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, China has a plan for ending the Ukraine war.
And hey, if Ukraine goes for it, I'm afraid the balance of power in the world would shift.
I'll argue the attempt to sue Kyle Rittenhouse is going to go nowhere.
Also reveal what's going on with the Asbury revival.
And Google whistleblower Zach Voorhees and January 6th prisoner Jake Lang join me.
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.
I want to talk in this opening segment about China, but before I do, I want to take a bemused note of the fact that Lori Lightfoot has been defeated.
Now, frankly, I didn't really see this coming because I thought that this woman, miserable wreck though she is, nevertheless, what do you expect, Chicago?
These are the kinds of places that elect creatures like Lori Lightfoot, aka Beetlejuice.
But apparently, even the Chicagoans have had enough.
They're like, no, we're going to look in a different direction.
Now, what is that direction?
There are two other contenders.
By the way, it was like a 10-man race.
She came in like third.
So she's out.
But the race is between two other guys.
Apparently, one of them is somewhat more moderate.
The other guys are real leftist and radical.
So in the next couple of days, I'll talk a little bit more about who these presumed successors are and where this may all end up.
But for now, I just want to say bye-bye, Betelgeuse.
Now, let's turn to China. China has put forward a 12-point proposal to resolve the Ukraine conflict.
And let me go over these points just very quickly.
Respecting the sovereignty of all countries.
Abandoning the Cold War mentality, seizing hostilities, resuming peace talks, resolving the humanitarian crisis, protecting civilians and prisoners of war, keeping safe the nuclear power plants, Reducing strategic risks, this is a code for nuclear weapons, facilitating grain exports, stopping unilateral sanctions, keeping industrial and supply chains stable, and promoting post-conflict resolution.
Now, I say, I list these because they're actually all, or nearly all, very reasonable.
So here is a framework that I think steers a middle ground between, on the one hand, you know, basically just leaving the Ukrainians to survive in a war that they will surely on their own lose, or on the other hand, this kind of unending, escalating, we're going to keep going until the Russians declare, you know, admit defeat, which is not going to happen.
So, against the West's alternative, which is essentially prolonged, protracted war that could go on months, years maybe, who knows, China is basically putting forward this framework.
Now, you might think that Zelensky would just dismiss it.
It's ridiculous. I'm not going to go for it because Zelensky seems to be kind of in Biden's back pocket.
But nevertheless, here's the Jerusalem Post.
Ukraine's Zelensky says he plans to meet China's Xi.
And it says, Zelensky on Friday welcomed some elements of the Chinese proposal for a ceasefire.
So Zelensky is obviously, probably realizes, he's on the ground after all, that Ukrainian victory is not really in the cards.
So there's going to have to be some sort of a ceasefire.
And if Zelensky goes in with China and agrees to the Chinese brokering a peace deal, and if the Chinese are able to do that, which by the way, no, China is, you know, they are joined at the hip with Russia on this issue.
So the Chinese will be able to talk Putin into doing things that Putin on his own may not agree to, but he'll agree because Xi wants him to.
So Xi then gets a deal between Ukraine and Russia, and if so, this will be very bad for the United States.
Why? Because it's traditionally been the American role to broker these kinds of peace deals.
Normally, there's some kind of flare-up between India and Pakistan.
The Americans are on the scene. We're here.
We're going to put this back together, this flare-up in the Middle East.
The Americans are on the scene. Oh, yeah, we're here.
We're going to broker a peace deal.
But here is a case where you can almost say the force is hostile to America, in this case China, obviously not motivated by anything benign.
The Chinese are Machiavellians.
They're applying their transactional mode of leadership as an alternative to what you can call the American sort of idealist or ideological mode.
So America's like, for ideological reasons, we will never give in.
It's the principle that's at stake.
And the Chinese, we don't care about principles.
We don't have any principles.
We don't expect anyone else to have any principles.
But we think it's in the interest of both sides to make some kind of a deal because We don't expect anyone else to have any principles, but we think it's in the interest of both sides to make some kind of a deal because this is not going to, the Russians currently are not going to get total victory over Ukraine, but conversely, the Ukrainians are not going to, even with NATO support, get total victory over Russia.
