All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:57
A NATIONAL DIVORCE? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep523
| 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, Marjorie Taylor Greene wants a national divorce between red and blue America.
I'm going to examine this by looking at the question, is there ever a constitutional right to secede?
There's a new video showing police brutality on January 6th.
I think there's going to be a lot more of this to come.
Author Michael Malice joins me.
We're going to talk about his new book.
Very interesting. The White Pill, A Tale of Good and Evil.
And I'll reveal three features of life for which Darwinian evolution provides no explanation.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has caused something of a stir by proposing a national divorce.
Now, I think the premise here is that America is so divided that it's really hard to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
It's hard to envision how we can be reunited.
Let's think about it. There was, of course, a deep division in America before the Civil War that led to the Civil War.
But that division was over one big thing.
And that's a very big thing, but it's one thing, and that's slavery.
By and large, North and South weren't all that different aside from that.
Of course, I realized they were fighting about tariffs and things like that.
But nevertheless, our divisions today are on so many different fronts.
Basically, the left and the right want a very different America.
And again, this by itself may not point to the need for any kind of divorce or secession or going our separate ways, except for the fact that one side, the left, does not believe in live and let live.
Because you could conceivably have people who are different.
Let's say I and my neighbor are at odds on every single thing.
He's doing all kinds of crazy stuff in his house.
He's indoctrinating his own children with all kinds of nonsense.
I'm like, hey, those are your kids.
That's your house. You can do whatever you want.
I don't want you to provide sex education to my kids.
But as long as we maintain the distance, which is symbolized by the fence between our two homes, no problem.
We can coexist and even have a sort of measure of cordiality.
But when one side doesn't want that, refuses, and demands that the other side, you know, worship its idols, prostrate itself, they are doing depredations of your rights, your First Amendment rights, your rights to religious freedom, your right to assembly, they demand the ability to control your life.
Then you have a whole different matter.
So I think what Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing is reflecting the frustration that people have.
We don't want to live in their America, and that is a fact.
And we're not going to.
We're not going to submit to it.
So now I have a different solution than a national divorce, at least a solution that I think should be tried, and that is we build our America inside of America.
We build our own institutions so we don't go to their schools.
We don't go to their movies.
We have our own comedians.
We live our own lives within institutions that we have created.
We defend and protect those institutions and we don't let them become infiltrated in the way that so many of our other institutions have.
But nevertheless, you have this proposal for a national divorce.
And here's Matt Walsh.
A national divorce isn't feasible for the simple reason that our divide can't be drawn along geographical lines.
In other words, this is not a clear north-south divide.
He says you've got blue cities and red states, red areas and blue states.
This would require massive migration and resettlement.
So there are obviously some insuperable or at least very difficult practical problems here.
What I want to address today, I think this is...
I was thinking to myself, what can I contribute to this topic?
I'd like to ask this question.
Is secession...
Or national divorce, however you want to phrase it, ever constitutionally acceptable.
Now, there are many people on Twitter, Adam Kinzinger, many other people on the left, who act as if, no, this is a settled matter after the Civil War.
We can't even mention the word.
It's ridiculous. And they think that there is absolutely no constitutional right, ever.
And I submit that that's false.
I submit that Abraham Lincoln knew that's false.
And my text here is, well, first of all, it's the Declaration of Independence, but it's also Lincoln's first inaugural.
Now let me read a line from the Declaration of Independence.
It talks first about how to secure rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.
And then this line, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, in other words, when government is trampling on your rights, your basic rights, which by the way are not up for public referendum, It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Abolish what? The government.
And to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
So the idea that there is sort of no basic right to secede is falsified by the very core of the Declaration of Independence.
And then we come to Lincoln's first inaugural, where Lincoln basically admits implicitly, he doesn't do it explicitly, and you can see why.
Secession was already going on.
But Lincoln basically says that the South is asserting that I, Abraham Lincoln, are depriving them of their fundamental rights.
And you think Lincoln might say, well, I was elected.
Who cares? Of course I can deprive them of rights.
They lost the election and that's that.
I represent the majority.
Case closed. But no, he doesn't say that.
He says the opposite. In fact, what he says is, okay, name a right that I have abridged of anyone in the South.
So what he's saying is, if I abridged basic rights, the South would have a point.
But since I have not done that, I've only been elected, I haven't done anything.
