All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:41
SILENCING ELON Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep533
| 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 Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on Elon Musk in an effort to undermine his free speech project. I'll expose how private money is distorting the so-called impartial work of the World Health Organization. And I want to deplore the US effort to keep the world's top tennis player Novak Djokovic out of the country on account of his not being vaccinated.
This is the Nash 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.
Who is the greatest champion of free speech in the world today?
I think there's really only one answer to that question, and it is Elon Musk.
At great cost to himself, also at considerable risk of his reputation, Elon Musk has taken up this cause and taken it up with a vengeance.
In fact, his purchase of Twitter, $44 billion.
Wow. It's a vehicle of Elon Musk fighting valiantly the free speech battle.
And it's hard to say a bigger battle that is more important to fight today.
It's amazing how censorship has not only gained a foothold, it's become the operating manual for huge and powerful government agencies, nonprofits, even corporations have now gotten into the act.
And all of these nasty things like cancel culture come out of this attempt to repress and suppress free speech.
Well, it looks like the Biden administration, which is part of the censorship brigade, is trying to fight back against Twitter, is trying to squash and pressure and silence Elon Musk.
And since Musk took over Twitter, which was October 27th of last year, he has gotten no less than 12 letters from the Federal Trade Commission asking him all kinds of questions and asking him to supply all kinds of data.
So, the FTC, which, by the way, is run by a left-wing Democrat.
Her name is Lina Khan.
In fact, she used to be an investigator on the Democratic side for the House.
And now she's running the FTC, and she is demanding that Elon Musk turn over internal communications.
But here's the interesting point.
Quote, Granted access to company records.
So this is a reference to people like Barry Weiss and Matt Tybee and others who have been putting out the Twitter files.
And the FTC wants to know, who are these people?
Now, really, this is something that anyone who cares about free speech, and particularly about a free press, about journalism, should be very worried about.
And it's really interesting that the media, which you'd think could have a stake, In protecting free speech.
Nevertheless, doesn't seem to object these days to this kind of thing.
Why? Because they want to censor people.
They want to block even journalism that's occurring on the right.
Look at all the calls right now to shut down Fox News, silence Tucker Carlson.
And I'm sure that if they could get people like Matt Tybee shut up, they would be delighted to do it.
The FTC has been in communication with Twitter for a while.
Apparently, Twitter, going all the way back to 2011, signed a consent order which said that they would cooperate with the FTC in investigating, quote, data security lapses.
Let's remember that data security lapses have nothing to do with the Twitter files.
But the FTC is saying, A, hey Elon Musk, after you took over, you fired a bunch of people at Twitter, so we're concerned that the remaining people cannot manage the issue of data security.
So that's the first pretext for looking at Twitter.
And the second one, of course, is the embarrassment.
They don't say this in their letters, but the embarrassment generated by the Twitter files.
The Twitter file is, by the way, the latest one out today by Matt Tybee, exposing what he calls the censorship industrial complex.
It's a pretty long thread with a lot of detail.
Sometimes when this happens, even though it's timely, I don't want to jump the gun because I want to really digest what's going on.
So I'm going to take the weekend to do that and pick up on this topic on Monday.
But point being that people like Matt Tybee have become very dangerous to the censorship industrial complex.
Why? Because they're exposing how government is actively involved.
Government isn't the only censor.
Government works with the Aspen Institute.
It works with the Stanford Internet Observatory.
You've got this kind of octopus of censorship that operates in multiple ways.
Academic researchers are involved.
It's a very disturbing monster that Elon Musk is trying valiantly to slay.
And the FTC is trying to harass him along the way.
There's not perhaps a whole lot they can do to him.
But on the other hand, they do have leverage.
Government institutions and agencies always do.
And at the very least, they have virtually unlimited resources to tie you up, to make you hire armies of lawyers, to deal with them, to keep hauling you in front of them, to make presentations and answer questions.
So, this is nothing more than harassment of Elon Musk.
Fortunately, the GOP majority in the House is on to this.
