All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:05
WHERE IT BEGAN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep526
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walzer, 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, the Biden Energy Department now admits that COVID-19 most likely originated in a lab.
Wow. I'll tell you the implications of that.
Author and TV pundit Monica Crowley joins me.
We're going to talk about issues of the day.
I'll weigh in on the cancellation of Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon series.
And what's going to happen with Project Veritas?
What is its future?
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.
A blockbuster report in the Wall Street Journal reveals that the U.S. Energy Department has concluded that That COVID-19, and of course the ensuing pandemic, most likely arose from a laboratory leak.
Now, this is according to a classified intelligence report that was recently provided both to the White House and to key members of Congress.
And it is a remarkable development because the Energy Department itself had said before that they didn't know how the virus emerged, but now they think, and we'll see with what degree of confidence, they think that it was in fact a lab leak.
Now, the energy department says, we're not sure about this.
We're not even highly confident.
They say we're making this assessment with, quote, low confidence, which means we think this is what happened, but we would not attach a high degree of surety, being sure, to that.
But let's remember that this supports the FBI, whose own analysts came to the conclusion that the pandemic was likely the result of a lab leak.
The FBI reached this decision in 2021 with, quote, moderate confidence, and the FBI still holds this view.
By the way, there are other agencies of the government that have a different view.
Apparently, the National Intelligence Panel says they think it was likely, but again, with a low degree of confidence, That COVID came out of a natural transmission.
And the CIA has said, we're undecided.
We're not going to go one way or the other.
So now, I just saw a little clip with Stephen Colbert making a fool of himself.
In other words, I was laughing, but not with him, but at him.
He's like... The Energy Department!
The Energy Department! He goes, what do they know about this?
He goes, why don't they fix our infrastructure?
So the implication here is that somehow the Department of Energy is not qualified to make this assessment.
And this poor dummy doesn't realize the Energy Department has all the experts that are relevant to this particular area.
The Energy Department, in fact, deals with all kinds of issues related to transmission, epidemiology, And so the idea that they are somehow not properly competent to do this is absurd.
Similarly, by the way, and most people don't really know this, the FBI has a cadre of microbiologists, immunologists, so you might think if you don't know anything about the government, oh no, no, no, that must be coming from the National Institutes for Health.
They're the only people who have medical doctors.
This is in fact not true.
So the FBI and the Energy Department have lots of credentials to report on this.
In fact, arguably, places like the CIA are relying more on the assessments of other agencies when they make their own decision.
Think of the National Intelligence Council.
They don't actually have this kind of epidemiological expertise.
Typically, what they do is they focus on long-term strategic analysis.
And so they're looking, again, at data supplied by other agencies.
Now, all of this is highly significant because it kind of matches the behavior of China.
Here's a case where China has been blocking the WHO from conducting a full investigation on site, so much so that, as I mentioned in a podcast a few days ago, The WHO has basically packed up its briefcases and said, okay, we're going home. Why?
Because they just can't do the follow-up work that's necessary to make a kind of key determination about what happened here.
Let's also remember that when we think of Wuhan, yes, there's a wet market over there, but all efforts to trace COVID definitively to that wet market as the sort of source of the virus have failed.
Moreover, there is a whole arsenal of labs.
We talk about the Wuhan lab, but the Wuhan lab is not like one lab.
Turns out Wuhan is home to an array of laboratories, all of them kind of working in concert.
They include the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, And a whole bunch of other similar institutes.
And so you've got multiple places from which this leak could have occurred.
Now, does this make COVID-19 a bioweapon?
Not necessarily, because of course a bioweapon requires a sort of targeted or deliberate release.
It could be that this thing just got out.
But look, that's bad enough.
It got out and then what happened?
First of all, the Chinese tried to duck responsibility for letting it out.
Number two, the U.S. tried to hide the fact that it has been funding through taxpayer money gain-of-function research here in the U.S., but working in collaboration with the Wuhan and other labs in China, not to mention the possibility of the U.S. having biomedical labs that do gain a function in Ukraine and other parts of the world.
To me, the most incriminating thing is that the medical establishment, the government, the digital platforms kind of all banded together.
And they not only demonized, but they began to deplatform, to smear, and to censor not just ordinary citizens, but prominent doctors and scientists who said exactly what they're saying now.