So if the Chinese broker a deal, what I'm saying, and it's bad for us, is it's going to rebalance the structure of forces in the world.
The United States' ability to be the sort of shot caller, we call the shots, is going to be perhaps permanently diminished and China will emerge stronger, more statesman-like.
We're the people who solved the problem.
Debbie and I are really enjoying our new MyPillow pillows.
It's called MyPillow 2.0.
And just when you thought it couldn't get 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 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's made with a temperature regulating thread, the MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest and 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.
This offer with promo code Dinesh.
The MyPillow 2.0 is machine washable and dryable, made in the USA, comes with a 10-year warranty, a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So go ahead and order call 800-876-0227.
That number, 800-876-0227.
And by the way, check out all Mike's other great products, also at steep discounts.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
But don't forget to use the promo code.
That's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Guys, I'd like to welcome to the podcast, and this is going to be just by audio, Jake Lang.
Now, Jake Lang is a January 6th political prisoner.
He is incarcerated, so he's going to be calling from jail.
But this guy, I've got to tell you, is no ordinary January 6th defendant.
He gets my most resourceful January 6th political prisoner award.
Why? Because he organizes press conferences.
He sets up websites.
He raises money for January 6th defendants.
He's creating a media platform.
He's the most enterprising, resourceful guy I have known.
And he's doing it from jail.
I mean, it'd be hard enough to do from the outside.
Jake, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for calling in.
I appreciate it.
Let me ask you this question.
It looks like the January 6 footage, a lot of it, maybe all of it, has been turned over to Tucker Carlson.
It may be that it'll also be shared with, or at least some of it, with January 6 lawyers.
Do you think this is going to make a difference?
Can you talk about the early efforts of the House GOP and whether they are moving in the right direction?
Hey, Dinesh. Thank you so much for having me back on, brother.
This is... I mean, obviously it's a step in the right direction.
They're moving a little slow-footed for me, personally.
you know, kind of playing games, releasing it to Fox.
If you were keen on January 6th coverage, the second year anniversary, Fox did an abhorrent job covering January 6th.
They didn't mention us literally all day.
Then Tucker Carlson did like a ten minute segment on us, which was pretty paltry.
And so I really don't trust Fox and Tucker to give the, you know, 14000 hours of video footage its proper breadth.
And, you know, it needs to be released to independent journalists like Gateway Pundit and other people out there that have put in the time and the effort and the energy to already sift through this and find horrific abuses of police brutality and all different types of situations where it could exonerate me and all the other Jan Sixers.
Yeah, I mean, my guess is that the reason Kevin McCarthy chose Tucker is that, you know, the left, of course, is very shrewd about leaking to the New York Times.
They leak all the time to the networks, ABC and CBS. Tucker is the biggest platform, I think, that we have on our side.
But what you're saying is that Fox coverage of January 6th defendants has been kind of spotty at best or unsympathetic?
Horrible. It's been horrible, and it's independent people like you, Dinesh, that have given us the platform to speak our truth, to release our documentaries and cover them, like The Truth About January 6th, which is a documentary we released early last year,
which is the number one viewed video ever on Rumble right now, 1.8 million views, and it's independent media like that that, you know, It gives us our only voice to tell the truth from these prison cells here.
Today is day 773 for me.
And it's been an absolute grueling uphill battle to get the truth out, to have our voices heard.
Yeah, I agree with you.
I mean, Jake, it makes sense to me.
Why not release this?
I mean, you can give it to Tucker, but why not release it to the public?
And then all kinds of people can start taking a look.
Now, you know, the left has been saying, oh, well, this is going to result in very selective...
A presentation of the evidence, but that's what they've been doing.
The January 6th committee, under the supervision of Pelosi and Liz Cheney and Benny Johnson and others, they've been doing nothing but releasing selective tidbits and excluding a video that would be damaging to their narrative.
100%. You know, and so we have to band together as the American people and really put some pressure on our politicians and on the judicial system as well right now.
A lot of these court officers, the judges, the prosecutors, people like that, they have been so prejudiced in their treatment of the January Sixers.
And I hope that when, you know, all this video comes out and we really get down to the nitty-gritty truth of January Six, that it'll open up the eyes of the judges and the prosecutors and the jury pool as well, too.