In the beginning, he hadn't even taken office, and secession was already going on.
So Lincoln's point is, I have not, in fact, violated those rights, and therefore secession is unjustified.
So, in that case, it's merely outrage over having lost an election fair and square.
But in our case, where it is legitimate for us to think that our basic rights are being abridged, are being trampled, and by the government, think of censorship, for example, think about restrictions that we've been living under for the last several years.
So all of this is a way of saying that the landscape is different, and if your basic rights are being violated by the government, then you do have a constitutional...
No, I'm not saying you should secede.
I'm not saying it's practical to secede.
I'm not saying that the people that you secede from will not try to put down that secession.
I'm simply saying that from the constitutional point of view.
In other words, is there a legal right in the Constitution and in the Declaration to secede?
Abraham Lincoln answered to that question, yes, under certain conditions there is, and that answer remains valid now.
Debbie and I are sleeping in our new MyPillow 2.0s, and boy, it's a great experience.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched MyPillow 2.0.
Now, when Mike invented MyPillow originally, it had everything you could want in a pillow, but now, nearly 20 years later, Mike has discovered a new technology that makes MyPillow even better.
MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow, But now with the brand new fabric, it's made with a temperature-regulating thread.
The MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow you'll ever own.
Hey, say goodbye to tossing and turning, flipping your pillow over in the middle of the night.
And more great news on the MyPillow 2.0 front.
Buy one, get one free.
This offer is, of course, with promo code Dinesh.
The MyPillow 2.0 is machine washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA, comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So let's go. 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.
The January 6th footage, all 14,000 or maybe more than that, hours of it.
Is finally coming out.
And the left is really nervous about it.
In fact, they're freaking out about it.
And I see all these comments.
Are you giving a recipe for the next insurrection?
Are you trying to show where all the security cameras are now?
Or, very commonly, it's also now said by the left, this footage is now going to be selectively released by Tucker Carlson and by others.
As if the January 6th committee hasn't been selectively releasing its own clips.
They've had, what, more than a year to do that.
They've done it in a completely propagandistic fashion.
And so guess what?
The other side of the story is now going to be told.
And if you get a new bunch of selective clips, we can now match them up against the ones that the left produced.
And we'll get at least come a little closer to getting the full story.
Now... It's a little odd that this footage is not being just released online.
I think that's actually what Kevin McCarthy should do.
Just put it out there. Put it into the public space and let people almost, you know, open source style start looking at it, cutting it, comparing it, debating it.
This is the best way.
But evidently, Kevin McCarthy has decided not to do it that way, at least not initially.
I don't know if that's because they told him, oh, there's a lot of secret stuff here, and so this has to be handled and it has to be explained.
It could be that. It could be also that Kevin McCarthy thinks that...
There's nothing any ordinary person can do with all these thousands of hours of footage.
Let's give it to Tucker Carlson and let his people go through it.
We'll highlight and identify certain things that we think the American public needs to see, and we'll use Tucker's platform to push it out there.
But the selection of Tucker Carlson is part of the reason why the left is saying, well, why would you give the footage to him?
He's going to, you know, make money off of it.
And Fox is going to make money off of it.
So you're here working in league.
But hey, as of the left doesn't work in league with NBC and ABC and the New York Times.
So we're basically doing nothing other than playing their game.
And we are recognizing that we have our media and we're going to be using our media to get our message out.
And so now...
Welcome to my show.
They should have access to the footage, but the DOJ goes to the judges, and the judges are swamp creatures, sometimes even Republican nominees.
And the DOJ goes, we can't possibly give them the footage.
Everything needs to be cleared with us and cleared with you, Your Honor.
So you're getting a highly, not doctored, but limited perspective on what actually happened.
Whereas you would think that the full video would be, at least of that particular episode that this poor guy is charged with, you would think the full video would always be made available, but that has not been the case.
But Victoria White got her hands on a video that shows her own beating.
And I hadn't seen this video before.
And I've posted it on my Twitter.
You can find it by just scrolling down a little bit.
I just retweeted her.
And it's just horrible.
I mean, just disgusting, repulsive.
You have these armed men beating her.
And one guy on social media goes, well, Dinesh, you know, you were not that sympathetic when the Capitol Police were crying about being beaten.
And I'm like, wait a minute. Where's the comparison?
The Capitol Police are trained policemen who are armed.
And this is their job.
This is what they signed up for.
So a wailing policeman, Capitol Hill male officers wailing like women...
It's not the same thing as an actual woman wailing about being helpless and unarmed and being beaten by armed cops.
So there's no equivalence in my mind between those two scenarios.
In any case, I think there's going to be a lot more of this to come, and I'm really happy that the full, not full maybe, but the fuller story of January 6th is finally going to be told.
How do you spell relief? Remember the old commercial?
I think it might be a Rolaids commercial.
But I spelled relief, relief factor.
That's my way of spelling it.
We started, Debbie and I, taking relief factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, amazing.
aches and pains are gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called ReliefFactor.
Now, ReliefFactor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try ReliefFactor love it.
They order more because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer.
She can now do the exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
It's been a real game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and for many other people.
You too can benefit.
Try it for yourself.
the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call the new number 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
Again, that number 800, the number 4, RELIEF, or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference. Guys, I want to welcome a new guest to the podcast.
It's actually a guy I encountered first on social media, but I've now read his new book.
His name is Michael Malice.
He's an author. He's host of a podcast.
It's called Your Welcome with Michael Malice.
And the new book is called The White Pill, A Tale of Good and Evil, a very interesting and intriguing book.
Michael, welcome to the podcast.
Great to have you.
I'd like to have you start by talking a little bit about yourself.
You have a dedication in this book where you say, for my parents who got me out and on behalf of all the children who never did.
Talk a little bit about your background and a little bit about how you came to the views that you hold.
Sure. I was born in the former Soviet Union in what is now Ukraine, Lvov, which is very far west.
We left when I was one and a half.
And this story in the White Pill is the story of, as you saw, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.
And it made me even more appreciative to be an American and have the opportunities I had here.
Because if I got left behind on the far side of the Iron Curtain, it's an understatement to say my life would have ended up very, very different from what it has been today.
And I apologize in advance, by the way, for what you saw on my social media, which is a bit of a Not at all.
Well, I find it interesting because your book kind of begins...
Well, you begin with Ayn Rand, and we'll talk about Rand in a minute.
But these days, we're in an age of self-disclosure, where people tend to be like, this is where I was born, where I grew up, my family...
You do very little of this in the book.
It's almost like you decided narratively to step back in a clinical fashion and describe historical events unfolding.
Now, you often do it from the point of view of one or other character that you pull out to help to illuminate it.
But talk to me about why you chose that narrative strategy and decided, in a sense, to suppress your story in the book.
Because I think a lot of people are aware that there are growing movements and have been ongoing for decades toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the West and in America.
And I thought it was important for them to understand what that actually means in practice.
It's not just my opinion, oh, you know, Mike Huckabee a couple of decades ago was saying that Mayor Bloomberg not having big sodas in New York City was like North Korea.
I'm like, you don't know what life in North Korea is like.
I don't know what it's like and neither do you and virtually any of the people listening to this because it's impossible for us to appreciate just how depraved and dark these countries are.
So if it's my experience, and you mentioned Rand, you know, when Rand testified in 1947, I believe, in front of the House of American Activities Committee, A lot of people dismiss it.
Oh, she's a crackpot.
She doesn't know what she's talking about.
So if it was my personal experience as a former Soviet, well, it's easy for people to write it off.
But if you have the receipts, if you have history, if you say, look, this is what communism means in practice, I think that message is much more efficacious than me having a personal version.
You'll have people tell you with a straight face that living under Donald Trump was the equivalent of living under the Cultural Revolution.
So when you have that personalization, I think you lose a little bit of the veracity and the objectivity.
Let me quote from Rand.
You give her remarks, which I'd never seen these before, before the House on American Affairs Committee.
And you talk about how the fact that so many people were sort of a little, you know, they've got that smug look on their face like they know better, even though she was there.
And they... Ask her, well, is this really so different in the Soviet Union?
I mean, don't people, like, go to school?
And don't they have families?
And don't they, you know, go out to lunch and take a vacation?
And Rand replies, and I'm only going to read a couple of lines here.
She goes, look... It's very hard to explain.
It's almost impossible to convey to a free people what it's like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
I can tell you details. I can never completely convince you because you're free.
In a way, it's good that you can't even conceive what it's like.
And then she goes on to say basically that totalitarian states generate a form of life that is, quote, totally inhuman.
And I do think it is very difficult for Americans to grasp that.
So, given this problem outlined by Rand, how do you think you can break through to people who have comfortable lives and whose only sense of oppression is things like their mom told them to be back by like 9 p.m.
this evening? Yeah, that's exactly why it's the beginning of the book.
It sets up the whole book, right?
Because totalitarianism means every aspect of your life.
So if people are right now perceiving, understandably, that wokeism is trying to understand every aspect of your life, well, think about this.
There's lots of books you can read that have nothing to do with politics.
You can watch sports, though, decreasingly so.
There's so many ways to...
Music, you know, you hang out with friends.
In these countries, there's nowhere else to go.
Not only is literally everything in the media a function of politics, who you associate and talk to is a function of politics.
Me and you talking right now, I have to wonder, are you an informant or will you be flipped?
What am I saying right now in this podcast that years later can be used against me?
That kind of mindset is, I think, completely foreign to Americans in the sense of you have to be careful about literally everything you say and do.
And throughout this book, I explain What a communist nation looks like for a citizenry.
And it's so much worse than any of us think.
Because we think, okay, you can't vote, you have to learn stupid things at school, you're hungry, and you have like a crappy job.
If that's the extent of it, it's like you can wrap your heads around that.
It's so many layers of hell beyond that.
Let's take a pause when we come back more with Michael Malice about his book, The White Pill.
It's subtitled A Tale of Good and Evil.
Sometimes we all need a fresh start.
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?
Now eating the right amount of fruits and veggies every single day is almost impossible.
I have a more practical, a more convenient way for you to make that fresh start with Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature is sourced from 31 whole fruits and vegetables.
You'll get maximum nutrition with their star product, fruits and veggies, in a capsule.
So easy. Debbie and I take them every day.
You should do so also.
Right now also, take advantage of Balance of Nature's New Year's offer.
Get $25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies 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.
I'm back with Michael Malice, author, host of the podcast.
It's called Your Welcome with Michael Malice.
We're talking about his book, The White Pill, A Tale of Good and Evil.
By the way, you can follow Michael Malice on Twitter at Michael Malice, M-A-L-I-C-E, or his website, just michaelmalice.com.
You were saying, Michael, in the last segment that our life, even though perhaps constricted by the left in certain ways, is not even remotely close to what life would be like in a totalitarian society.
So here's my question to you.
Some people might draw from that the lesson, well, there you go.
We have nothing to worry about.
Whatever the right is complaining about, we're hardly headed in that direction.
But you seem to be saying, true, your life is secure now, but these dangers are ever present in any society, and they are maybe more present in our society now than in the past.
Talk a little bit about how...
Why we should be concerned about this absolute form of evil, even though we are still pretty distant from it?
Well, I mean, we might be distant from it in certain contexts, but I do think that, until very recently, I think many people in America are naive about the nature of evil, right?
They think it's going to be a guy with a wacky mustache banging a desk and screaming, and you could spot him from a million miles away.
That's not the case. It's often that little bureaucrat who prevents you from seeing your mom in the hospital as she's dying or prevents you from having a funeral.
It's often someone who has got that little bit of power, this mediocrity, who somehow, because they tow the party line, are now in a position to control your life, and this makes them feel good about themselves, and they're going to make sure they do what they want at no response to your values and your preferences.
So I think one of the points of this is to show people just how evil evil can be.
It's not just someone who's a crook taking money under the table or so on and so forth.
But it's also important to show, and this is something I was kind of disturbed to see that conservatives especially don't talk about, they were defeated.
The Soviet Union was defeated so fully and the Cold War was won so completely that the country itself no longer exists.
The threat of this nuclear mutually assured destruction, although now it's recently receding, was stopped.
And this is largely thanks to people like President Reagan And Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Now, you can't expect the New York Times to tell that story of how the Conservatives massively helped liberate half the world.
But I'm like, all right, if they're not going to tell it, it's my role to do so.
So there is that aspect of hope and optimism because this is a story in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of virtually ever listen to this where the good guys did win and they did so relatively quickly, relatively easily.
and despite being told this is impossible, the Soviet Union is not going anywhere, you're naive, you're stupid, and you're just provoking war, you have to accept we're going to have two superpowers in perpetuity, even Star Trek had Chekhov, because even whatever, a thousand years in the future, it's gonna be US versus Soviet Union.