Think how stupid the sensors at YouTube and Meta feel, because they've been banning information that is actually now coming out as completely plausible, as respectable.
In fact, the energy department, a prime expert in this area, goes, we think that if we had to choose, we would choose that this was the result of a lab leak.
So... I would normally be willing to entertain the explanation of incompetence, but the fact that these people have lied, they've covered up viable treatments, they've censored scientists and journalists means that they are fully and complicit, and they are also culpable.
Debbie and I gained some weight.
I'm not really going to tell you how much too much during COVID. And we had a choice.
We'll either go down the fat affirmation route or start dropping some pounds.
We started the PhD weight loss and nutrition program four weeks ago.
Debbie has already lost six pounds and I'm down 12.
The program's based on science and nutrition.
No injections, no pills, no hours in the gym, no severe calorie restriction.
Just good, sound, scientifically proven nutrition.
It's really simple. They make it easy by providing 80% of your food at no additional cost.
They tell you when and what to eat.
And guess what? You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder, Dr. Ashley Lucas, has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition and is a registered dietitian.
She spent her life helping people lose weight, get healthy, And most importantly, maintaining that weight loss for life.
If you're ready to lose that excess weight for the last time, call PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition at 864-644-1900 or find them online at myphdweightloss.com myphdweightloss.com and the number again, 864-644-1900.
It seems like every few weeks or every couple of months we get news about the border and it gets worse and worse and worse.
Part of my concern is that people just become habituated to it.
You know, it's a little bit like the national debt.
The national debt was bad.
Ten years ago, it got worse and worse and worse, and then people begin to shrug their shoulders.
They almost treat this like a runaway train.
And the same is true with the border.
But it is worth noting that just as our national debt is slowly eating away into our national wealth, And destroying the wherewithal of the country, the border is destroying the sovereignty of the country.
It's destroying the idea that we are a nation that has secure borders, that has secure rules in place.
We are none of that.
Now, migrant encounters I see at the southern border hit 1 million mark for the first time in fiscal year 2023, outpacing the prior year, no surprise.
So the Biden people are just letting this get worse.
Let's look at some of the details.
Now, the fiscal year, by the way, begins in October.
So we're not talking about a million people just from January to now.
We're talking about a million people from October.
But think of what a giant number that is.
And of those, 87.8 are single adults.
So the sort of propaganda, the mythology that these are families that are coming all together, mostly it's just single guys who are trying to get away, sometimes trying to get away from gangs, or basically to bring the gang violence over here.
They're transporting drugs.
We see from time to time border patrol captures of large stashes of fentanyl.
I think I just saw one this morning.
And just a small portion of those numbers, in fact, about 300,000, were expelled under Title 42, which is essentially a pandemic rule.
It's that you can restrict the number of people coming in if they are not tested for COVID. But last year, the number was 839,000.
So under the 1 million mark, and now we've gone over the 1 million mark.
It says here also that there have been 328,000 known gotaways.
Gotaways are illegal immigrants who have evaded Border Patrol, but have been somehow discovered through some other form of aerial surveillance or some other type of surveillance.
Now, what is shocking about all this is the relative indifference of the Biden administration.
They seem to look at this.
Sometimes they'll fret about it, but they're only fretting as things like, oh, we've just got a lot of paperwork to process.
But the idea that you have a kind of open invasion of our country on the southern border coming, by the way, not just from Mexicans.
But coming from people in El Salvador, in Honduras, all over South America, people creeping in from India, from Pakistan, from Iran, from China, from Russia, all of them realizing, hey, listen, it's an open border.
Let's make our way over there and kind of sneak our way into the United States.
And even if we're stopped, no big deal.
All you have to do is say the magic words.
I'm seeking asylum.
See, if you say any other words, they're not going to let you in.
So you have to act like, oh, I'm seeking asylum.
So asylum, even though the actual meritorious cases of asylum are really rare, just by chanting asylum, you then get a case number if your case has to be heard.
And then, this is the key point, you're often let into the United States.
It'd be one thing if you said, okay, your appointment is on so-and-so date.
Come back six months from now and we'll let you in for your hearing.
And if you don't succeed in your hearing, we'll take you back to the other side of the border and leave you there.
But no, once you're led to the United States, it is an open secret that people can stay.