They have now exposed it.
In fact, they're the ones that put out these repeated and badgering inquiries from the FTC to Elon Musk.
Elon Musk has commented on it, quote, this is a serious attack on the Constitution by a federal agency.
I think what he means is that this is a serious attack on the constitutional right to free speech.
And elsewhere, Elon Musk again, a shameful case of weaponization of a government agency for political purposes and suppression of truth.
The good thing is that unlike guys like perhaps Tucker Carlson and others, Elon Musk works for himself.
He can't be booted.
He can't be fired. You can't go to Rupert Murdoch and say, shut up, Tucker Carlson.
This is a case where it is ultimately just up to the tenacity and fortitude of Elon Musk.
And so far, I think he has a lot of both.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow are launching MyPillow 2.0.
Now, when Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could want in a pillow.
But now, nearly 20 years later, he's 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 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.
Great 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.
A 60-day money-back guarantee.
So go ahead. Get yours today.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'd like to talk about the capturing of the who.
The who? Who's on first?
Well, I'm not talking about the band.
I'm talking about the World Health Organization.
And I'm going to talk about a little known aspect of the World Health Organization, the way in which it has been Overtaken, manipulated and captured by private money and specifically by the private money deployed by the Gates Foundation by Bill and Melinda Gates.
Now, the World Health Organization was created after World War II. And initially, the idea was that member countries would make contributions and the World Health Organization would be kind of a coordinating group that would work through these countries to help to improve health practices around the world.
Very noble mission. It seemed to work pretty well.
The World Health Organization made some notable advances, including the wide dissemination of smallpox vaccines leading to the virtual eradication of smallpox.
But then what happened in the 1980s is that the World Health Organization began to show signs of being politicized.
And the Reagan administration said, hey, if you keep doing this, we're not going to give you money.
and the World Health Organization panicked, and began to expand its funding to take a lot of money from sort of non-profit groups that could funnel money into the World Health Organization, but also pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.
So suddenly these pharmaceutical, big pharma, began to put conditions on the money.
We'll give you money to do this.
We'll give you money to do that.
And that's troubling enough because you can see how companies like Pfizer can use their leverage now with the World Health Organization financial leverage because they're contributing a significant portion of the budget to influence the WHO agenda.
Let's say that Pfizer has a lot of business in China.
They can tell the World Health Organization, we'd like you to lay off China.
Don't worry about where the virus really came from.
Or just say it came from a wet market.
The largest single donor, private donor, to the World Health Organization is the Gates Foundation.
And as we know, the Gates Foundation is maniacally committed to vaccines.
Now, why is this?
Well, one possibility, of course, is that Bill Gates simply loves vaccines, believes that vaccines are the sort of global solution to health problems.
But another, perhaps less benign possibility is We're good to go.
Of these vaccine companies.
Now, this is really important because, of course, protecting the patent rights means that other companies can't make the same vaccines using the same formulas for a much lower cost.
If these pharmaceutical companies are charging, let's just say, I'm making up this number, $40 for a dose of a particular vaccine, nobody else can make it for $0.40, even though that may be the actual cost or close to the actual cost of making the product.
And so Gates is trying to make sure, it's very clear, that these vaccine companies make a ton of money, a good chunk of which ends up going to him.
Now the World Health Organization is apparently trying to increase the latitude of its power.
It's doing it in sometimes very subtle ways and in sometimes blatant ways.
So the subtle ways are making subtle kind of distinctions.
In WHO literature, for a long time, they talked about being an international organization.
And now they talk about being a global organization.
Now, this seems like wordplay.
It seems like international and global.
What's the difference, really? Well, here's the difference.
An international organization is an organization that coordinates among different countries.
A global organization is a centralized authority that has some kind of global power to impose its will across different countries.
So in the first case, the countries get the final say, and the international organization is the coordinating element.
In the second case, the global organization has the final say, and the countries that belong to this global network are sort of charged with carrying out This global mandate.
So, the World Health Organization has been trying to make a move from being an international group to being a global group.
