All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
42:14
ATTACK ON THE SUBURBS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep529
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend, Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, I'll reveal how the Biden administration is trying to destroy the suburbs and reduce them to the, well, plantation dependency of the inner cities.
Debbie's going to join me for the Friday Roundup.
We're going to talk about Iran's nuclear progress, the ouster of Laurie Strangeface, oops, I mean Lightfoot, and how to lose weight.
I'll also continue my discussion of Christian apologetics.
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.
Not content with destroying to a large degree many of our inner cities.
Not content with creating plantation-style urban dependency, not just in the ghetto, but also in the barrio.
In a rural equivalent on the American Indian reservations, not content with doing all that damage, the left now wants to destroy the suburbs.
And they want to destroy the suburbs.
They want to convert the suburbs, if you will, into the kind of urban plantations that they've created in the inner cities and on the Indian reservations.
Why? Because it pays political dividends.
It brings political benefits to the Democratic Party.
The Biden administration has issued new rules, specifically 200 pages of new rules.
And the rules require, quote, equity plans in hundreds and hundreds of suburbs around the country.
Now, equity is the new mantra of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
It's the new mantra of critical race theory.
It's that we don't want equality, and we don't even want equal treatment under the law.
We want equity, and equity here is defined as equal outcomes.
What the Biden administration is doing is relying here on the Fair Housing Act.
Let's remember we had the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Law of 1968.
Now, the Fair Housing Law is pretty innocuous.
It says no discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings.
So the basic idea is that if you want to buy a house or rent a house, it's based upon the fact that you have enough money to do it.
And if you have enough money and can qualify for the mortgage and you're willing to pay, then it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu.
It doesn't matter if you're a male or a female.
It doesn't matter if you're black or white or brown.
So this all makes sense.
But there's one line in the housing law that talks about...
Talks about making affirmatively furthering fair housing.
And this, I think, when passed, meant nothing more than taking steps to make sure that these rules were, in fact, in place, to take affirming action.
You see here the roots of the phrase affirmative action.
But the Biden administration goes, well, let's just jump on that one and act as if the allusion to affirmative action is an allusion to equality of outcomes.
And so they have now ordered all these cities, hey listen, if you want to get money from the federal government, if you want to get money from HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Department, these 1,200 cities and counties getting HUD funding have to develop these Equity plans.
Now, the equity plans are larger and more burdensome for larger areas than they are for smaller areas.
And they do give some local flexibility.
But nevertheless, it is that you have to develop these plans and show them to us or else.
Or else what? Well, in the extreme, you lose your government funding.
So this is Homeland, not Homeland, but Housing Secretary Marsha Fudge.
And she goes, she says, if they are not in compliance, we have the tools to make sure that they either use them properly or they're going to have to answer to what we want to do going forward.
So the federal government here using its muscle.
What do they want? They want the suburbs to agree to build all this low-income housing.
This would then transfer a lot of low-income people from the cities to the suburbs.
Redraw school districts.
This is a revival of the old busing idea.
And promote, quote, racial and socioeconomic integration, but all as defined by the Biden-HUD bureaucracy.
If you oppose this, if you say, I don't like it, if you say, listen, we like diversity, but we want that diversity to develop organically.
We noticed that there are a lot of people, Blacks, Asian Americans, moving to the suburbs.
We're okay with that, but we want to have a colorblind principle in the suburbs.
This is what the Biden people are attacking.
No, they don't want a colorblind approach.
They want a race-conscious approach, and they want a plan or blueprint in place for producing this forced, if you will, integration.
And if you resist it, they're going to accuse you of, well, you're You're trying to keep the suburbs white, aren't you?
You're in defense of white suburbs.
So, now, the whole concept of white suburbs is a big lie because we notice that whenever blacks become more prosperous, whenever you see a black middle class, look at, for example, suburbs around Baltimore, suburbs around Atlanta, you'll see black suburbs.
Heavily Black suburbs and lots of Black people have deliberately and consciously moved out of the inner city.
In fact, this is sometimes by scholars called Black Flight.
And Black Flight, again, is motivated not by racism.
It's motivated by resistance to crime, resistance to horrible public schools.
I don't want to constantly have to worry about my home being burglarized.
So the point here is that this is not an argument about having ethnic diversity in the suburbs.
Many of our suburbs are ethnically diverse.