They don't have to show up for their hearings.
No one's really going to go chasing after them.
Yes, they're illegal, and so they remain part of the...
I guess you live at least partly in their shadows.
But of course, a lot of states are even making measures to, well, you have to let these people work.
Well, you have to give these people driver's licenses.
Well, you have to let them or their kids enroll in educational programs available to U.S. citizens.
So you can see here how, you know, you're tempted to say it's the fault of the illegals, but it's not.
It's the fault of the illegals in combination with the Biden administration, which is, wink, wink, telling them to come on over.
This is a cynical political move.
It's absolutely horrific what they're doing to the country.
And if American citizens don't wake up and realize that this destruction is going on economically, it's going on physically at the southern border, pretty much there's not going to be a whole lot of the country really even left.
Have you tried the MyPillow 2.0 yet?
If you haven't, you should.
Amazing.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched MyPillow 2.0.
Now when Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could want in a pillow.
But now nearly 20 years later, Mike Lindell has discovered a new technology that makes MyPillow even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow, but now with the brand new fabric that is made with a temperature regulating thread, the MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and yeah, coolest pillow you'll ever own.
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.
Wow. Offer 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, 60-day money-back guarantee.
So go ahead. Call 800-876-0227.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code DINESHDINESH. Guys, I'm really delighted to welcome to the podcast a friend, Monica Crowley.
She's a prominent media personality.
She was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Trump administration with Donald Trump, and she is host of the Monica Crowley podcast.
Monica, it's a pleasure.
Debbie and I tend to run into you at various events and conferences.
I'm really thrilled to have you on the podcast.
Let's begin by talking about something that just popped into the news coming out in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. Energy Department now thinks...
They're not sure about it, but they think that COVID-19 came out of a lab.
In other words, it was made in a lab and came out of a lab.
And I just think to myself, you know, for three years, you people have been demonizing citizens who said this, going after scientists, deplatforming them.
What do you make of this latest twist in an ongoing story about this pandemic?
First of all, Dinesh, thank you so much for having me.
You and I are longtime friends, and it's such an honor and a joy to join you today.
So thank you so much.
Look, to answer your question, it really is the biggest question of them all right now because of what the world was plunged into for three years, starting in late 2019.
Anybody with a brain or common sense knew for the last three years that obviously this virus was a bioweapon.
And the questions then emerged about its origins.
And we were told nonstop a pack of lies, which continue to this day, about the origins of this bioweapon.
I think one of the main reasons why we still hear the lies coming from Democrats, the Biden regime, and so on, and the Democrats for the last several years Have stopped any investigations into the origins of COVID-19.
First of all, there are so many of our leaders who are absolutely corrupted and compromised by the CCP, financially and politically and otherwise.
But also, I think we need to delve into the question of intentionality with this leak as well.
So now you've got the regime, they're starting to come along to where the rest of us were for the last three years, that it was in fact developed as a bioweapon and leaked out of Wuhan.
But I also think there's a bigger reason why we have been stonewalled here, and it does get to the question of accident versus intentionality.
We don't have any proof one way or the other yet.
But the Democrats have stonewalled these investigations, Dinesh, for a very long time.
And I think it may very well be because Anthony Fauci and the NIH, through pass-through organizations like EcoHealth Alliance and so on, funded the development of this bioweapon.
And then it leads to the question, to what end?
I don't think that the timing on the release of this virus was coincidental at all, late 2019, going into a presidential election where Donald Trump was seeking re-election.
And they needed to stop him, number one, and also give themselves some time to reset their great reset and get it back on track to advance that.
So I think that you've got this as a deep state intel operation for the last three or four years.
And that's why it's been stonewalled at every turn.
And that's why people like you and me, who actually exercised some critical thinking for the last three years, Dinesh, and said, well, obviously, this came out of the Wuhan lab.
Obviously, it was meant for a whole range of purposes.
We were shut down, silenced, suspended, thrown out of the public square in many cases, mocked, dismissed.
And now, of course, the truth is beginning to emerge.
And it's beginning to emerge, Dinesh, because I think two main reasons.
I think, number one, because Elon Musk has all of the details from the Twitter files, and he's about to release the Fauci files.
And two, you've got the House GOP now conducting real investigations with subpoena power.
into the origins and the role that Fauci and the US government played in the development and spread of this virus.
