anthropic principle.
He tries to get around it, and the key to his getting around it is to, again, come up with a notion he calls, quote, imaginary time.
Now, what's imaginary time?
It's a time in which there's no past, no present, and no future.
Time is merely seen as a kind of dimension of space.
And so, in his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking uses this notion of imaginary time, along with quantum fluctuations, which people love to bring in because quantum results at the microscopic level.
Or at the subatomic level are unpredictable, are contradictory, but that doesn't mean that that same quantum logic or illogic, if you will, extends to large or macroscopic objects.
But by and large, in our culture today, whenever they want to justify a result that makes no sense, they invoke the quantum.
In any event, Hawking uses imaginary time and quantum fluctuations to basically say that there are multiple universes with no temporal or spatial boundaries.
And you go, well, Stephen Hawking, where's the empirical evidence for it?
And when and where do we see these universes?
And he goes, no, we can't see them.
And no, I can't tell you when, because remember, I'm talking about imaginary time.
Not the time that you and I experience, but some other time that apparently exists only in Stephen Hawking's head.
So imaginary time is invoked to stipulate imaginary universes.
So you can see how desperate...
The atheists are.
And even the scientists, because they don't like the idea of having to bring in a supernatural force.
They want everything to have a natural explanation.
And this is why there is a non-atheist.
It's just sort of, call it a disciplinary reason for why scientists are trying to find an explanation, a solution that doesn't have...
▲
Export Selection