Debbie and I live in a suburb of Texas.
It's ethnically diverse.
And the greater areas of Texas, Dallas, Houston, are very diverse.
Diverse racially, diverse religiously.
You'll see they're dotted, for example, with mosques and churches and synagogues.
So this is not an argument about diversity.
It's an argument about the kind of diversity that the left pushes for.
And again, they're pushing it for by twisting up your arm behind your back and saying, either you do it or we're going to make you do it.
Debbie and I are sleeping on our MyPillow 2.0 pillows, and they're just terrific.
Just when you thought these pillows couldn't get better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched MyPillow 2.0.
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 pillow, 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 good news on the MyPillow 2.0 front.
Buy one, get one free.
So a really good deal. The offer is with promo code Dinesh.
The MyPillow 2.0 is machine washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA. 10-year warranty.
60-day money-back guarantee.
So go ahead and place your order.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number, 800-876-0227.
By the way, when you're on the MyPillow site, check it out.
All kinds of good deals at big discounts.
Just go to MyPillow.com, but don't forget to use the promo code, which is D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Debbie and I are here for our Friday Roundup.
And if you're watching the podcast as opposed to listening to it, you might be sort of taking a little bit of a double take.
You're like, something's different.
Did the room get bigger?
Not yet. Did these guys get smaller?
Is this an optical illusion?
Is it a trick of photography?
Camera. Camera photography. We're going to talk more about that later.
But we thought we'd start by talking about something that Elon Musk has been warning about, and it's quite obvious for anyone to see.
The emergence of a Russia-China alliance against America and the West.
And when we talked about it this morning, you were saying that, you know, Right.
During the Cold War, we were not fighting Chinese Communists and Russian Communists, so we kept them apart.
Well, here we have to give a little credit to Nixon.
Let's remember Nixon's trip to China.
What was the purpose of that?
To peel China away from the Communist Alliance and to create more friendly relations between the United States and China.
So at that time, it served our purpose, just as it served our purpose to ally temporarily with some of the Muslim radicals who were trying to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
But it is amazing how, in new circumstances, everything changes.
And it's a really dangerous alliance because both Russia and China Of course, have nuclear capabilities.
And they may use them.
And we don't know if they're going to or not.
And I don't think the doofus in the White House...
Well, actually, I think he's escalating it, actually.
His actions are.
His actions are. You know, the other day, he was reading something from the teleprompter.
I kid you not. He couldn't read it.
Not only could he not read the teleprompter, but he couldn't even make sense of what he was reading.
In other words, he couldn't comprehend what he was reading.
This is the man in charge.
Think of the psychological effect on adversaries, right?
It's almost like you're getting ready for a football game and you can see that the quarterback on the other team is totally out of it.
He doesn't even know what's going on.
He's not even sure where he is.
And the idea that he could coordinate plays, you realize this is never gonna happen.
We're gonna have an easy time of it.
So it's very emboldening.
Now, interestingly, Russia and China are both not the same country that they were in the Cold War era.
By which I mean, Russia, I think it's fair to say, is now a kind of a gangster society.
It's not a democracy in the pure sense or in the classic sense, but neither is a capitalist in the pure sense.
It's essentially marauding gangs with Putin being kind of gangster in chief.
And China has been able to accumulate enormous wealth that it didn't have in the 1970s and 80s, and it's done so by making a certain kind of weird hybrid of capitalism.
Let's call it state-directed capitalism.
So state-directed capitalism, by the way, is a form of fascism.
And people don't think of fascism today with China.
So you've got these new societies, post-Cold War Russia, and you can say post-communist.
Although China is still communist in its political system.
Right, right. It's just not entirely communist in its economic system.
But they're still lethal and they're still ruthless.
And by the way, so China just provided Russia with a hundred drones.
Mm-hmm.
For the Ukraine war.
So this made news and this is why Elon Musk was like freaking out about it.
I mean, I mentioned on the podcast a couple of days ago that I think the Chinese game is to fuel the war because, see, the war only helps them.
The more that Russia is weakened and the more that the West is weakened, who benefits?
Well, Xi Jinping benefits.
And at the same time, I think the Chinese want to waltz in at the end and solve the problem.
They want to be the brokers of peace so they can say, listen, America used to do this kind of thing, but now we do.
We're the statesman-like resolver of global differences.
And you should now look to China.