Monica, let me zoom in a little bit to what I think you're saying.
You know, at the beginning, it was stated with high degree of confidence that this had a natural origin.
And I'm amazed at all the people who declared that they knew something that they actually couldn't possibly know.
Now, you mentioned that there's been censorship in this country, but the Chinese, as you know, have also been blocking the WHO and other international agencies from coming in and being able to try to find out where this really got started.
Now, when you say you think it's a bioweapon, you could mean one of two different things.
And I want to find out which one you mean.
Do you mean that they were doing this gain of function research?
The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Defense Department were involved with Wuhan, which we know to be the case.
So they were considering it, considering its possibilities for biological warfare.
And it could be that they were cooking this up, but then it accidentally got out.
They didn't mean for it to get out, but it accidentally got out.
That's one possibility. The other is, they were cooking this cocktail, they were looking at its possibilities, and they go, aha, there's an election coming up.
Let's, quote, let it out.
Let's look the other way and sneak it out.
And it's going to have great benefits for us politically and in terms of rebalancing the forces of power in the world.
Are you checking box A or are you checking box B? Well, I am checking box B in my mind using critical thinking and the evidence that we are aware of so far.
Obviously, this is speculation.
Dinesh, on my part, we don't have any concrete evidence yet.
But let's actually take one step back.
You know, it has been reported that The deep state in this country, we're running biolabs all over the world, including in Ukraine, that we had a series of bioweapons laboratories there.
And then that gets into a whole other separate question about Putin and Zelensky and Biden being compromised with the Ukrainians, as well as the CCP. And there is some speculation that perhaps SARS-CoV-2 was developed on the ground in Ukraine in these labs and then trafficked to Wuhan, and that's where it was released.
Again, we don't have any proof of this yet, but I'm raising all of these possibilities because we only have skimmed the very surface of what we know about what went down over the last three or four years.
But when you start putting pieces of the puzzle together, Dinesh, and knowing what we now know about what the deep state has done over the last 60 years, whether it's from JFK, Richard Nixon, all the way through Donald Trump, we know what they're capable of.
We also know that Donald Trump was the only modern American president to stand up to the CCP, to stop the globalist advancement with the Great Reset, and to put America first.
So Donald Trump and America writ large was the biggest obstacle to the entire globalist agenda.
They threw the kitchen sink at him for the previous four or five years and nothing stuck.
Not the Russia hoax, two fake impeachments, January 6th, the entire thing.
So going into 2020, My feeling is, and again, this is just my visceral reaction to what I think may have happened, is that they pulled the ultimate trigger to not just stop him.
Trump was a big part of it, but also they feel like they lost from Four years under Donald Trump because he was putting America first.
And under eight years of Obama, they were supposed to then have eight years of Hillary Clinton to keep the Great Reset going, get America leading the way.
They lost four years under Trump.
They could not afford to lose the 2020 election.
And so to my mind, again, I'm speculating, but I think they pulled the ultimate trigger, shut down the global economy, Which helped the CCP. Their economy was faltering at the time.
If they could shut down everybody, then they could get their economy back on track, on par with everybody else.
There were so many agenda items that came into play here.
It made total sense to me and still does that this was an intentional release of this virus to get the globalist agenda back on track.
Let's take a pause, Monica.
When we come back, I want to pivot a little bit into domestic politics, talk about Trump and DeSantis.
If we have time, I'm going to ask you about Project Veritas.
We'll be right back. 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, it's time to pull yours out.
Now would be a great time to diversify into gold with Birch Gold.
This is why Debbie and I buy gold.
In times of high uncertainty and instability, we want something dependable.
Birch Gold makes it easy 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 America would have to write a check for $247,000.
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, countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold is who I trust to protect my future and yours.
Get the process started.
Text Dinesh to 989898 today.
I'm back with our friend Monica Crowley.
She's a prominent media personality, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Trump, also host of the Monica Crowley Podcast.
You can follow her, by the way, on Twitter, at Monica Crowley.
Monica, in the last segment, you were talking about Trump and how he has been the focus of not only the CCP, but also the left.
They seem more terrified of him than of anyone else.