You know, we have our side of the court here that already loves the Jan Sixers.
They support us. They donate to our legal funds and stuff.
But really what we're trying to do is win over the hearts and minds of the people who are across the aisle who, you know, hold a lot of power over the January Sixers and our families and handing out decade-long prison sentences.
And so that footage needs to affect their hearts and their minds.
I saw something a little encouraging just yesterday, or may have been the day before, and that was Judge McFadden, who is a Trump appointee.
But nevertheless, he's been sort of a swamp guy, and by that I mean he has not hesitated to describe this as an insurrection.
He has not hesitated to hand out some fairly severe sentences.
And in this particular case, I think he gave the guy 32 months So he gave him a two-and-a-half-year sentence.
But the Biden DOJ wanted something like nine years because they wanted what they called a terrorism enhancement.
In other words, they wanted this guy to be, in some senses, classified legally as a domestic terrorist.
And McFadden goes, no, I don't see it.
I'm not going to give you the enhancement.
So he got a severe sentence.
But he would have gotten, you could almost call it a life-ruining sentence had McFadden gone along with the Biden DOJ, and I was encouraged to see that he didn't.
Yeah, that's one of the problems, though, Dinesh, is that we have to count.
That's a win for us in our book.
There's been no full-out jury trial court wins here for the January 6th.
We're counting small little downward departures of prison sentences and one charge dropped out of 15 charges.
We're counting those as wins, and that's You know, it's hard.
It's really hard looking at it from my perspective that, you know, we have to count these as wins because we're not getting the big wins that we want.
Jake, let's close out by me having you talk about the J6 Legal Fund that you set up.
Talk about what it's doing and also talk about where people can go to check it out.
Yeah, so j6legal.org, which is our main resource for the January Sixers to fight back, On this ridiculous two-tier justice system.
We have put together a comprehensive legal team at j6legal.org.
So everybody that's listening, please go on support.
There's a little two-minute video on j6legal.org that explains everything that we're about, the transparency, the great Lawyers that we've been hiring for dozens of Jan Sixers.
So please, you know, it's the most important thing we can do right now.
We're talking about the legal struggles.
Spiritually and emotionally get involved and invested in the January 6th effort here, and please go to j6legal.org and support us.
Whatever God puts on your heart, it's a great foundation, a great cause, and it's run by Jan Sixers for Jan Sixers.
It's legit, and everybody that is being helped by January 6th Legal Fund is very, very appreciative for the generosity of the American people.
Good stuff, Jake. Hey, I know it's tough on you to make time to make these calls from where you're making them, so I appreciate your calling, and thanks for joining me.
Yeah, for my 12th political prison, they've been moving me around a lot, Dinesh, but we're continuing to fight hard because God is on our side, and when He is in the mix, there's only victory.
So, thank you so much for having me on again.
God bless you, Dinesh. Please go to j6legal.org, everybody.
Thanks, Jake. 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, however, is difficult if not impossible.
I have 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.
Debbie and I take them every day, and you should too.
And 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. Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted on charges of first-degree murder, and in fact, acquitted of all charges criminally, is now being in civil court sued by one Gage Grosskreutz.
This is the guy that Rittenhouse shot, apparently, well, it was a body blow.
I think he shot him in the leg or in the arm.
And this guy is suing to get money.
He wants apparently $10 million.
He's not just suing Rittenhouse.
He's suing the city of Kenosha, Kenosha County police officers, the former Kenosha County sheriff, the former Kenosha police chief.
And he basically says that...
Gage Greuskreutz says that he was just an innocent guy.
He was just there.
He had his hands in the air when he was shot in the bicep, quote, leaving a gaping wound.
Let me go through this.
Plaintiff Gage Greuskreutz approached defendant Rittenhouse with his hands up.
Pleading with him to stop his shooting rampage without provocation or any legal justification, defendant Rittenhouse shot at Grosskreutz from point bank range, hitting him in the arm.
Thankfully, Grosskreutz survived.
Now, this is actually an untrue account of events, and my source for recognizing that it's untrue is none other than one incident.
Gage Grosskreutz.
Let's go back to the criminal trial.
And by the way, all this evidence from the criminal trial completely admissible in the civil trial.