You have a fight in the Middle East?
Don't go to America. They can't do anything.
They've got a fool running the place.
Come over to China. We'll figure this one out for you.
And we'll do it on a transactional basis.
That doesn't require to take loyalty oaths and agree to fly the LGBTQ flag and agree to do this for women and that for...
No, we don't ask any of those questions.
We focus on the practical necessities of the situation and we act on that basis.
So I guess what I'm saying is the Chinese are lethal and it's the Chinese dragon.
But they're also cunning.
They're appealing to the self-interest of the parties themselves.
Zelensky doesn't want to fight a kind of ongoing, never-ending war in Ukraine.
He's looking to get out of it with a good deal.
But I mean, look at this.
The aviation technology, okay, it's called a ZT-180 drone, which could carry 35 to 50 kilometers.
Kilograms, so double that, 1.6.
Warhead. So, you know, Germany is warning them not to do this, as is, of course, America.
But this is very bad.
So I don't think it's going to bode well for Ukraine.
I really don't. It's not going to bode well for Ukraine.
It's not going to bode well for us because this is an alliance that I think is, let's call it the anti-Western alliance, and it's introducing a kind of new twist.
We don't have a Cold War of the old type.
But we certainly don't want to get into a hot war with these guys.
My dad didn't really believe in the stock market.
He was a put your money in the bank kind of guy.
But I discovered in the early 1990s that investing in the market makes sense if you're in it for the long term.
Problem is, we're in a very rocky economy.
No easy end in sight.
Lots of craziness. Bad policies at home.
Instability abroad. There's always the risk of a black swan event.
This is a single event that comes out of nowhere, basically decimates or cripples your savings.
So how do we take advantage of the upside of the market and protect ourselves against the downside?
How do we navigate this?
We need some really good guidance here.
Now, you've probably seen Rebecca Walzer on the podcast.
She's an excellent guest.
She's also a tax attorney, a wealth strategist with her MBA from the London School of Economics.
Rebecca and her team can help protect your wealth during these unprecedented times.
Go to friendofdinesh.com.
Book your complimentary introductory call today to see if you qualify.
Again, that's friendofdinesh.com.
In our good news, bad news department, Lori Lightfoot.
I guess I called her...
I keep getting... Let me just tell you, it is so mean.
I keep calling her Lori Big Head, Lori Frightening Face, Beetlejuice.
Yeah, no, that is so mean.
She's a weirdo, but when you say that, I just cringe every time you say that.
I know, but sometimes we have to value truth.
I know, but... But I don't like name Polly.
But anyway, I do at certain times.
But Lori Lightfoot, I think to her own astonishment, has been given the boot.
Now, I thought it's kind of funny.
She apparently said she was defeated by racism and sexism.
Oh, absolutely. She played the race card, the gender card, every other card there is to play.
I'm surprised she didn't come out as transgender and play that card.
I don't even know. Play all the cards.
Let me tell you, she played as many cards as she could.
And she was defeated.
Now, she did run on the basis of the, you know, crime was so high that she vowed to lower crime rate, which, by the way, I think it quadrupled.
It's absolutely horrible. But, you know, let's dissect for a moment this whole I was voted out because of race and gender.
Let's put it this way. Anyone who says that has got to explain how you were originally elected by the same people, even though you're still black, even though you're still a woman.
So it couldn't have been that they were prejudiced against you from the outset because they voted you in.
And I believe she was even reelected.
She only served one term.
I think this is the first time in history, in the 40-year history of Chicago, that a mayor has not won re-election.
Now, we have to discuss this.
She broke that record. Are Chicagoans really getting anything better?
Now, apparently, the way this works is 10 people were in the race.
The top two go into a runoff.
And here are the top two. A white guy, bald guy, I'm looking at his picture here, His name is Paul Vallis, and he's the chief of schools, the chief of the public schools.
That's right there, probably not a good sign.
Some people are describing him as a moderate, but I'm pretty confident he's not all that moderate.
The other guy is an out-and-out far leftist.
Some people call him a Marxist.
His name is Brandon Johnson.
He's a county commissioner.
And so here we go.
We don't want Lori Lightfoot because, you know, it's almost as if Chicagoans don't Are not even seeing a distinction between an individual and a set of policies.
They're not. And they're like, oh, it's Lightfoot.