Now, recently, we're seeing this kind of strange skirmish, a little bit involving Trump, but also between the sort of the Trumpsters and the DeSantis guys, and they're going after each other and sometimes it gets a little bit mean-spirited.
I want to ask you, what do you make of all this?
Do you think DeSantis is already in the ring, or...
Because I've always taken the view that, look, each of them actually brings a lot to the table.
I'm actually disappointed to see the skirmishing.
It would be better.
I think we would be stronger if there would be some kind of an alliance.
Is that a fanciful expectation?
What's your take on what's going on here?
It's early, I know. We're a ways from 2024.
But what's your take?
Welcome to politics, Dinesh.
It is a blood sport.
And especially if you've got Donald J. Trump running for the Republican nomination again, of course, it's going to be a blood sport.
Donald Trump basically has one speed, Dinesh, and that's attack.
We will probably have a pretty wide field of extraordinary Republican candidates who are going to seek the Republican nomination this time.
And it's always beneficial when the Republicans have this great embarrassment of riches with really talented, smart, accomplished people running.
Because it just improves the overall dialogue and conversation and voters can hear real debates on the issues and see the personalities involved.
But I do think when it comes down to it, Dinesh, there's Donald Trump and then everybody else.
And then secondarily, there's Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis and everybody else.
So these two men are highly accomplished, brilliant in very different ways, but accomplished leaders in their own right.
And they're both going to, I think, and I think DeSantis is running.
I think there's no question that he's running.
But the two of them, along with the others, are going to seek the throne.
The problem, Dinesh, for both of them is there's only one throne.
So the two of them are really going to have to duke it out, and they're going to have to make their cases to the American people.
We've never been in this situation, at least in modern times, Dinesh, where you've got a former president Running again for the same office.
And that raises all kinds of interesting possibilities and issues too.
For example, the Republicans are going to start holding primary debates in August of this year.
Does Donald Trump show up?
Or does he say, hey, I've been president, got a long record, I'm going to take my case directly to the American people.
Does Ron DeSantis do that?
So you sort of have the B or C string of folks showing up to debate on the stage.
It's going to be fascinating to watch.
But, you know, I spent a lot of time in Florida these days, Dinesh, and I've got to tell you, Florida is a very big state, but it doesn't seem big enough for those two massive personalities.
I mean, do you agree, Monica, that the other guys who have either declared, Nikki Haley, of course, is already in the ring, but there are others who have almost clearly intimated, Mike Pence, I think Pompeo, that they're gonna get in, that...
That right now, it's very difficult to see any of those guys making it all the way.
And I say this not as an advocate for one or the other, but simply as an observer.
What is the probability?
If I had to bet $100 on them making it to the finish line, I would say unlikely.
Now, do you think that it is out of the question that we could see a Trump-DeSantis ticket?
Would you think that that is just not going to happen because the two men are just too...
Too large in their own estimation or in the estimation of the people around them?
Or do you think that given the blood sport of politics, there'll be a lot of things said, but hey, you know, Reagan ended up with Bush, who was the second largest vote-getter in the Republican Party in 1980.
So it could be that these guys punched themselves out and then, hey, they end up realizing that they're stronger together than apart.
I would love to see that kind of unity ticket, Dinesh, a Trump-DeSantis ticket, and Trump will only serve four years.
That we know. That's very clear.
And then his vice president could slide in in 2028.
Look, DeSantis does not want to be Chris Christie.
He doesn't want to miss his window of opportunity.
Politicians are usually hot once and then that's it, especially these days where everything is moving at hyper speed.
So he doesn't want to miss his window, so I do think he's going to run.
Remember, if he were to serve four more years as governor, then he'd have another two years of doing what exactly before 2028?
So he is going to run.
They are going to duke it out.
The question is how much damage they're going to do to each other before the question of who might be vice president arises.
So if Trump does win the primaries and he is the nominee choosing vice president, I would love to see Ron DeSantis.
It depends on DeSantis' calculation.
Does he want to be on a ticket with Donald Trump?
I think that would be a fantastic idea for him politically and every other way.
I think it would make total sense.
But again, you're going to have to see.
Look, I think in Trump's mind, the lesson that he learned from his first administration is he needs people around him, including in the VP spot, whom he can trust.
No more deep state operatives, no more people working against him, working to undermine and destroy his presidency.
So in the end, if it ends up being that Trump is the nominee and he's looking at the field of candidates for VP, DeSantis is still there.
And he thinks that he can trust DeSantis not to undermine him in his own administration.
I think he may very well make that calculation.
Remember, Trump is an emotional guy, but he's also cold-blooded.
When it comes to these kinds of calculations.
Very interesting. I mean, in some ways, I think, Monica, that if Trump brings the vision, the larger-than-life personality, and DeSantis brings the operational effectiveness that we've seen him deliver in Florida, it could be pretty formidable.
Hey, Monica Crowley, great to have you.
Thanks so much for coming on the podcast.
Really appreciate it. Pleasure, Dinesh.
Thank you. 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.
Now Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor love it.
they order more because it works for them. Debbie's a true believer. She can finally do the exercises that for several years she wasn't able to do.
ReliefFactor has been a real game-changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike right here in the studio, and for many other people. You too can benefit. Try it for yourself. Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call the new number 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about the software.
That number again, 800, the number 4, RELIEF, or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon series, Has been cancelled pretty much across the board.
He has been cancelled From newspapers, his comic strip has been stripped.
His agent has cancelled him.
His syndicate has cancelled him.
Basically, he's out of circulation in terms of a highly successful comic strip that's been around now for, I think, three or so decades.
Now, Scott Dilbert is very successful.
He's apparently worth tens of millions of dollars.
I don't think it's going to disrupt his lifestyle.
In fact, he says he was thinking of retiring anyway.
But I want to focus in on the cause of the cancellation and also the meaning of the term racism.
So, clearly what Scott Adams said Seems just shocking and out of line.
He goes, quote, And there are several other statements like this.
Scott Adams says, hey, listen, you know, you're accusing me of being racist, but I was actually reacting to a poll conducted by Rasmussen, a poll of about 1,000 people.
But let's remember, 1,000 people, blacks are about 13% of the population, so it's only 130 or so black people.
But it gave the idea that these black people don't even think that it's okay for white people to be white.
They were asked, is it okay for white people to be white?
And It's okay to be white.
And they go that they disagree with that.
And so 47% disagree and 53%.
So about half of blacks, just about, think it's not okay, it seems, to be white.
And so... Adams was like, okay, well, I've had it then.
Many white people try to be helpful to blacks, see themselves as sort of helping to raise blacks to a level that's competitive with other groups.
And he goes, I'm done with all that.
What I find interesting is all the comments that Scott Adams is a racist.
We are dropping the Dilbert comic strip because of creator Scott Adams' racist rant.
That's the Cleveland plane dealer.
And there's a lot other rhetoric to that effect.
There's no room for racism and so on.
And... A bunch of the USA today, papers have dropped him, Washington Post has dropped him.
And I want to disagree with what Scott Adams said while still raising the question, but is it racist?
Now, in order to, this term racism is used so loosely, so promiscuously.
If you make any generalization about a group, you're racist.
But group generalizations are not by themselves racist.
Groups have characteristics.
These characteristics can be...
They don't have to be inherent or natural, biological.
They can be just acquired characteristics.
Groups that develop certain habits.
And if you don't like a group...
And you say, okay, I don't like this group.
I don't like Asian Indians.
They're too boring or they're too pushy or whatever.
You're not a racist.
That's your opinion. You may be harsh on the group.
You may be wrong about them, but it doesn't make you a racist.
So racism requires the presumption of inferiority.
That's key to the meaning of it.
And there's a second aspect that often goes forgotten.
It's not even the presumption of inferiority that's sufficient.
You also need a presumption of innate or biological inferiority.
Because a group could be inferior.
Let's say a group has been downtrodden for a long time.
As a result, they don't have very good habits of frugality or savings or deferred gratification.
And so they're inferior.
They're behind everybody else, but they're behind everybody else, not because they're incapable of competing with others.
It's just that they've been held back by all kinds of misfortune over a long period of time.
So racism, that's what racism is.
And the point I want to make is I think what Scott Adams said is it's certainly impolitic.
He's like, what makes him even...
Why did he even go there like this?
Doesn't he know what a radioactive environment we live in, particularly on this issue?
There are a few key issues where it's like a minefield no matter what you say, so you should be careful what you say.
So yeah, I would say that what Scott Adams said was impolitic.