So in the criminal trial, Grosskreutz admitted that he pointed a firearm at Rittenhouse and A firearm that he brought to Kenosha, a firearm that he apparently possessed illegally.
So Rittenhouse's firearm was legal, but Grosskreutz's firearm was illegal.
And Grosskreutz admitted that he loaded the firearm beforehand, so he was carrying a loaded gun, and he pointed the loaded gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him.
And let's go back to the cross-examination.
Defense Attorney Corey Chirafisi is asking Grosskreutz, it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, that he fired, right?
Grosskreutz replies, correct.
So there you go. I mean, it's almost like you don't really need a whole lot more.
Now, there's some other kind of garbled nonsense in this case.
Grosskreutz, by the way, has admitted, again, in the criminal trial, that Rittenhouse told him at the time, And also that Rittenhouse, before he was arrested, was running in the direction of the police.
So he was carrying out his assurance that he was going to the police.
Grosskreutz apparently lied to the police.
He told them that, you know, there was a man with a skateboard who was hitting Rittenhouse and he, Grosskreutz, jumped in to try to tell the man to stop.
So he was actually helping Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him.
And this, as it turns out, a complete lie.
Grosskreutz made that up.
That is not, in fact, what happened.
Now, the point of a civil lawsuit is it's a lawsuit that doesn't expose Rittenhouse to any criminal liability.
He's not going to jail for this.
But Grosskreutz is trying to win a, well, kind of a legal victory, which makes it a kind of moral victory.
See, I was right. And the standard of proof is...
In a civil case, it's lower than in a criminal case.
In a criminal case, you need essentially guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil case, you just basically need to win by a preponderance of the evidence.
So it's a lower standard, and normally a standard that should be easier for Grosskreutz to meet.
But the problem is, I don't think you can meet it.
I don't think he can meet it because he still has to show that by a preponderance of the evidence, he, Grosskreutz, went there.
He was not posing any mortal threat to Kyle Rittenhouse and the shooting that he endured in the bicep was unjustifiable.
He has to show that by the preponderance of the evidence.
Well, where's the preponderance of the evidence to show that?
Unless there are things we absolutely don't know about this case that are going to come out now for the first time, and why wouldn't they have come out in the criminal trial before?
So it's almost as if what's happened here is Gage Grosskreutz has got some new lawyers, and they sat back, and they've come up with a fiction.
And the fiction is that Grosskreutz was randomly shot.
He shows up. He's actually trying to help.
He has his hands up, which again is not the case.
He himself admitted in the criminal trial that he was not raising his hands.
In fact, he was pointing his gun at Kyle Rittenhouse.
So it's almost like they have come back here with the fiction and they're hoping that maybe in a new environment when things have settled down, uh, And since it's only a civil issue and it's only money and not incarceration that's at stake, that somehow it's going to be easier for Gage Grosskreutz to win a civil verdict.
It doesn't seem like that's the case.
In fact, here is the political scientist and legal expert, Jonathan Turley.
He goes, it's not clear how he will get around that admissible earlier testimony.
In fact, at one ridiculous point, Gorskowitz even tries to blast the police, claiming that, quote, they were armed individuals who conspired with them, this is Rittenhouse conspired with them, and ratified their actions by letting them patrol the streets armed with deadly weapons to mete out justice as they saw fit.
Well, These people like Rittenhouse, and obviously this applies to the cops, had every right to carry weapons.
That's legal. There's nothing wrong with that.
That's allowed under the law, so you're not going to be able to win a criminal case.
And then Grosskreutz has a long rap sheet.
This guy has a decade of convictions, a decade of being incarcerated.
Going back, he has multiple SEAL juvenile arrests.
He was arrested and charged with hitting his grandmother in the face during a dispute.
He was charged in 2012 with a felony burglary charge in New Berlin when he was trying to steal three PlayStation consoles.
In 2013, he was charged with smashing the bedroom window of his former girlfriend's home at 4 a.m.
The girlfriend said he had been harassing her.
So this is the character, evidently, of Gage Grosskreutz, and I hope that he loses this suit, which seems to be utterly without merit.
you Aches and pains may have become a part of your daily life, but they don't have to be.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints the past two years?