She failed. Let's get rid of Lightfoot.
Let's bring in some other guy.
Let's bring in Heavyfoot. See if he's better.
Let's bring in a person who's going to follow very similar policies.
It's going to basically toe the leftist Democratic Party line because none of these guys show any sign of breaking with it.
You know, we saw this in New York.
I mean, de Blasio was horrible.
So they go, oh, let's bring in the new guy.
He's going to be different. Well, he said a couple of nice things about the police.
He once praised a policeman.
See, this whole notion that these liberals want crime to go away with social workers.
This is their mentality.
They're going to continue to get crime.
And these things, you know, it's funny.
You don't need a graduate degree to figure this stuff out.
If someone is coming to rob your house, they're outside.
Let's say they're prowling around.
They're looking for a way to break in.
Do you say to yourself, let me go out there.
Let me talk some sense into that guy.
Let me find out what in his life is making him do that.
Why he's acting this way.
Doesn't he have somewhere else he needs to be?
You don't do that. You call the cops.
Why? Because you realize that that's stupid.
And yet that philosophy, which we all acknowledge to be idiotic on the personal, direct, experiential front, suddenly acquires a mystical significance when it's put into sort of political language.
You hear from Ilhan Omar, you'll see, the problem with crime is, you don't understand these neighborhoods are all, this is where these people grow up, this is the situation they're facing, social workers are what they need, not more cops.
Right, right. And so they're not going to see a decline in crime.
I hate to tell you, but it's probably going to get worse.
I mean, can it get worse?
It can, yeah.
I guess it always can.
You know, it can get worse because it can spill into the other communities that don't have it yet.
Yeah. Because, as you know, the inner cities are completely a war zone, but that's the inner city, right?
But the suburbs, it's going to start...
This is why a lot of white progressives, I think, continue to talk this kind of nonsense, and it's because they live in more protected environments.
Even Obama, although he talked about being used from Chicago...
He actually lived in a very tony neighborhood in a very nice house.
So these are people who don't have to directly endure these conditions.
And so they can take a kind of virtuous stance politically.
Outside look. They're looking into the fishbowl kind of thing.
But it will spill over.
And I think until it does, the voters in Chicago are going to realize that they cannot keep electing progressives.
They cannot keep electing Marxists.
And maybe, just maybe, they'll learn a lesson.
And see, when they're authors of these policies, you know, and then the policies come to haunt them, I mean, a classic example was the break-in into the Pelosi home.
You know, now on a human level, yeah, I do sympathize.
But if you listen to my commentaries, there was very little sympathy.
But the reason is why? These are the people who are devising those policies.
They are far more responsible for them than even some ordinary progressive leftist on the street, because that guy's not making the policy.
But Pelosi and her cronies...
Are creating these urban plantations and when the urban plantations come visiting to their home, they don't like it.
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.
Now, 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 these daily.
They're great. You should take them as well.
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. This offer can end at any time, so act now.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Don't forget to use the discount code AMERICA. Debbie and I have a, well, we have an advertising philosophy on this podcast, and that is that we don't take ads for products that we don't use or that we don't like.
So buying an ad on this podcast is not a simple matter of, hey, here's the money.
We want you to read this ad.
No. In fact, we've gotten Debbie sort of laughing because I know what she's thinking.
She's thinking, we've actually gotten offers on like erectile dysfunction.
No thanks. Not needed.
Or we've gotten offers on things like cigars, which, nothing against cigars, I just don't smoke cigars.
Some of your friends have been trying to get you to smoke cigars.
They've been trying to get me to smoke cigars, but I don't do cigars, so I'm not going to go on and read a thing, this cigar is amazing, it's wonderful.
I don't know if it is or if it isn't, so we're kind of particular.
We use the products, the vitamins, and even some of the vitamins that we have Advertise for that we no longer do, we still use them.
We still use them.
Now, we want to talk to you actually about the latest.
This has become a little bit of a mini, well, obsession is too strong a word, but we're very involved now in a diet program that is called PhD Weight Loss.
So Debbie's going to talk about how this, well, tell people how this kind of came about.
How did the program get going and how did we get into it?
I'm just laughing because you like to clean about me.
We don't want people to be looking at a piece of tissue that you've casually deposited on the table in front of you.
People can see the table.
They get fixated on the tissue and they're like, oh my gosh.
Sorry, sorry. Anyway, continue.