And we see the practical significance of this in the fact that the World Health Organization now wants to say that for future epidemics, and by the way, they get to define what an epidemic is.
It doesn't even have to be something that is worldwide.
It doesn't seem to have to be something that necessarily has a lot of lethality to it.
It's basically a spreading disease.
They get to declare it's a worldwide epidemic, and now what we say goes.
And this is what they're trying to say, that they want to get these countries around the world to agree to give the WHO final authority in being able to, you may say, direct or perhaps even dictate the courses of action that override the We're good to go.
Discussion of the lab leak hypothesis.
Now they have to admit it's not only a viable hypothesis, it may be the most plausible hypothesis for the origins of COVID-19.
So this is, in my view, a disturbing development that should be resisted.
And yet I think you can predict that the Biden administration is not going to be in the forefront of that resistance.
Debbie and I gained some weight, not telling you how much, too much, during COVID, and we had a choice.
Either go down the fat affirmation route or start dropping some pounds.
We started the PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition program five weeks ago.
Debbie has already lost more than seven pounds, and I'm down 14.
The program is 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 so simple. They make it easy.
They provide 80% of your food at no additional cost and they tell you when and what to eat.
Guess what? You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder is Dr. Ashley Lucas.
She has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition.
She's also a registered dietitian.
She spent her life helping people lose weight, get healthy.
Most important, keeping that weight loss for life.
If you're ready to lose the excess weight, call PHD Weight Loss and Nutrition, the number 864-644-1900 or find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
That number, write it down, it's 864-644-1900.
We know that the mainstream media has a reflexive hostility to all things Trump.
If Trump cured cancer tomorrow, I would love to see the machinations of the media that would try to say that first of all, the cure doesn't work.
Second of all, it wasn't really Trump who did it.
And moreover, that anyone who takes this cure is going to be harmed by it.
Cancer is better than anything that Trump could put on the table.
I mean, the mental gymnastics would be something to behold.
But even though we kind of know this, it's always helpful to see example after example that illuminates how this kind of anti-Trump mentality plays itself out.
I want to give two examples today that pop out.
The first one is This is from an article in Trending Politics.
CNN told staff to avoid lab leak theory due to it being a Trump talking point.
Now, think about this.
CNN is, first of all, not just relying on the fact that its staffers already hate Trump.
They probably don't even need to send out this memo.
But they're sending out a memo because they want to have a corporate-wide response.
And what is it? Ignore the lab leak theory.
Now, it's one thing if CNN said, we've consulted with Dr.
Sanjay Gupta and our medical staff, and we think that this lab leak theory is kind of implausible.
And so, for that reason, we think that our corporate stance should be to go with the follow the science.
But no, on account, due to it being a Trump talking point.
If it's a Trump talking point, we have to be against it.
So here you see the blatant, organized effort by CNN to go against a theory that not only has a lot going for it, but could very well be the origin of a global pandemic.
And a major news organization that covers not just the United States, but the world, doesn't want to go with it for one solitary reason that it might help the arguments of one Donald Trump.
So even Elon Musk weighs in on this and he goes that, look, at the very least, we can see from this that CNN does not meet its own billing of being a kind of balanced news organization.
It clearly is not that.
That's, you know, to me an understatement.
But now here's a second example, and this one comes from Politico, and the headline itself tells you where they want to go with it, and yet I will argue that as you start reading the article, the article itself subverts the headline.
So here's the headline.
Die-hard Trump fans make it clear they want DeSantis.
So when I first read the headline, I thought, wow, this is interesting.
Is there some kind of a survey that shows that a majority or even a substantial minority of Trump voters are now defecting over to DeSantis?
Now, it's not enough to just say that a Trump voter went over to DeSantis because pretty much all Republicans voted for Trump or a huge majority of Republicans voted for Trump both in 2016 and 2020.
So just to find a Trump voter who voted for Trump as the candidate...
It's more interesting if you can find people who were for Trump as the nominee.