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 has been able to do exercises now that for several years she couldn't do. Relief Factor has 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. Order the 3-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. That number again, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com and you'll feel the difference. Guys, I'd like to welcome as a new guest to the podcast, Zach Voorhees. He's the Google whistleblower. In fact, he blew the whistle, so to speak,
with Project Veritas. He was a senior software engineer at YouTube Google for eight and a half years. And then in June 2019, he resigned from Google, took some internal documents and exposed Google's machine learning fairness, the AI system that sensors and controls your access to information.
By the way, you can follow Zach on Twitter, at Perpetual Maniac, Or his website, simply Zach Voorhees, V-O-R-H-I-E-S dot com.
Zach, welcome to the podcast.
Great to have you. I thought we'd start, we have a couple of segments.
Let's talk in the first segment about Project Veritas.
You and a bunch of the other whistleblowers got together, I think at your initiative, but you can clarify, and basically did a sort of, I stand with James O'Keefe It seems to me that you are, as I am, a little disturbed at the way events have played out at Project Veritas.
Where do you think that those are going?
Do you think that there's going to be some reconciliation, or do you think that the board has burned its bridges with O'Keefe?
Wow. Well, I do think that the board has largely burned their bridge with James O'Keefe.
He's throwing down the gauntlet, saying that the condition for his return will be that the board resigns and that a large section of the employees have to be fired.
That basically stood against him.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have come to believe that they are Project Veritas.
And as James has spent more time on the road fundraising, the process of getting whistleblowers has become a little bit more automatic, a little bit more process oriented.
And this has given way to this thought, well, we're Project Veritas and James is stealing our thunder, without acknowledging that James himself It's his stubbornness and his adherence to his integrity and his mission statement, which is the reason why all of us whistleblowers came out was because of James O'Keefe and the stellar mission statement that he represents.
And since that has happened, since they've gone ahead and done this ouster, they've lied to the public and they've lied to us whistleblowers.
And so we've lost confidence in the board to be able to carry on this mission.
It's very clear to us that what's going to happen is that Project Veritas is going to transform into something way different than what it was before.
And that's the reason why we're speaking out.
I think you're making a very important point that I want to restate slightly.
What you're saying is that James O'Keefe might be an irascible, mercurial, maybe he's not the best administrator, but he does represent, precisely because he's headstrong and stubborn, he represents that kind of inflexible personality, which is, hey, Zach, I'll give you my word.
I will never sell you out.
I'll never stab you in the back.
And you're saying that that is what gives whistleblowers the confidence.
To come forward and say, okay, we're going to trust James O'Keefe.
This is risky for us.
Our jobs are at stake.
Our reputation is at stake.
But we need a kind of rock-solid guy like James to be able to partner with this kind of stuff.
And Project Veritas is under the illusion that James is a dispensable commodity.
Yeah, he's raising some money.
We think we can raise some money ourselves another way.
And you're saying, that's not really true.
Yeah, that's not really true.
And what's interesting is that James has had the whistleblowers back to such an extent that other people might even say that it's reckless.
So for example, when I was blowing the whistle on Google, I was concerned that I was going to get targeted by Google.
And so James, to allay my fears, went before the entire company.
And said, attention everyone.
I just want to let you know that we've never done this before, but we've got our whistleblowers back.
And if Google comes after Zach, I want to let everyone know that we're going to pay all of his legal expenses.
We take care of our whistleblowers.
We want them to feel comfortable coming forward.
And I don't know of anyone else at the company that would have done that.
And I was surprised and taken back.
And once he said that, I said, okay, well, if you've got my back, then let's go forward and release this video.
And what's interesting is that pretty much every other whistleblower has a similar story where James stuck out for them at their moment of need.
And it's just incredible.
He's just an incredible human being.
And that's the reason why I've got his back now.
I mean, what's so crazy here is that when you start an organization, and I'm familiar with this myself, having done this in the area of films, that you start out and you're making all the decisions because it's a very tiny organization.
You're making every contract and negotiating, and then you go and meet the donor, and then you are on the set.
And then as your organization grows, you create systems So that some of that can occur within the structure of the organization, but it doesn't mean that you're not still central to the organization and for the organization to decide, oh, listen, you know, James is no longer the guy bringing us all our leads.
He created the structure that brings you all your leads.