All right. So we went to Israel.
Well, let me just back up.
So, so PhD weight loss is, um, is a, a company that, uh, Seb Gorka was advertising for one of the times that he interviewed you at home, you know, you were on his zoom interview and he talked about it.
So when you guys were on a break, I was like, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you talking about?
Cause I don't know if a lot of you know this, but I, I've talked about my weight gain and we've talked about gaining weight during COVID and menopause and how I haven't been able to lose any weight and all of those things.
So anyway, I was intrigued, right?
So I asked him about it.
He goes, oh yes, you know, Katie and I have been on this.
We've lost a lot of weight.
You know, we'll get you set up and whatever.
Then we forgot about it.
And then when we were in Israel and they came on, they looked amazing.
Well, and they were whipping out their before and after photos.
Here's Seb Borca holding out his pants, you know, like two feet out here.
But again, we sort of forgot about it again.
And then we get an email while we're in Israel from one of our sales reps and they said, You know, they're ready to get on board, but you guys have to be on it.
You have to be on this diet.
And I think this itself is kind of funny because it means that obviously PhD weight loss had checked us out.
These guys are going to be slightly porkers, so they could probably benefit from this.
And quite honestly, Debbie, who is...
I'm not much of a dieter and I've never been...
I've done one diet in my life.
You've done about 10 of them or more.
Since menopause, I have tried five or six.
And I'm not even kidding. Yeah.
And the needle would not move an inch.
So I was like, yeah, I'm done.
I'm just going to, you know, I'm just going to get fat.
I'm just done. Fat affirmation.
Fat affirmation. So anyway, so they came to us and we started this four weeks ago.
February 1. February 1.
So... Now, it is a diet that takes, you know, you have to really want to do it, and you've got to be willing to sort of train your mind a little bit, because it's not going to, at the beginning, there's two phases.
It's got the weight loss phase and the so-called maintenance phase.
We are in the weight loss phase, and we're only four weeks into it.
And while in the very first week, it's like, hey, you got to get used to this.
They send you, by the way, breakfast and lunch and snacks.
You do kind of dinner on your own, but they're very careful in telling you, this is what you can eat, this is what you can't eat.
So I'll give you an example.
So I've been...
My weight loss has been a lot slower than yours, primarily because I'm a woman, you're a man.
But I just...
For some reason, my metabolism is extremely slow.
And so we were having what's called oatmeal.
It's not really oatmeal like normal, but it's a modified- It's a high protein.
High protein, yes. But it has carbs.
So this is not keto for people that are thinking this is keto.
This is- It's kind of a hybrid.
But anyway, so I am now not going to eat that to see if my weight loss will accelerate a little bit.
Stay tuned. But I mean, you've got to go with results here.
Almost, so a little over 6 pounds, 13 pounds for you.
But 13 pounds in basically 30 days.
I mean, this is amazing. And not even 30 days because February doesn't have 30 days.
So four weeks.
What happened is at the end of the first week, and the first week was tough on both of us, and especially me because I'm so used to, you know, we're going to watch something in our media room.
I'm like, I got to bring us some dried fruit and snack on it.
Yeah. And so you've got to commit yourself not to do that.
But I look at the scale at the end of one week and I'm down, what, six and a half pounds?
Yeah, you lost a lot of weight.
And you lost about three.
And then in subsequent weeks, it's less.
But again, average it out.
I'm averaging, Debbie's averaging one and a half pound a week.
Consistently. So that's over four weeks, six pounds.
And me, over three pounds a week because I'm at 13 pounds for four weeks.
And, you know, we look better.
I mean, we can see it in the mirror clothes that we couldn't wear.
In our clothes? Yeah, yeah. I mean, part of the coolness of this is that it is something that's even portable.
You can live your normal life.
And by the way, we're not hungry.
I mean, I think it's fair to say at no point in the day do we feel like, oh, I'm starving.
Not at all. And when we eat dinner, we don't snack after that.
We're very full, satisfied, the works.
It really works.
We're really excited.
I hope we motivate other people because, again, it's for our health.
It's not even for our looks really so much, but it's our cholesterol.
Well, we're podcasters. It's partly for our looks.
Yeah, okay. But our cholesterol was off the charts.
It was so high. If this were only an audio podcast, we could each be 300 pounds.
Nobody would know the difference.