In Trump in 2016, in the GOP primary, in a crowded field, there are people who came out for Trump.
If you can show that those original Trumpsters are for DeSantis, that would be really interesting to note, because it would seem to suggest some sort of trend underway.
Turns out that Politico merely went to the DeSantis book signings.
In Florida. And there was a line of DeSantis fans who were trying to buy his book.
Now, naturally, that's a pre-selected group of DeSantis enthusiasts.
And so Politico starts interviewing a couple of those.
And even what they say is not even that anti-Trump.
Nita Spatola, who's wearing a DeSantis for Governor cap, she goes, Donald needs to retire and I love Donald.
Okay, that's quote number one.
I move on to the next page and we find Matt Kinsey saying, I would hate to lose him as a governor, but our country is in more dire shape than our state.
So he's willing to export DeSantis from Florida to the country.
And then a guy named Casey Jones says, quote, he was disappointed after Trump took what he called, quote, pot shots at our governor.
Well, I don't think Trump should take pot shots at DeSantis either.
But the point I'm trying to make is that's it.
Three quotations spread out through a four or five page article and that is the sole evidence.
No surveys, no data, no nothing.
All to justify a headline, diehard Trump fans make it clear they want DeSantis.
Now the headline would have been undercut if they said DeSantis.
Three guys who once liked Trump are now voting for DeSantis.
That would give you a better idea of what a pathetic joke of an article this is.
Kind of a waste of time to even read it.
But I'm reading it out of professional duty.
I'm reading it to be able to tell you that this is the way in which the media distort reality.
We all know our digital privacy is under attack.
Big tech steals your private information, pictures, chat, and email.
Very, very bad. So is there a better way?
Well, there is. Secure, spelled S-E-K-U-R, offers secure instant messaging and email hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms and using Swiss privacy laws, which are the strictest in the world.
Debbie and I just signed up for Secure.
We love it. We started using 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 Secure Send 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.
Secure, S-E-K-U-R You might be familiar with the organization called CISA. C-I-S-A. CISA stands for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
It is an organization that is part of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security.
The job of CISA is to monitor cybersecurity, just the way it says, and in particular, cybersecurity as it affects elections.
Now, as it turns out, SISA has been actively involved in censorship.
SISA has been coordinating with digital platforms.
It has been shutting down accounts through these platforms.
It has been calling for people to be suppressed and banned.
It makes lists of people who are supposedly producing election misinformation or disinformation.
It tries to get those accounts cancelled.
So it is part, by the way, working in conjunction with a number of other groups and not to mention the digital platforms themselves, Meta, YouTube, Twitter, and so on.
And now, starting with the Twitter files, but continuing with House GOP investigations, this censorship apparatus is being busted.
It is being blown wide open, and even though at this point nothing has been, quote, done about it, The first step in getting things done is getting information out.
Because why?
When information gets out, people can file lawsuits and go, Hey, listen, I was shot down by Twitter for no reason other than they got my name from a government agency.
This is a direct violation of my free speech.
So this needs to be happening.
And I hope it's happening right now.
If you can find your name, and I can tell you if I find my name delivered to these digital platforms by government agencies for suppression or censorship, you can be pretty sure I'll be forwarding that correspondence to my lawyers.
The House is on to it.
And this also means that the GOP can initiate legislation.
Now, this legislation is not going to go anywhere now.
Why? Because the Democrats hold a very narrow, but they still hold a majority in the Senate.
And of course, you have Biden who can veto laws.
But nevertheless, the legislation serves a purpose, and that is that it forms part of the GOP action agenda for 2024.
Hey, listen, if we have a GOP House and a GOP Congress, these people are going to have to face the music.
And so all of this, and then not to mention, it alerts people on the Supreme Court and on appellate courts that there are massive violations of free speech going on throughout the country, and the fact that these are being cheered by the left, the fact that the media is looking the other way.
Even the ACLU, I notice, is starting to get a little more troubled about the extent of this censorship.
I mean, it's a funny thing to say because the ACLU should be in the forefront of defending free speech, and it clearly isn't.
But on the other hand, it doesn't seem to be entirely comfortable with being on the side of the censor as well.
As it turns out, SISA is now out in the open as part of the censorship system.
The censorship enforcement apparatus.
And so they're trying to now hide this.
And this was actually noticed by Fox News.
And Fox News, which by the way, Fox News normally doesn't do any reporting.
It's almost an embarrassment because what Fox News does is it takes the reporting of other people.
People like Matt Tybee, people that are doing John Solomon.
Our friend Cheryl Atkinson and others, they do the reporting and Fox then basically regurgitates it on the air.
But in this case, I have to give credit to Fox because Fox noticed that CISA has tried to camouflage the magnitude of its involvement with censorship and By changing its own website.
So apparently the CISA website at one point had detailed accounts of CISA's involvement in flagging and taking down social media posts related to elections, to COVID vaccines, a range of other issues that are deemed to be misinformation.
And now when you go to the CISA page, That is all gone.
It's all disappeared off the SISA page.
And now there's kind of a new page.
And the new page basically focuses solely on foreign influence.
Foreign influence in spreading misinformation.
This gives SISA a chance to say, well, listen, you know, just because we're part of Homeland Security, it is our job to monitor foreign actors.
That are producing false information, obviously for the malign purposes of serving foreign state interests.
Fortunately, Representative James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, is now on the case.
And he basically points out that SISA has been operating all this time, quote, in partnership with left-leaning private organizations, which by themselves get millions of dollars in federal money, to take action against political speech unfavorable to the administration and Especially around the handling of COVID-19 policy.
It looks like so many of these organizations went cornered.
They dodge, they hide, they lie.
And SISA seems to be in the forefront of an organization devoted not to public disclosure or even the public interest, but to public deceit.
My dad was kind of old school.
He didn't 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 can be very profitable and make sense if you're in it for the long term.
Problem is, we're in a very rocky economy, a lot of craziness and bad policy at home, a lot of instability abroad.
There's always the risk of a black swan event, a single event that comes out of nowhere and basically decimates your savings.
So how do we take advantage of the upside of the market and protect ourselves against the downside?
We need some really good guidance here.
And my friend, Rebecca Walser, she's a tax attorney and wealth strategist with her MBA from the London School of Economics.
You've probably seen her on the podcast.
I've had her as a guest. We'll have her back.
She and her team can help protect your wealth financially.
Go to friendofdinesh.com and book your complimentary introductory call today to see if you qualify.
Again, that's friendofdinesh.com.
I want to talk about the number one tennis player in the world, Novak Djokovic.
Now Djokovic is a remarkable guy.
He came of age in a time when two of the greatest tennis players, Federer and Nadal, dominated the field.
It looked like they were virtually invincible and Djokovic not only showed that that was not the case, but he showed that he could beat them.
And he was playing these guys in their prime and he emerged as the number one tennis player in the world.
Since then, Djokovic has sometimes slipped out of that ranking, but it's due to the fact that he refuses to take the COVID vaccine.
And so he has been denied entrance to Australia to play the Australian Open.
He couldn't play in the French Open.
And I believe Wimbledon allowed him to play, which, by the way, Debbie and I are very happy about.
We are going to Wimbledon this year.
We've got fabulous center court tickets, and we're hoping to see Djokovic and others in action.
Djokovic is being blocked from coming to the United States.
Apparently he wants to play in the tournament in Indian Wells.
Around the same time there's a tournament in Miami.
I think it's called the Miami Open.
And the Biden administration, the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, won't let him in.
Now, this is downright ridiculous.
It's one thing to do this in June or early 2021.
It's a whole other thing to do it now.
I mean, think about it this way. First of all, an American citizen can go abroad and Catch COVID, come back into the country.
These restrictions don't apply.
Djokovic is actually very careful.
This is a guy who has almost a religious approach.
He's a very spiritual guy on the one hand, but on the other hand, he's also somebody who apparently pays microscopic attention to what goes into his body.
He's very careful what he eats.
He's one of those guys that believes that the condition of his body, staying in top shape, depends upon just a kind of rigorous scrutiny of what he consumes.
And he doesn't want to consume the vaccine, period.
And he's willing to pay the price for it.
So he's not going to be coming here.
To Indian Wells and who knows if he'll be allowed to come in to New York to play the US Open, which of course is several months away, I believe the end of August, early September.
Now... As I say, this to me makes absolutely no sense.
It reflects a kind of dug-in commitment to the vaccine when we know, and it's now widely admitted, I'm actually not even saying anything controversial, this is now even admitted by the Biden administration and by the health authorities,
getting the vaccine does not prevent you from getting COVID. Getting the vaccine does not prevent you from spreading COVID. And therefore, the previous rationales for mandating the vaccine, we need to have a vaccine because people who don't take the vaccine are at risk of putting other people at risk.
Well, people who take the vaccine are also putting other people at risk.
Well, the vaccine is going to save lives.
Well, you can still get COVID. I think that the remaining argument for the vaccine, and it is not an argument without significance, but it's an argument of much more limited scope, that the vaccine has the likelihood, not the certainty, but the likelihood of reducing lethality.
By the way, COVID by itself isn't all that lethal.
If you look at the rates of lethality, they're quite low now for pretty much every group, and they're much lower even for younger groups.
But moreover, the vaccine may, in some cases, reduce the severity of COVID. And that's a good reason.
If you want to take the vaccine for that reason, you can do it.
Now, Ron DeSantis, in his very Ron DeSantian way, has come up with a kind of ingenious solution.
And his solution is, Novak Djokovic can enter the United States by vote.
Right? When I told this to Debbie, she was like, what?
You can get around this DHS rule?
Well, it turns out apparently you can because the DHS rule has a certain scope.
And again, it comes down in many of these cases.
It's a little bit like a tax law.
You've got to actually read the law and you've got to read the text and recognize that the text says something, but it doesn't say something else.
If the text says that it's going to prohibit entry of the United States through, for example, the TSA, it could be that there are ways to get around that.
And so Ron DeSantis has written a letter to the Biden administration basically saying, as far as I can see, there's nothing in the law to prevent Djokovic from entering Miami In a maritime way, through a boat, through a ship.
And Debbie made the point, she goes, maybe the rules are a little more lenient with ships because of all the cruises that come to Florida, that come to the United States.
If they have vaccine requirements on all the cruises, it would probably put a real damper in the cruise industry.
So maybe the cruises were able to talk the administration into not having the same kind of strict vaccine requirement for foreign nationals who come...
Via cruise to the United States.
So in any event, it looks like DeSantis is going to verify with the Biden administration that this is in fact what the law says.
And then Novak Djokovic will have a way.
Who knows if he'll want to.
He might be indignant and go, forget it.
I don't care about the Miami Open.
I'm not going to be subjected to this kind of indignity.
Besides, I'm not going to come by boat.
It's going to take me like four weeks to get there or Two weeks to get there, not four weeks.
And so he may not choose to avail himself of this option, but I think this shows the operational ingenuity of DeSantis in looking at this law, recognizing he's not going to get the Biden people to change it, and trying to find a way around it.
Aches and pains are not something you just have to live with.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor works by supporting 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 loves it. She's now able to do the exercises that for a while 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 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.
That number again, 800-4-RELIEF, or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. Some people say that there is a genocide going on in Nigeria.
I say some people say because the term genocide is itself a legal term and it refers to mass killing.
Now, there is in fact mass killing going on in Nigeria.
Whether or not it is genocide can be debated.
But let's look at what is in fact going on in Nigeria.
And all of this has given a certain pressing relevance because the Biden administration has removed Nigeria from the list of countries that are vulnerable to intense religious persecution.
This is a very telling move by the Biden administration because, as it turns out, religious persecution is perhaps worse today in Nigeria than it is anywhere else in the world.
So you might ask, why would the US government remove Nigeria from this list?