It was certainly offensive.
It was insensitive.
But my point is insensitive is not necessarily racist.
It may be time for a fresh start.
Now the phrase literally means an opportunity to begin something again.
You know you need a fresh start in your eating habits, right?
How many times last year did you say to yourself, I need to start eating better?
Eating the right amount of fruits and veggies every day?
Well, it's almost impossible.
I have a much more practical, convenient way for you to make that fresh start with Balance of Nature.
Now, Balance of Nature is sourced from 31 whole fruits and vegetables.
You get maximum nutrition with their star product, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Debbie and I take these every day, and you should do so also.
Right now, 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.
There's a new statement from the staff at Project Veritas.
And this whole controversy, I've been covering it, it's very unfortunate because this is such a useful and valuable organization.
It's doing work that nobody else does.
And it's an organization created, the visionary who created it and who has been the face of it and who has actually been the sort of front man who goes out there and confronts people is James O'Keefe.
So when people say James O'Keefe is Project Veritas, I think what they mean is that he is an indispensable part of it.
Whatever his flaws as an administrator or manager, who cares?
That can be organized around James O'Keefe.
But what James O'Keefe does can't be replaced.
I think that's the key point.
And this is not always true of organizations, by the way, but it is true of some.
It was true, certainly, of Steve Jobs that while he was there, Steve Jobs was Apple.
Now, by the way, Steve Jobs exited Apple.
Apple basically went downhill.
They brought Steve Jobs back.
Apple became one of the most successful, if not the most successful company in the world.
Bill Buckley was National Review.
And while Buckley was alive, he was really irreplaceable.
Now, no one's irreplaceable at National Review since then.
Mike Lindell is MyPillow.
Can you envision MyPillow without Mike Lindell?
The staffers decide, well, Mike Lindell is just, you know, we really don't need Mike Lindell.
We can make a really good pillow.
Well, yeah, you can, but it doesn't become the MyPillow that Mike Lindell And I think the same is true with Project Veritas.
So a lot of this stuff that they're talking about, the board and the staff, there's financial malfeasance.
It'd not be one thing if James O'Keefe had been embezzling en masse from the company.
But no, they're talking about things like, well, use company funds to go to some dance recital.
Whoop-dee-doo. Who cares?
And when the staffers at Project Veritas say that we should, quote, give us a chance, give them a chance...
I think the answer is no.
Give them a chance to do what?
Do they actually have the illusion that they can continue this organization, it's going to continue to do what it's doing, and without O'Keefe, it's just ridiculous.
And apparently what happened is that the board was trying to figure out a way to emasculate James O'Keefe of his power, but still bring him back symbolically.
So they probably thought, listen, we'll still run the show, but James O'Keefe will be the figurehead.
This will make the donors settle back and be happy.
And James O'Keefe was not okay with that.
This is O'Keefe. O'Keefe is a figure who is headstrong.
And he's like, no, if you want me back, then the board members will try to get me fired.
Now, by the way, that is not an unreasonable demand.
These are people who try to get rid of him.
I think it's not an unreasonable condition that he say that, look, if they want him to stay, then they should exit the scene and then whatever reforms that need to be put into place can be done.
I was very struck by a group of whistleblowers who came forward together, seemingly on their own initiative. Zach Voorhees, who I'm going to have on the podcast shortly, he's, by the way, the Google whistleblower. And then you had April Moss, who was a whistleblower at CBS. Richard Hopkins, a US Postal Service worker, who said that workers were told to backdate these mail-in ballots. CNN whistleblower, Kerry Porch, who talked about tensions between the management and
the left-wing reporters over the focus on, we have to be Trump, Trump, Trump.
So all these people got together, they made this kind of joint video, and they made the point, I think, an important point.
Not only do they stand with James O'Keefe, they trust James O'Keefe, but they're like, listen...
Future whistleblowers are going to be deterred because their trust was in O'Keefe.
They knew that O'Keefe, being the kind of headstrong guy he is, was not going to sell him out, was not going to turn on them.
And so it was that confidence that they were dealing with an immovable object named James O'Keefe that convinced them to come forward in the first place.
While evolution, in my view, provides a pretty good explanation for the transition from one life form to another, it is an ingenious theory developed first by Darwin in the 1850s, and subsequently there's a huge amount of evidence and support for it.