So since we're presenting ourselves to the camera, let's put it differently.
We're doing this for your sake.
We all know our digital privacy is under attack.
Big tech steals your private information, pictures, chat, email.
This is very bad. So is there a better way?
Yes, 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 signed up for Secure.
We use it. We love it. Secure's proprietary technology allows you to communicate privately without fear of spying from big tech companies, your email provider, or hackers.
Use Secure to chat or email with everyone, including non-secure users, thanks to Secure's unique features called SecureSend and Chat by Invite.
Secure is an email and messaging application that guarantees your privacy.
Go to secure.com.
That's S-E-K-U-R dot com.
Use promo code Dinesh to get 25% off for the next 24 months.
S-E-K-U-R Secure dot com.
I'm continuing my discussion of Christian apologetics, focusing on my book, What's So Great About Christianity?
A book I undertook to write because I wanted to make the case for Christianity in its widest scope.
In that sense, my book is different than, say, C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity because Lewis focused on a single argument and sought to kind of drive it home, whereas I come at this by looking at many different disciplines from Philosophy, to science, to anthropology, sociology.
So it gives you a kind of wide-angled view of Christianity.
Now, in this next chapter, which we're going to now move into, it's chapter 14 in the book, it's called The Genesis Problem, and the subtitle is the focus of my investigation.
It's called The Methodological Atheism of Science.
Let's think about that for a moment.
By methodological atheism, I mean that science doesn't set out to prove atheism.
It doesn't set out to show that God doesn't exist.
But it's established a methodology, a modus operandi, a way of operating that inherently excludes It declares at the outset that those things are outside the bounds, are not admissible into science.
And what I want to suggest is that this gives science A way to proceed, to be sure.
And I don't have any objection to science proceeding in this way.
But I think it's very important that we understand what science is and what it isn't.
What it purports to do and show.
And what, because it doesn't even look at it, it cannot purport to do or show.
So we're creating a fence.
We're creating limits around modern science.
And we're going to look at this quite closely.
The problem is really not with science itself.
But with a kind of faulty view of science, and that is the view that science somehow provides a comprehensive framework for understanding man and the universe.
That science is not just a better way to know things, but it is a way to give you the full picture of things.
And so any claim that is unscientific should either be rejected or should basically be looked at askance as if to say that that is an inferior if not faulty way of knowing.
Now, although some scientists present this view of science, that science is the way, it is the path to knowledge, all other paths are sort of dubious, this is presented as the very epitome of rationality.
I'm going to show that it's in fact profoundly irrational.
It's like trying to understand an event.
Let's take, for example, a murder.
Now, you can understand a murder solely through the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
So you bring in biology to describe the state of the body.
The medical examiner, of course, is, let's say, talking biology.
And then you bring in a chemist who will give you the chemistry of the body's deterioration and how the different elements were disrupted.
And then you can bring in a ballistics expert who will describe the physics of what happened.
They'll talk about the gun and the angle of the shot and the velocity of the bullet and maybe even the angle of the blood spatter and so on.
And so you have a full scientific picture of What happened?
But I would argue that that is a grossly inadequate picture, and in fact, it's hard to convict on the basis of the science alone.
Sure, the DNA may be highly incriminating, but let's say you have absolutely no idea why the guy did it.
You don't have the motive. And the motive is outside the bounds of science.
Why? Because the motive is subjective.
The motive involves thoughts and feelings and emotions that might be, at least in a scientific sense, concealed from view.
They can't be objectively determined.
And yet, they're no less real.
In fact, your motive for doing it, the cause of you doing it, what gave you the idea of doing it in the first place, is no less real than the gun.
They're both real, although they're real in a different way.
And so when you do a comprehensive murder investigation, you do look at the science, you look at the physics, the chemistry, and the biology, but you look at a whole bunch of other things.
What were the relationships of the individuals involved?
Were there factors like jealousy or revenge or greed that played into this?
Were they, in fact, the instigating factor that led to all of this occurring, that led to the physics and the chemistry?
So scientists like to say that they're reasonable people.
They say, yeah, we're following the evidence no matter where it leads.
And in fact, to some degree, when I hear some people talk like this, I'm slightly repelled because I've never seen another field where people go around patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves about how rational they are, how strictly their conclusions conform to testing and experience, and how their biases and prejudices are routinely removed through empirical verification and peer criticism.