And the short answer is because the people being persecuted are Christians.
If the people being persecuted are Muslims, the left and the Biden administration immediately shows concern.
In fact, there were some media reports about the alleged kidnapping of some Muslim worshippers in Nigeria, and there was a flurry of news articles about it.
Then it turned out that the women who were kidnapped were not Muslim, but were Christians, and the articles immediately disappeared.
Suddenly it was like it didn't really matter, not something really worthy of coverage.
And so it's important to realize that when we see articles, we've got to now realize that the media is reporting articles primarily that fit the left's ideological narrative.
Nigeria, like a number of other African countries, has a mixed Christian and Muslim population.
This in itself is interesting because at one point some of these countries, these North African countries and these also countries throughout Africa, were overwhelmingly Muslim.
But in the last several decades, there have been huge inroads by Christians, large numbers of conversions, and countries that were once 95% Muslim are now 50% Muslim and 50% Christian.
Now, this has produced tensions between the Muslims and the Christians.
In Nigeria, you've got a tribal Muslim leader And this is a guy named Muhammad Buhari.
He comes from the Fulani tribe.
And so you not only have tribal hostility in Nigeria, but you also have Muslim hostility toward Christians.
And Fulani is blatantly favoring, I'm sorry, Buhari is blatantly favoring members of his own tribe and favoring Muslims who come from the northern part of the country over Christians who come from the southern part of the country.
Well, that is the way political power is exercised, but above and beyond this favoritism, you also have the kidnapping of Christians, the assaults on churches.
You have thousands of Christians who have been killed, apparently.
This according to a religious freedom group, that just in the first month of 2023, which is January, Muslims slaughtered 60 Christians in Nigeria, raided churches, and kidnapped women and children.
About 14 Nigerian Christians die now.
Every day, every day for their faith.
So this is a country, and by the way, I saw, and this is kind of a very interesting correlation, I saw separately that the rates of church attendance in Nigeria are huge.
In other words, persecuted communities tend to develop a strong sense of solidarity, a strong sense of defiance, and it appears that the Nigerian church is strong Not just despite the persecution, but even arguably because of it.
But you would think that the Biden administration would include Nigeria, along with other countries, on a list that is called the CPC list.
CPC just stands for countries of particular concern.
And these are countries that are known to suppress religious freedom.
But look, the Biden administration no more cares about religious freedom abroad than it cares about religious freedom in this country.
Under COVID, they were happy to suppress religious freedom in all kinds of ways.
And it looks like the only religious freedom that they care about is...
The religious freedom of the Muslims.
And in some cases, the religious freedom of atheist groups that are suing to remove religious monuments, at least in this country.
So, this is a move that is being universally condemned by religious freedom groups.
Yes, it's being condemned by a bunch of Christian groups, but it's also being condemned by bipartisan groups That look at religious freedom violations and compile lists, they are saying, why does the Biden administration, why have they taken this action at a time when the Nigerian Christians are perhaps the most vulnerable religious believers in the world?
And I think the answer to that, which seems virtually unavoidable, is that this is not the kind of violation that the Biden people are concerned about.
Normally on the podcast, guys, it's me talking and you listening or you watching.
But on my Locals channel, it isn't like that.
I do a live Q&A once a week and you can weigh in in real time and I respond to you very often by name.
I also respond to your comments in the feed.
So Locals is a place where I can not only interact with you, but I can cover topics that are censored in social media.
Censored by YouTube. Censored by Facebook.
So it's a terrific platform and I urge you to check it out.
You can become a monthly subscriber or you can become an annual subscriber.
And you can check it out before you even do those two things.
So go to dinesh.locals.com.
That's the website. I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, check it out. dinesh.locals.com.
modern science contains within it a kind of commitment to materialism and to naturalism. And I've argued that this creates a sort of procedural atheism in modern science.
Why? Because when you're committed to a materialist universe, naturalistic explanations, you write off the possibility of miracles or the supernatural or the transcendent right off the bat.
You don't consider those.
And now I want to say why I think that that's okay.
It's okay for science to be procedurally atheist in this way, as long as it's not confused with the kind of metaphysical atheism.
In other words, procedural atheism, which is to say materialism and naturalism, are a good operational way to let science do its job, as long as we understand that science's job is not the only job.
Now, scientists who are religious know this, and they don't have any problem with the parameters of science, as long as science itself recognizes those parameters.
By the way, biologist Francis Collins, former head of the NIH, He says, hey, look, I can investigate biological forces, biological causes, even natural explanations for transitions among life forms, and yet I don't believe that that's the only explanation.
I don't believe that supernatural forces are not at work.
He says, quote, science is not the only way of knowing.
Here's astronomer Owen Gingrich, who spent his life at Harvard.
Science works within a constrained framework in creating its brilliant picture of nature.
This does not mean that the universe is actually godless, just that science within its own framework has no other way of working.
And yet Gingrich says, hey, when I look at that same universe, I see that, quote, reality goes much deeper than the scientific portrait of it.
Now, the unfortunate thing is that just as you have religious scientists, you have atheist scientists who look at science as a kind of truncheon, a sword with which to slay theism and specifically Christianity.
And they admit it. That's what's so interesting in my book, What's So Great About Christianity.
As you can see, I always give you quotes.
I give you chapter and verse.
So here's the biologist Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize.
Watson and Crick, of course, discovered the structure of the DNA molecule.
Here's Crick. He says, his commitment to materialism and hostility to religion motivated him to enter this field.
Meaning science. He became a scientist because he was anti-religious.
Quote, So Crick is saying, I figured if I go into science, I can try to provide naturalistic explanations for things that religious believers attribute to God.
In the same vein, physicist Steven Weinberg from Cornell, he says that his hope is that science will liberate people from religion, unquote.
This is one of the things that in fact has driven me in my life.
So his commitment to being a scientist exists kind of inside this philosophical commitment to trying to knock down, if you will, religious claims and religious dogmas.
The problem, as I mentioned a moment ago, is that the adversaries of religion, Crick, Weinberg, guys like Dennett, Dawkins, they conflate procedural atheism with philosophical atheism.
They act as if the two are the same thing.
And they act as if because science has a way of knowing, that's the only way of knowing.
And therefore, when science says things like, we can't look at miracles, they conclude there are no miracles.
We can't look at the supernatural, there is no supernatural.
We can't look at transcendence, there is no transcendence.
So, this is kind of a logical fallacy.
It's stating something that you don't know.
I don't know if there's another life, therefore, there is no other life.
Discovering whether there's another life is outside the bounds of empirical science.
Therefore, the afterlife does not exist.
So, you don't need to be a logician to see that this is a non-sequitur, but nevertheless, here we go.
You find this suffusing the work of the so-called new atheists.
Now, I'll close with an example that the physicist John Polkinghorne gives to illustrate the limitations of science.
And it's an example I like to give in some of my talks on apologetics.
And it's a very simple one.
That's why it's so powerful.
Basically, John Polkinghorne says, let's say I'm boiling a cup of tea.
And I now ask a simple question, why is the water boiling?
He says here's the scientific answer.
The scientific answer is in terms of molecules and temperatures.
The scientific explanation is the molecules are expanding and so they create this boiling effect and so the explanation is given in materialistic or naturalistic terms.
But Paul Kinghorn says, look, there's another explanation of why the water is boiling and that's because Dinesh is making tea.
And that is not only a valid explanation, it is in fact the explanation.
If Dinesh wasn't making tea, none of these other physical effects of molecules expanding would even be taking place.
In fact, he wouldn't have turned on the oven or he wouldn't have turned on the burner in the first place.
So the scientific explanation is right.
It's a valid description of reality, but it's an inadequate explanation.
It doesn't supply motive.
It doesn't show why this thing is going on in the first place.
So the point is that science does not even claim to give a full explanation of reality.
It's only describing one aspect of reality.
▲
Export Selection