And that turned out to be yet another one of the very many lies that people are told.
I mean, it's interesting that the critique of Reagan was made always in the name of realism.
And it turned out that Reagan was the most realistic of them all.
Your book actually ends on an encouraging note.
You say the foes of liberty are many.
They're powerful. People tell us they'll never give up.
But you say under certain conditions, they do give up and they will give up and they have given up.
And you go on to say that...
You know, it doesn't mean we're always going to win every fight, but we shouldn't consign ourselves to the losing side of history the way so many people thought we should.
And you say that is the white pill.
Explain this concept of a white pill.
You know, these days I hear people talk about being red-pilled and so on.
What's a white pill? I'll just briefly answer that.
But everyone listening to this, can you look at John Fetterman and say, I can't beat this guy.
It's a wrap. He's going to win.
I mean, yes, he won the Senate race.
But in terms of the long term, it's an absurdity, right?
So, so many Americans have been taught, and I think it's because conservatives for decades had their butts handed to them in politics year after year after year.
A lot of them have this bunker mentality and they're convinced we can't possibly win because that rationalizes all these losses they face.
It rationalizes why government in Washington, even under Republican presidents in Congress, still increased massively in spending.
The red pill is the realization.
That what is presented as fact by the corporate press is, in reality, a carefully constructed narrative designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power.
Analogous to this is the black pill, which is it's a wrap.
The trends in the West and in America are too nefarious, have been going on for too long.
Even if we have some short-term victories, long-term, there's no turning the ship around.
And the white pill is simply hope.
It is the realization that, yes, it is possible our enemies will win.
It is impossible that their victory is assured.
And when you tell someone that, like, you're telling me that there's no possibility of beating the Biden administration or the World Economic Forum or Klaus Schwab and Greta Thunberg to you, it's like you're going up against her.
You're like, I got nothing.
She's even she's she's a Goliath on steroids.
You laugh because but that's what a lot of people would want us to believe.
They want us to believe that these people and the forces behind them are invincible and godlike.
And that's exactly what they said about the Soviet Union, and they were proven extremely wrong.
I mean, I really like, I agree with that and like it.
I also like the way that this book is kind of exquisitely balanced between describing some very dark events that occurred in the 20th century, and yet it comes out of it by saying, listen, guys, this is not just, I'm not just describing an apocalypse.
I'm describing an apocalypse that was averted.
And it was averted against almost everybody's expectations, and this should be an encouragement to us.
Let's take a pause. When we come back, let's talk some more about the basic nature of good and evil.
We all know our digital privacy is under attack.
Big tech steals your private information, your pictures, your chat, your email.
This is very bad. So is there a better way?
Well, it turns out there is.
Secure, it's spelled S-E-K-U-R, 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 love it. We're using it regularly now.
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 called Secure Send and Chat by Invite, Secure's separate email and messaging application that guarantees your privacy.
Go to secure.com.
That's S-E-K-U-R.com.
Use promo code Dinesh.
You'll get 25% off for the next 24 months.
Again, that's S-E-K-U-R, secure.com.
I'm back with Michael Malice.
We're talking about his book, The White Pill, A Tale of Good and Evil.
By the way, Michael Malice's website is just michaelmalice.com.
So Michael, in the beginning of this book, you have a quotation which I found pretty arresting.
It says, it's by Albert Camus, the French existentialist thinker, writer.
He says,"...all I maintain is that on this earth there are plagues and there are victims, and it is up to us so far as possible not to join forces with the plagues." Now, I'm assuming that this comes out of Camus' book called The Plague, which I have read, although, oh, it doesn't.
I don't know that it does.
Yeah, because I don't remember reading it there.
And for this kind of thing, I have a very, I won't say photographic memory, but close to it.
So I was like a little startled to see the quote.
But it might have come out of an interview when he was asked about it, where, now, let's interpret what Camus was saying.
He appears to be saying, he's not just talking about, quote, natural disasters, right?
What he's basically saying is that there are evil forces in the world symbolized by the plague.
And then there are the victims of the plague.
So what he's saying, I think, is that the world is divided into good and evil.
And he's saying, look, it's a complex world, but we should make all efforts, as far as we humanly can or feasibly can, do not ally with the bad guys.
But today you have, you know, both of us have come out of an intellectual tradition where we're always lectured about the fact that the world is unbelievably complex and that the lines between good and evil are very fuzzy and that these simplistic distinctions are not really legitimate.
I'd like you to reflect a little bit about where does evil lurk in the world that we live in and how do we recognize it?
Yeah, I think sometimes it is hard.
There are gray areas, certainly.
If you're picking up the tab for dinner for us and you leave too small a tip, do I say something?
Am I a jerk if I say something?
You know what I mean? These little things, that's not really good and evil.
But I think what Camus, whose worldview was essentially that life is meaningless, but what he meant by this is we have the capacity to ascribe meaning to it, and he calls upon all of us to live by the dictates of our conscience.
So very easily, in a very simple form of evil, people look the other way.
Or when they see things that are wrong, it's like, it's not my business, or, oh, it's complicated, I don't want to get involved.
But there are many cases, many such cases, as the former president would say, where you have a plague, where you have things that are unambiguously harmed to children, just people being slaughtered, people being cruel to family members or co-workers or things like this, where we all know this is not ambiguous, this is wrong.
And this is, in his view and mine, an opportunity for us to be good people in a very essential way and move the needle to make the world a better place.
And when you realize that each of us has the capacity, maybe not to be some great saint of all times, but certainly someone who's pushing the world in a better direction, that is also a great opportunity for hope and for optimism, because we all have that capacity to fight what is wrong in our own small way or large way.
I remember the British writer Samuel Johnson was once, you know, asked about this distinction between good and evil.
I don't remember if the question came from Boswell or someone else, but he made this statement.
He said, The fact of twilight does not mean that there is no distinction between day and night.
So yes, there is a gray area in the middle, but there is also such a thing as day, and there is also a distinct and separate thing called night.
And I think that applies here.
Would you agree that the best place to stop this creeping totalitarianism is really at the beginning?
And what we have, for example, in the United States, let's say, for example, censorship.
We don't have straight-out, governmentally imposed censorship.
But what we have is indirect, collusive censorship, in which it's almost like the government is whispering into the ears of these digital platforms, which are private platforms, and maybe they have the final say.
But nevertheless, they're taking cues, at the very least, and they even admit it, from the government.
And so censorship is in a kind of emerging or nascent form.
It's not what it was in the days of the Soviets.
But what I find also disturbing is that not only do you have the fact of emerging censorship, but an emerging ideology to justify it.
Which is essentially misinformation.
Now imagine if you gave people in power the chance to classify all statements as either information or misinformation and suppress the misinformation.
You have a justification for a Soviet-style imposition of a complete party line, don't you?
So even though we're not there, we're not even close to being there, the ideas that sustain censorship over there have now found a birth over here.
So first of all, I agree with everything you said.
The fact that we're not there, but if they had their druthers, we would be there.
If you are blackpilled and think we're doomed, you have to ask yourself, why haven't they gotten what they want in this context?
And they very clearly have not.
You and I are speaking. If they had their druthers, this would be impossible.
If not at all, us in prison.
But I disagree with you about that being the beginning.
I think that's the conclusion.
I think the beginning is the universities.
This is where Progressive teachers turn students into shock troops for their militia.
You go to school as a young man or woman.
You leave as an unrecognizable swamp walrus who cannot have a conversation with your parents over the holiday dinner.
That is where the poisoning starts.
It's been that way by design and it's been that way for over a hundred years, Woodrow Wilson being a prime example of I don't think you're absolutely right about that.
Hey, this has been a really good conversation.
Michael, love to have you back sometime.
I've been talking to Michael Malice, his new book, The White Pill, A Tale of Good and Evil.
Check it out. Despite the US blowing through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January, the White House still refuses to reduce spending.
While our national leadership has buried their heads in the sand when it comes to fiscal responsibility, well, hey, it's time for us to pull our heads out.
Now's 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 to count on.
Birch Gold makes it easy to To convert an IRA of 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Think about this. To dig our country out of this mountain of debt, every single taxpayer in the country would have to write a check for $247,000.
Wow. And it's only getting worse.
Protect yourself with gold today by texting Dinesh to 989898.
With an A-plus rating, with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold is who I trust to protect my future and yours.
Get started by texting Dinesh to 989898 today.
In the northern Indian state of Assam, a law has been passed that prohibits child marriage, and the government is cracking down on people.
Turns out that most of them are Muslims who are marrying young girls, underage girls, as we now say.
And this has created a bit of a stir.
And what I want to get to is the BBC, in covering this controversy, is taking the side of the men who are marrying these child brides.
This is really a remarkable phenomenon, right?
The BBC is supposed to be woke and feminist.
But see, in this case, the BBC is trying to, as they see it, ally with Islam and fight against what they see as Islamophobia.
Now... Granted, that child marriage, at least I'm not talking now about marrying a five-year-old, but I'm talking about, let's say, marrying a 14-year-old, was pretty common in many parts of the world, including the West.
The Virgin Mary was probably in her mid-teens, 14 or 15, when she was betrothed to Joseph.
Even in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Juliet, I believe, is 14 years old.
It's a little startling for us today to read that, but that is, in fact, the story of the play.
But that all being said, I think it's fair to say that in the modern era, we set up a kind of age of mature consent.
Typically 18.
It can vary a little bit in other countries, but not a lot.
But here you have a sanction of child marriage in Islam.
And it is true. Going back to the beginning of Islam, there is a permission given There's no sort of age limit in Islam.
I'm now quoting Ishak Akintola, professor of Islamic eschatology from Nigeria.
Islam has no age barrier in marriage.
And even the Prophet Muhammad evidently married.
One of his wives was underage.
So all of this has now come to a head because now that Hindu-Muslim tensions have surged in India, this new law is being interpreted as an effort by the Hindus to crack down on the Muslims.
All right. But what intrigues me here is how the BBC covers it, because the BBC moves in, and they've done a series of stories on this phenomenon.
And you would think that the central thrust of it would be maybe just the broader landscape of Hindu-Muslim tensions, maybe the notion that for men, as for women, a certain basic maturity is a necessary prerequisite for marriage.
And so Even though we can debate what that age should be, nevertheless, there should be some age of consent.
But no, the BBC, their first article is called Indian Women Protest Against Child Marriage Mass Arrest.
And the BBC tries to create the fiction that there's some mass movement of Indian women that support child marriage.
First of all, that movement is non-existent.
It's purely made up by the BBC. I think the BBC realized, the reporters realized, we can't step in and go.
We think it's okay, man.
Come on, leave the Muslims alone.
Let them marry their child brides.
No, they don't want to say that.
They want to pretend like there's some Indian force, indigenous, that is mobilized in favor of this child marriage.
And this is just the BBC practicing, well, you could call it ventriloquist journalism.
Here's another article along the same lines.
Assam, India child brides desperate after mass arrests.
So here's a very cunning effort by the BBC to make it seem like a law that says you can't marry a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old.
This law is very harsh on child brides themselves.
Why? Because if you then round up these husbands, let's say a 55-year-old man who's married to a 13-year-old girl, and you put the man in jail, who's going to support the 13-year-old girl?
So the BBC in trying to sort of do one of their, let's say, human cost stories, let's look at the effect of this law on the child brides themselves and how their life is now made more difficult because the men providing for them.
I mean, imagine if this started happening in a widespread scale in the West.
We start getting 40 year olds and 37 year olds marrying 8 year olds, right?
Would you see articles in the New York Times and in the London Times and in the BBC saying, oh man, this is very disturbing that they're rounding up these 37 and 42-year-olds because who's going to support the 8-year-old if that happens?
So I think it's very interesting here the degree to which the left will go.
Even to cover up some fairly shocking, and I mean shocking to the modern, certainly the modern Western conscience, ideas.
And they're doing it all in the name of fighting so-called Islamophobia.
There's a new movie coming out from the creators of I Can Only Imagine that Debbie and I just got to see.
It's called Jesus Revolution.
It's based on the true story of Pastor Chuck Smith in Southern California in the 1970s, how he opened the doors of his languishing church to an unexpected group of young people looking for love and truth, hippies, and it led to the greatest faith revival in American history.
Again, it's called Jesus Revolution.
It's got a great cast, Joel Courtney, Jonathan Rumi, whom we all love from The Chosen, and Kelsey Grammer.
It's rated PG-13 for some drug use, being authentic to the time, so some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
Jesus Revolution will be in theaters everywhere beginning February 24th.
We loved it, and you will too.
Go see it. For tickets and showtimes, go to JesusRevolution.movie.
JesusRevolution.movie.
I've been talking about Darwinian evolution and its compatibility or incompatibility with the book of Genesis and the Bible.
And what I want to do today is offer a sort of qualified endorsement of evolution.
Now, I realize that some people think that evolution is kind of all nonsense, and they don't think there's anything there at all, or they endorse evolution in such a limited way.
Like, yes, there can be some adjustments within a species, but evolution as an explanation for transitions between one form of life and another, they're like, we don't accept that.
We can't see it happening and therefore it's difficult for us to believe.
But let's remember there are many things that we can't see happening and we don't see happening, but nevertheless we do believe.
And if it may seem odd for God to use this particular mechanism, evolution, To create different life forms.
Let's think about it. In other contexts, we don't deny that God uses the laws of nature to produce the universe in the first place.
Nobody says something like, well, I don't see the Big Bang specifically in the Bible.
I don't see the expanding universe and the galaxies flying away from each other.
That's not in the book of Genesis.
Therefore, God could not have used that mechanism In order to make the universe in the first place, people don't say that.
They say, well, now that we see that the universe had a beginning and we see this is what happened and we have a lot of evidence for it, let's match it up against what's in the first book of Genesis.
And hey, while the Bible doesn't try to provide that kind of scientific account or the kind of particularistic detail that we can supply now, nevertheless, the Bible is basically right in saying that there was a beginning.
Nothing. Now, with evolution, there is one thing that is, I think, the strongest single piece of evidence for evolution, and so I'd like to tell you what that is.
Imagine a kind of a long table, and it would have to be many miles long, so let's just make it a thought experiment.
We have a table that is 20 miles long, and what we're going to do is take all the fossils that we have in the world.
Fossils that, I mean, just hundreds of thousands of fossils collected from all different places on the Earth.
And these fossils are now going to be dated using various forms of dating, including carbon dating.
So we can reasonably precisely place these fossils, not to the particular day or month or even year, but in terms of time periods.
And so you have all these fossils, and then what you do on the table is you start laying out the fossils in chronological sequence.
So the oldest fossils come first, and then the next oldest, and then the next oldest, and then the most recent fossils will come last.
And now you're going to ask this question.
If evolution occurred, we expect to see a gradual but fairly constant, let's call it complexifying of life.
We expect to see, for example, that initially we have invertebrates And later, vertebrates.
Initially, we have single-celled organisms and then later we have multicellular organisms.
We expect to see a movement from reptiles and birds who come early on to mammals who come much later on.
And we're looking to see if there are fossils out of place.
So for example, if you find a fossil of a mammal that goes way, way, way back before we reasonably expect the mammals to have evolved, And Darwinian evolution is false.
Why? Because you've just refuted it.
According to Darwinian evolution, there were no mammals at the very beginning, but hey, here's a mammal fossil.
But you know what? To date, to my knowledge, not a single fossil has been found, quote, out of place.
And that is powerful evidence that you have a pattern here, and the pattern is in fact corroborating.
It's not by itself proving, But it is one line of evidence, along with others, that corroborates that this theory does have a lot going for it.
And this, by the way, has been recognized by many people in the Church.
It's been recognized by John Paul II, the former Catholic Pope.
Evolution is a pretty persuasive account of the origin of species.
Darwin, in that sense, I think, did get it right.
And there's a big but.
Evolution is a theory with clear limits.
There are three important features of life that it does not account for.
Now, I'm going to go into what those features are tomorrow.
But for today, I'm just going to tell you what they are, and then I'm going to give you more detail tomorrow.
Evolution cannot account for the origin of life.
That's point number one.
Evolution is about transitions from life form A to life form B, but evolution presumes that there is life already.
It starts in that sense not at the very beginning.
It starts with life, and then it asks how one form of life gives rise to another.
Number two, evolution cannot account for consciousness.
We could, in fact, have beings in the world that did all the things that we do as human beings.
We would operate in the world, we would respond to our environment, but we would not be conscious.
We would do it sort of like robots, or we would do it sort of like zombies.
Zombies, after all, are basically human without consciousness.
So evolution can't account for the origin of life.
It can't account for consciousness.
And third, it can't account for human rationality and morality.
Two of the most defining features of human nature, the fact that we are rational and we not only survive in the world, we can perceive what's true and what's false.
And number two, the fact that we have this moral compass.
This conscience, what Adam Smith called the impartial spectator.
▲
Export Selection