I think this is a kind of, I mean, I cannot believe that this vital organization is falling apart in front of our eyes because of this level of stupidity.
Right. Like, let's say your staff was like, ah, Dinesh, what does he do anyways except take all of our credit, right?
And we can just, like, swap him out with someone else.
Like, no, that's not how the rest of the world sees it.
And the problem is that the Project Veritas staff and board are living in an echo chamber.
And they talk amongst themselves, and so they've come up with this alternative reality.
And now that they've done this, Alistair, sloppily executed, they are absolutely stunned at the reaction.
And it's not really stunning to me, and I don't think it's stunning to you and for your audience.
We're all horrified at what has happened, because for all of us, James O'Keefe is Project Veritas.
Yeah, absolutely. When we come back, I want to talk to Zach Voorhees about Google and about how Google behind the curtain figures out.
It's not that there's a man behind the curtain, but there's a system behind the curtain, and we'll talk about that when we come back.
Spend, spend, and spend some more.
That seems to be the philosophy of the Biden administration.
And despite the U.S. blowing through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January, the White House still refuses to reduce spending.
Now, our national leadership seems to have buried its 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 your assets into gold with Birch Gold.
That's 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 or 401k into an IRA and 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.
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, countless five-star reviews.
Birch Gold is who I trust to protect my future and yours.
So get the process started.
Text Dinesh to 989898 today.
I'm back with whistleblower Zach Voorhees.
He's the Google whistleblower.
In fact, he was at Google for eight and a half years until 2019.
He has a book.
It's called Google Leaks and you can check it out.
The website is googleleaksbook.com Zach, let's talk about Google.
You've got this giant corporation.
It's a virtual monopoly.
I realize there are a couple of minor other search engines, but Google owns the market.
Google often buys out competitors as they begin to gain strength.
They become part of Google.
And Google is this sort of Almost, I don't even know if I could call it a city, but you work there.
Give us a window into Google and how Google manipulates searches.
I think the ordinary guy thinks, I did a Google search, and I think what they mean is they're expecting the most common websites to come popping right up, not realizing that there's some manipulation going on, so to speak, behind the curtain.
Talk about that. Yeah.
So, you know, Google used to be this great sort of libertarian organization that I agreed with all their corporate values.
And then in 2016, when the wrong president was democratically elected, they took their mission statement to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
And they threw that into the garbage.
And what they did is they rewrote all of their algorithms in order to weaponize against the sitting president of the United States.
And I saw this from the inside.
First, when it started to come out in design documents, because the whole company's transparent, I could see what was going on.
And then once these documents started coming out of, hey, we need to filter fake news, I was like, well, what's going to be sort of deciding what's going to be fake news?
And as I started to dig in further, I discovered that there was this huge program called Machine Learning Fairness.
And machine learning fairness is a critical race theory merged with artificial intelligence.
And it was something that, you know, it wasn't that they were building it, it was already done.
And they were rolling it out to all of their different products, which was Google Search, YouTube, Google News.
And, you know, I was reading these documents about how to communicate it to middle management.
And so I said, this is going to end democracy as we know it.
Not only in the United States, but all the different countries where Google has a monopoly in search.
And so I was just like, I need to start saving this stuff.
And I didn't know that I was going to blow the whistle at the time, but I was like, this is so out there that I just need to know that I'm personally not going crazy.
And then, you know, things kept on getting worse.
It was 2019 when the purges started happening and I was just like...
Okay, I got to get out of here.
I had sent this documentation to Project Veritas a year early, and they weren't really communicating with me, but little did I know that they had actually done a sting operation.
And so at about the same time that I was leaving, they gave me a call and asked me to read this transcript about Jen Jenai, one of their directors, that had admitted that they were going to stop the next Trump situation in 2020.
And so the rest is history.
I resigned. We came out.
We let the world know that machine learning fairness was this thing that was being unleashed on us.
And that's the reason why all the Google searches were getting really bad.
And let me just show you in their own words what they thought of you as an individual and why they wanted to do this.
thought is that each one of us are programmable units and essentially the audience can be programmed in four steps. Training data are collected and classified. Two, algorithms are programmed. Three, media are filtered, ranked, aggregated, or generated. And then step four is that people like us are programmed. And then the cycle repeats.
And this is just like evil.
This is like Dr. Evil stuff, right?
Like I couldn't sit there with a good conscious and eventually face my maker without realize it without, you know, doing something to, you know, throw myself into the gears of this machine and make it stop.
Because I like America.
I think I really like democracy.
I like participating in our civic system.
And if we have like an AI that is manipulating the information that we've got access to, then, you know, that's game over.
And I'm proud that I was able to put a stop at least or at least slow it down a bit.
Now we're seeing chatbots coming out.
The great thing about chatbots is that at least we know about it and we can complain about it on Twitter.
The problem with Google is that they were doing this in secret, behind the shadows, and not telling anyone that this is what they were doing, and instead gaslighting each and every one of us.
Like, oh, you're crazy. We're not censoring.
But yet, from the inside, it was obvious that they were.
I mean, you've just outlined, Zach, just an extremely creepy vision where Google treats human beings as being programmable robots, so to speak.
And they go that with enough search engine manipulation, with enough relentless one-way propaganda, we're going to alter your mind and make you think the way we do.
And you can see how this is a subversion of free speech.
It's a subversion of debate.
And it's a subversion of democracy.
Really scary stuff. Zach, I'd love to have you back again to talk more about all this.
Thanks for joining me. I really appreciate it.
Guys, it's Zach Voorhees.
You can follow him on Twitter, at PerpetualManiac.
His website, ZachVorhees.com, or the website for the book, GoogleLeaksBook.com.
Thank you, Dinesh. I did my live Locals Q&A last night.
Really engaging, really fun.
We cover issues of the day and you get sort of Dinesh Uncensored, Dinesh Unchained.
There's also a bunch of films up in my Locals channel, 2,000 Mules, good films by me as well as others.
And you get all of them for free just by becoming an annual subscriber to my Locals channel.
So check it out, dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Once again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
Asbury University is a small college in a small town, Wilmore, Kentucky.
And something remarkable seems to have happened there, and this goes back to...
Early February, apparently in the Asbury Chapel, a group of students just walked up to the altar.
This is about a hundred students.
They just kind of fell down on their knees or on their face, almost, you know, prostrate, Muslim style, you could call it.
And they began to pray and ask for God's intervention and takeover of their lives.
And this has Amazingly spawned a revival event, you'd have to call it, in Asbury.
Now, in the last 30 days, some 50,000 people have gone there from all over the place to check it out, to check out this revival and be part of it.
It's a kind of mini Jesus Revolution, and I use that term because Debbie and I just recently saw this film, Jesus Revolution, and it's very cool.
By the way, the film is in the theater, and you can see it, and it's worth seeing, and it really tells the life of the pastor Greg Laurie.
And it talks about how Greg Laurie was a young kind of a drug addict.
And he walked into a church.
This is Pastor Chuck Smith's church in Orange County.
And Pastor Chuck Smith was a kind of old style, almost a stodgy pastor, but he let in a bunch of hippies who sort of took over his church.
But he discovered in the hippies a deep spiritual need, and he tapped into it.
And so this kicked off the Jesus Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.
It became a massive movement.
It really We changed the face of the evangelical church.
And the question is whether the Asbury revival, which is real.
I mean, people are talking not just about people giving over their lives to Christ or becoming born again, but they're talking about gifts of the Holy Spirit.
They're talking about witnessing healings.
And now I see from recent reports, this is an article on CBN, CBN News, that the revival is spreading.
It's spreading to Texas, Texas A&M. Indiana Wesleyan, it's spreading to Baylor, to Louisiana State University.
Here's a guy at Texas A&M, and I'm just going to read his post because it gives you a feeling of what's going on.
He goes, He goes, worship, repentance, prayers, no leaders, physical healing, baptism, crowds bigger than last night.
He goes, this is not religion.
It's just meeting Jesus.
He goes, had to leave at 1 a.m., but it was still going on.
Wow. So, and then here we go.
Indiana Wesleyan University, a professor named Jim Lowe in the School of Theology is reporting in from there.
He goes, God is at work at IWU. He goes,"...it's been neat how spontaneous worship and song has been taking place in classes." So admittedly, Indiana Wesleyan is a Christian university, but they are a normal university.
I've spoken there. They have classes in history, philosophy, and so on.
And the point is, in the middle of class, you have people doing worship music.
"...one of my classes turned into a prayer meeting." Unbelievable.
Then we go to Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.
We go to Baylor in Waco, Texas.
There's a video clip posted by a guy at Louisiana Baptist.
It shows 400 students in the LSU chapel kind of jointly crying out for revival.
They're basically saying America is in need of a revival, of an awakening, perhaps of a A third great awakening.
As we know, the first great awakening preceded the American Revolution.
The second great awakening preceded the Civil War.
And there's been a lot of people wondering, when will there be and when will there be a third great awakening?
I think what's interesting is that what we're seeing is happening among young people.
This is not a movement driven by older people who say, oh, the country has really gone down.
These are young people who I feel in today's environment a kind of angst, a travail, a sense of a depletion of the spirit.
And they recognize that the answer to that is not going to come exclusively from politics.
It's not going to come even from cultural change by itself.
That underneath our political anguish and underneath our cultural anguish and underneath even our moral anguish is a spiritual anguish.
And to that anguish, God is the only answer.
I began my discussion of evolution by introducing the argument from the Anglican divine William Paley.
It was the argument about the watch.
If you see a stone on the seashore, who knows how long it's been there.
But if you see a watch, you know that someone designed it.
You may not know who, but the watch shows the unmistakable features of design.
And now I want to return to that argument because I want to argue that that design argument, which Paley made in the early 19th century, around 1801, 1802, that argument is actually much, much stronger today.
Even though Richard Dawkins, the biologist, goes, evolution has refuted that argument.
Nonsense. Evolution may have refuted that argument in one of its particulars, namely the transitions of one life form to another.
And so evolution to that degree has created a modification of the argument.
But of course, all you do is step back and apply the argument now to the universe as a whole.
And when you apply it to the universe as a whole, you realize that the universe is now like the watch.
The universe shows clear evidence of design.
No one can seriously contend that the universe itself evolved through the features of natural selection.
Even Darwin wasn't absurd enough to make that kind of claim.
Someone made the universe.
Someone programmed it.
Someone put in the code.
Now, in that sense, you can look at the universe as a kind of hardware and evolution as a sort of a software.
Evolution kind of explains the transitions from one life form to another, but the software only operates within a hardware that makes the software possible, that makes the software operations possible.
So, the universe could not have evolved through natural selection.
The universe, in fact, makes up the whole of nature.
Within the universe, there are innumerable life forms that are sort of like the software.
These life forms are the product of evolution.
Darwin and his successors have elegantly elucidated the modes of transition.
But evolution has no explanation for the origin of the universe or its laws.
So how can evolution undercut the argument from design as it applies to the universe?
By the way, not just to our planet.
It does apply to our planet, but it applies to the universe as a whole.
And the answer is that evolution can in no way refute the design argument at that level.
The overwhelming evidence is that someone planned the whole thing.
And now comes the crusher, which was pointed out by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in their remarkable book on the anthropic cosmological principle.
They say, listen, if the laws of physics didn't have these fine-tuned features in line with the anthropic principle, stars like the sun wouldn't burn in the slow and steady way that they do, giving life in general and human life in particular time to evolve.
In other words... The point is that evolution itself requires a finely tuned universe.
Barrow and Tipler argue that physics has supplied, quote, a new design argument remarkably similar to that proposed by Paley.
So here are Tipler and Barrow, very prominent cosmologists, by the way, recognizing that this is an argument for design, an argument for a universal, for a universe designer, if you will, a fine-tuner.
And so biologists who say that evolution operates according to principles of time and chance...
Often omit or forget or leave out the fact that evolution also depends on the laws of nature that are part of a universe that is not a product of time and chance.
And so the questions we return to.
Who designed the universe?
Who programmed the cell?
Who developed the idea of consciousness?
Who inserted rationality and morality into life forms that otherwise would be programmed merely to survive and reproduce?
What is the ultimate explanation for why reality itself is structured in this way?
This is not by itself an argument for It must be God, but it's an argument that certainly points in that direction.
It's far more plausible to conclude that this fine-tuned universe had a fine tuner than simply to say, well, it just happens, coincidentally, to be that way.