Evolution does not provide a full and adequate explanation for life.
Why? Because there are three massive features of life, and particularly human life, it can't explain really at all.
The first one is evolution provides no explanation for the origin of life.
It can't even explain the cell, an object of extremely complex machinery, a sort of a supercomputer that couldn't possibly have evolved.
So I talked last time about how the cell had to come fully formed in order for evolution to even take place.
Now I want to talk about how evolution can't explain consciousness.
Now what is consciousness?
It is our inner awareness of the world.
And consciousness has really eluded proper scientific explanation.
We know as human beings that we're conscious.
It's pretty obvious that there are other creatures, dogs, and so on that are conscious, although not quite perhaps in the same way that we are.
Very difficult for us to understand the consciousness of, say, a bat.
Or consciousness of, say, a fruit fly.
Is there any level of consciousness?
Is it a very dim level?
It seems unclear.
But what is the evolutionary explanation for this consciousness?
How does consciousness, being aware inwardly of the world, help us adapt to it?
We could, in theory, adapt to the world perfectly well without consciousness at all.
So, the evolutionists have to give some adaptive explanation for consciousness, and to date, they have supplied none.
Here is Steven Pinker, the cognitive scientist, by the way, also a prominent atheist, in his book called How the Mind Works.
Quote, Virtually nothing is known about the functioning microcircuitry of the brain.
The existence of subjective first-person experience is not explainable by science.
So there you are.
In fact, this problem of consciousness is so elusive that ultimately Daniel Dennett, who spent much of his career as a philosopher trying to understand it, finally threw up his hands and he goes, consciousness is an illusion.
What? I don't know In addition to this, evolution cannot explain human rationality or morality.
Now, this was a point observed very early on by Alfred Russell Wallace, a name that's not that well known, but Alfred Russell Wallace actually discovered evolution before Darwin.
He came up with the theory first.
Now Darwin was simultaneously working on something similar, but Wallace wrote a famous letter to Darwin where he basically said, look what I thought of.
I wonder what you think of it.
And Darwin was like, oh wow, I'm working on this and this guy is like, beat me to the punch.
So as it turns out, the two of them sort of collaborated.
A third scientist proposed the idea that they sort of become the joint promulgators of this new idea.
And that's what happened, although, right, you know, in subsequent decades, the credit really goes, the credit has been attributed almost exclusively to Darwin.
But Wallace made the point, he goes, listen, this explains how creatures adapt.
It explains how creatures survive natural selection.
It really doesn't explain our capacity to understand not just what helps us to get ahead in the world, to survive and reproduce, but to understand something as true.
And that's really the meaning of rationality.
It includes, by the way, the human capacity for language, because language is the way.
It's sort of the tool that we need in order to be rational.
Here's Steven Pinker again.
Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth.
Think about that for a minute.
Basically, it raises the question, how did we as humans get this other capacity to figure out not just what helps our genes to make it into the next generation, but to understand what is going on in the world as true?
So, what is the survival value of truth itself?
Philosopher Michael Ruse, a noted Darwinist, confesses, quote,"...no one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this." And then, finally, human beings have not only a rational capacity, but they have a moral capacity.
And here's Darwin in The Descent of Man, a book that, by the way, came after The Origin of Species.
Here's Darwin admitting that, quote,"...of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is the most important." Now morality speaks to us in a very unique voice.
Why? Because it tells us not just what we did, not what we do do, but what we ought to do.
And frequently morality presses against self-interest.
You want to do something that helps you get ahead in the world, morality says don't do it.
This voice almost seems to come.
It comes from within us, but it almost appears to be a voice from the outside.
And while evolutionists have struggled to provide an explanation for morality, they argue that, well, maybe it is, in fact, in your self-interest.
Maybe not in your short-term self-interest, but in your long-term self-interest.
These explanations have always fallen short because many times morality counsels us to do something for which we get no real benefit at all.
In fact, it may cost us a lot.
It might even cost us our life.
So what would the evolutionary explanation be for the development of this kind of a faculty?
It turns out evolution has no adequate explanation.
And so to sum up, evolution doesn't explain life entirely.
It doesn't explain the cell.
It doesn't explain consciousness.
It doesn't explain rationality.
It doesn't explain morality.
▲
Export Selection