Here's Carl Sagan. At the heart of science is an openness to new ideas no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive.
Now that's true of science, but the opposite is also true.
You can find all kinds of examples in science of prominent scientists who fought against new ideas, blocked new modes of inquiry, Set up institutions, and we've seen this more recently with COVID. We've seen scientific authorities shut down debate.
So this idea of kind of giving a generic Hosanna, a kind of all-purpose genuflection to science, I think is itself irrational, and it's something we'll explore in more detail in subsequent days.
Aches and pains can be so distracting, so disruptive to our ordinary life.
Now, 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.
How does it work? 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 they know it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer. She can now do the exercises that for a long while she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a big 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 three-week quick start for the discounted price of only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call the new number 800-4-RELIEF. I'm discussing a topic that sounds a little abstruse or a little bit technical, but it's really not. It's the methodological atheism of science.
And how science, in a sense, brings with it a certain dogmatism toward topics like transcendence, subjectivity, miracles, and the supernatural.
Science excludes them without even being really willing to take a hard look.
We see this in the way that scientists and science organs, science institutions, but also science journals, talk about scientific concepts that have some transcendent or theological implications.
Several years ago, the eminent science writer John Maddox, a very respected figure in the science community, published an article in Nature, considered by some the leading scientific journal in the world, titled, Down with the Big Bang.
Now, think about this.
Why would a scientist say, down with the Big Bang?
Either there was a Big Bang or there wasn't.
And if there was, why would you be down with it?
And down with it here doesn't mean I'm down with it.
I'm okay with it. It means the opposite.
I don't like it. Get rid of it.
So clearly the big bang happened.
Maddox admits it, but he's sort of saying, I wish it didn't.
And here's Arthur Eddington, who was, by the way, a scientist who helped to confirm Einstein's theory of relativity, a British astronomer.
And Arthur Eddington describes the Big Bang as, quote, repugnant.
Same attitude. I don't like it.
And Eddington says he's looking for, quote, a genuine loophole in order to, quote, allow evolution in infinite time to get started.
Wow. So here's what Edison is saying.
Evolution may not have enough time because all these changes described by Darwin would take a very long time to occur.
Now, of course, if time stretches back to infinity, if the universe has always existed, then there would be time.
Because there's no end, if you will, to the amount of time.
So Eddington believed, I kind of need to give evolution that.
I want to believe in evolution.
I don't want to believe in the Big Bang.
Think about this. This is a scientist talking, but he's not talking like a scientist.
Here's physicist Stephen Hawking saying why a large number of scientists did not like the Big Bang and wanted to support the steady state.
The theory of a universe that, in a sense, creates and dissolves matter, almost, you may say, on its own.
A very bizarre theory that's now completely discredited.
And here is Hawking writing, quote,"...there were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning." Probably because it smacks of divine intervention.
And there is Hawking letting the cat out of the bag.
And some scientists like Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate, I think for a long time at Cornell, he describes, quote, he talks about, quote, nicely avoiding the problem of Genesis.
So what is exactly this problem of Genesis?
Here's astronomer and physicist Lee Smolin.
He says, look, if the universe started at a fixed point in time, quote, this leaves the door open for a return to religion.
And Smolin is outraged by this.
He doesn't like this idea.
He goes, quote, must all of our scientific understanding of the world really come down to a mythological story in which nothing exists save some disembodied intelligence who, desiring to start a world, chooses the initial conditions and then wills matter into being?
So here is Smolin.
He is, in fact, drawing the most obvious conclusion from the idea of a universe that has a beginning in time and, by the way, in space.
He's drawing the most obvious conclusion and going, I can't stand it.
I refuse emotionally and temperamentally and perhaps even morally to accept that it happened that way.
Again, these are professional scientists at the best universities talking and they're not speaking in the language of science.
And here's Smolin. He goes on.
He says, It seems to me that the only possible name for such an observer is God.
After all, God would have to be the all-powerful, all-knowing, and immaterial, quote, disembodied intelligence that did all this.
And Smolin continues, and that theory is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds.
So here is a scientist giving a completely non-scientific reason for rejecting a theory, which is what?
The theory is basically, it has supernatural implications.
It has religious implications.
It seems to vindicate Judaism and Christianity.
It brings back into the picture the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
And on those grounds, I reject it.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection