All Episodes
Previous Next
April 10, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
52:13
HEAD OF THE SNAKE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep554
| 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 argue that countries are moving away from the U.S. because they increasingly believe that we are now the evil empire, and there is some basis for that belief.
I'm chuckling over the fact that NPR, BBC, and other government-funded agencies are running away from the fact that they transmit state-organized propaganda.
Governor Abbott is on the way to pardoning a convicted murderer.
I'll explain why that's actually a good thing.
And activist Callie Fontania joins me.
We're going to talk about, well, she's going to reveal her inner woke alter ego.
This is The Dinesh D'Souza Show.
Mm. America needs this voice.
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.
The United States, it seems, is...
With surprising rapidity, losing its position in the world, losing its dominant position in the world.
And it's now being seen as just a part of a multipolar global environment with many other emerging powers and superpowers.
And in some quarters, mainly traditional societies in the world, the United States is even being seen as a bad guy, as an evil empire of a sorts.
Now, when I think back on this, it all is such a eerie reversal because Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire.
The only people who would call the United States an evil empire were Islamic radicals.
By flashback now to about 2000, 2001, bin Laden gave a kind of an infamous address in which he talked about the United States as, quote, the head of the snake.
And part of his argument is that there were many evil powers in the world, some of the Gulf kingdoms, Israel, but the head of the snake, the worst, the power spreading its influence to all the others, was in fact the United States.
And when you see the Biden administration relentlessly promoting these LGBTQ agendas, I just saw on television Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, he goes, LGBTQ now is a foreign policy.
Think about that. Think about going to people around the world, traditional people in Asia, in Africa, some in South America, certainly in the Middle East.
And trying to force them to change their laws and fly LGBTQ flags and tie U.S. trade deals and U.S. technology agreements and also U.S. aid all to embracing this agenda that many of them find morally abhorrent.
I mean, this is a problem.
And it goes beyond the social agenda.
Here you have the United States, which it now seems has been the key player, in fact, maybe the initiator, of blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
And after some reporting on this and some admissions by deep state officials in the United States, well, yes, this was done by Ukrainian saboteurs, but then people said, wait a minute, Ukrainian saboteurs can't do this on their own.
they're not going to be able to pull off this kind of operation in a highly guarded area.
It seems to involve the cooperation of the Norwegians and the Finns. So you get these Scandinavian governments participating. That has to be something organized by the United States.
And recently in the New York Times, very interesting, a long article about the Nord Stream pipeline that concludes in effect, it may be in no one's interest to find out more about who did this.
This is almost like something the New York Times reporter got from some CIA official.
Hey, listen, put out the idea that nobody really wants to find out.
Well, who's going to say that?
Who's the kind of person who says nobody wants to find out?
Usually it's the perpetrator.
Usually it's the people who did it.
They're like, yeah, it's not really that important to know who did it.
Let's just acknowledge that it happened and kind of move on.
So think about, again, how the world is going to react when you have the United States and condemning international terrorism, going after people and saying, listen, you're a terrorist.
This is a terrorist organization.
You're on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
And here's the United States covertly.
It'd be one thing if the United States said, listen, you know, we are at war with Russia.
We are openly taking the side of Ukraine.
Yes, of course, we're going to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline.
That's the way in which the Russians...
But that's too provocative.
The Russians might then decide they're going to start blowing up.
American targets, they might decide, let's escalate, move closer into the nuclear arena.
So you don't want to do that.
So you do this covertly.
You act like... We don't know who did it.
Oh, it's probably some renegade Ukrainians, kind of like in the movies.
It's never really the communists who do it.
It's just some renegade who wants to set up his own evil empire, and he's the guy that's doing it that James Bond has to then track down.
Now, here are two signs of the new order, the new world order, if I can put it that way, to use a known phrase that seems to be emerging.
India, I read this in the Indian press, India is now selling 200,000 barrels of oil a day to the EU. And when I saw that, I was like, India is selling barrels?
India doesn't have any oil. India has very little oil.
So how is India able to sell 200,000 barrels a day to the EU? Well, here's the answer.
The Indians buy the oil from the Russians.
They mark it up to make a kind of middleman's profit, and then they sell it right back to the EU. So the point is that the EU says, oh yeah, we're joining the United States.
We have all these sanctions. We stand in solidarity with Ukraine.
We're not buying oil from Russia.
Okay, the Russians sell it to the Indians.
The Indians turn around and sell it to the EU. So Russian oil ends up in the EU and the Indians are quite happy to make a kind of middleman's commission on the deal.
The French President Emmanuel Macron just got back from, guess where?
China. And here is what he comes back saying, quote,"...the great risk Europe faces is, quote, getting caught up in crises that are not ours." He goes on to say, hey listen, everyone keeps dragging us into Ukraine and they keep dragging us into Taiwan.
They want us to issue an ultimatum that if China does something with Taiwan, we're going to be there fighting on the Taiwanese side.
He goes, listen, that's not necessarily our fight.
I mean, I'm spelling out a little bit more what Macron is getting at, but what he's basically saying is, if America wants to do these things, it doesn't mean that Europe has to go along.
He goes, in effect, the question Europeans need to answer, is it in our interest to accelerate a crisis on Taiwan?
No. The worst thing would be to think we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction.
He also goes on to say that it might be in Europe's interest to have China as a regional superpower.
In other words, what he's saying is, why does Europe want a unipolar world with the United States telling everybody else what to do?
I think the point I'm making here is not just that there is this resistance that's building up, including the key point here and the reason I'm focusing on Europe is Europe, this is supposed to be our allies.
This is how our allies are talking now.
And I think what this means is that the United States has, through the Biden regime, squandered our claim to leadership, is disgracing ourselves in front of the world.
Even I mentioned a couple of, a few days ago last week, the president of Puny El Salvador, he's like, wait a minute, if the United States is going to arrest the leader of the opposition party, How can you arrest other countries when they do the same thing?
Whatever you think about Trump, whatever you think about the merits of the case, if El Salvador did that or some other country did that, the United States immediately becomes very huffy, draws itself up to full height.
No, this kind of behavior is not characteristic of a free society.
Well, wait a minute, a lot of things going on in the United States today don't seem to be characteristic of a free society either.
Look, you did the tough thing for your business during COVID, you paid your people and pulled your business through the pandemic and now doing the tough thing could qualify you for up to $26,000 per employee at covidtaxrelief.org.
Government funds are available to reward companies with two or more employees that stayed open during COVID.
This is not a loan and you don't have to pay it back.
This program is complicated, but nobody knows more about it than the CPAs and tax experts at covidtaxrelief.org.
You pay nothing upfront, they do all the work and share a percentage of the cash that they get you.
Businesses of all types, including nonprofits and churches can qualify, including those who took PPP loans even if you had increases in sales.
You did the tough thing for your employees during COVID.
Now, let covidtaxrelief.org help get you up to $26,000 per employee.
Visit covidtaxrelief.org.
That's covidtaxrelief.org.
I've been quite amused at a controversy on Twitter that has to do with these government bankrolled media agencies.
I'm thinking of places like NPR, National Public Radio, or even in Great Britain, the BBC. Now, Twitter did something that was a little naughty but not all that naughty and in some ways quite accurate, which is that in the label of identification, it identified NPR as And the BBC as state-affiliated media.
State-affiliated media.
Now think about it. This is clinically accurate.
Why? Because NPR is a creation of the government.
It receives, and I'll tell you in a minute how much, a lot of funding from the government.
Now NPR also raises funds from corporations, from private sources and so on.
But the government is a prime funder of NPR, as we'll see.
Same is, of course, true of the BBC. But when Twitter just takes the step of simply noting, think about what state-affiliated media means.
You're a media organ affiliated or connected with the state.
True or false? True!
But NPR says, well, not really.
We have editorial independence.
We're able to speak our minds.
We're able to speak truth to power.
And then I say to myself, well, give me an example of the last time you spoke truth to power.
With the Biden administration in place, show me some critiques that you've done on NPR of Biden regime policies.
Well, as far as I know, there are none.
And so what you have is you have NPR basically doing the bidding of the Biden regime while pretending to an editorial independence that I think is somewhat questionable.
It's questionable only because of the golden rule, right?
What's the golden rule? He who provides the gold...
Welcome to my show!
NPR received $640 million of federal funding.
2022, a little bit less, $485 million.
So, state-affiliated media just seems like an accurate description.
Now, the reason that NPR is very angry is the state-affiliated media makes it sound like they're like...
You know, the same media that we get out of China, which is essentially a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party.
Remember in the old Soviet era, you had Pravda and Izvestia, organs basically of the Soviet government.
Now, there are obviously some distinctions to be made.
Pravda and Izvestia are not going to report anything on their own.
They are... We're good to go.
Here, by the way, is a guy on social media.
Hey Elon Musk, the BBC is not funded by the UK government.
It is funded by the British public through a system known as the license fee.
Wait a minute. The government imposes a compulsory license fee or a tax on the British people.
It collects that license fee or tax and then it gives it to the BBC. Well, what does this mean?
The BBC is funded through a license fee.
The amount of the license fee, by the way, is set by the government through this license fee settlement.
It is government mandated.
So, again, the BBC is just as much a part of the British government as NPR is of the government here.
Now, in a kind of...
Elon Musk is a genial guy.
And so he said, all right, let me modify this NPR label.
And so he has agreed to change it from state-affiliated media to, quote...
Government funded. Again, nothing could be more accurate.
In fact, government funded is a little bit of an understatement of the relationship here.
Because after all, government funds all kinds of projects, small businesses, and so on.
And NPR's relationship with the government is not the same.
Certainly when you're getting something like half a billion dollars every year from the government, That's a pretty big chunk of change.
And by the way, when people talk about defunding NPR, taking away this government subsidy, NPR screams, puts out screeds and press releases basically saying, you know, we need this government money.
We are a public institution that is devoted to the public trust and we're serving the public.
So in other words, they highlight the necessity of government funding when it becomes convenient or when they need it.
And then later, in a different context, they turn around and say, government funding?
Oh, well, that's hardly, that's really nothing.
We don't really depend on it.
It's not important to us.
It's completely inaccurate to simply reflect the fact that we are bankrolled by the taxpayer, even though in fact we are.
In our last visit to the Rio Grande Valley, I gave my mother-in-law the new Neo MD hearing aid.
She loves how small it is and we love the price.
The reality is that millions of adults over the age of 65 start to lose their hearing.
If you think you could use a little help in the hearing department, You gotta check out MDHearing.
MDHearing is an FDA-registered, rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost.
MDHearing's new NEO model costs over 90% less than clinic hearing aids.
And the new Neo model is MD Hearing's smallest hearing aid ever.
It fits inside your ear.
No one will even know it's there.
MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them.
He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford.
So if you want MDHearing's smallest and most affordable hearing aid ever, go to mdhearing.com and use promo code Dinesh to get their new Buy One Get One, $149.99 each offer when you buy a pair.
Plus, they're adding a free extra charging case, $100 value, just for listeners of my podcast.
That's mdhearing.com, promo code Dinesh.
I would like to talk about a murder case in Texas that was proceeding in a very disturbing way, but fortunately it has a happy ending.
The happy ending it may seem strange to say is that a convicted murderer named Perry Daniel Perry is going to go scot-free.
Now, you may think it odd. Why is Dinesh saying it's a good thing that a convicted murderer is going free?
Well, he's going to be pardoned by the Texas governor, Greg Abbott.
And when you hear about the case, you'll see why this is a very good thing.
So Daniel Perry is a sergeant, an army soldier, a former army soldier, who is now an Uber driver.
And in July of 2020, he was driving his Uber when this was the time of the unrest and the post-George Floyd activism and so on.
And so you have all these activists who surround his car.
And a BLM activist named Garrett Foster approaches him, pointing his gun at him.
And what does Daniel Perry do in self-defense?
He draws his weapon and fires and kills Garrett Foster.
Now, normally in Texas, when the facts are, as I just described, someone is approaching you, you're in an encircled or vulnerable position, you have good reason to fear for your safety and your life, and somebody draws a weapon and points it at you, you have every right to shoot.
That is about as clear as you can find in Texas law.
But this incident occurred in Travis County, which is the Austin area.
Austin, by the way, is the most liberal part of Texas.
Austin can be compared to places like Ann Arbor, Michigan or Berkeley.
They often say that the motto of Austin is keep Austin weird and there are lots of weirdos in Austin and let's remember some of these weirdos are going to show up in the jury.
You also have a left-wing prosecutorial establishment so they decide to go after this guy for murder.
And what's even worse, they don't just go after him, they suppress evidence.
So the lead detective, a guy named David Fugitt, F-U-G-I-T-T, has alleged that the prosecutors in Travis County did not show, did not produce a whole bunch of evidence That is exculpatory.
So essentially what they did is they selectively went through the evidence.
So this is all very familiar.
We've seen this with regard to January 6th defendants in D.C. We've seen it with New York juries, and here it is in Texas, in Travis County.
And the lead detective goes, this is not fair.
In fact, he files a complaint through an affidavit basically saying that they have engaged here in a kind of withholding of exculpatory evidence before the grand jury.
And so this is a very bad case all around and it's produced a lot of outrage here in Texas, probably spilling beyond Texas.
And I was a little afraid that as often happens when these things occur, Republicans tend to sit back and go, well, listen, that's the court system.
We may not like it, but we got the best jury system in the world.
It doesn't always produce a just result, but it's the best system we have, etc.
But no, in this case, Greg Abbott has jumped into the fray, and I'm now quoting from his tweet.
He goes, I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of So this is actually great.
Why? Because if this can move swiftly enough, this guy, Perry, may just end up spending, what, a few days in jail.
Abbott goes on to say, Texas has one of the strongest stand your ground laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney. So what he's getting at here is he's basically saying the district attorney and the jury have abused the law. They have sort of ignored the law. They have engaged in a certain kind of judicial activism of the worst sort, and they are trying to send an innocent man to what very
likely could be prison for life for acting in self-defense. And so Governor Abbott, now it would be great if he just said, I'm going to pardon the guy, case closed.
But what he says, the Texas Constitution limits the governor's pardon authority to act on a recommendation by the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
So essentially, the governor is directing the Board of Pardons and Paroles to review the facts of the case and make a recommendation to him.
I'm assuming that no matter what the recommendation is, He can act on the recommendation.
The governor can either way.
And then a further happy postscript.
He goes, Additionally, I have prioritized reigning in rogue district attorneys, and the Texas legislature is working on laws to achieve that goal.
We all know our digital privacy is under attack.
Big tech steals your private information, your pictures, your chat, your email.
This is all very, very bad.
So is there a better way?
Well, yes, there is.
Secure, spelled S-E-K-U-R, offers secure instant messaging and email hosted in Switzerland and without using any of the big tech platforms and using Swiss privacy laws, which are the strictest in the world.
Davi and I signed up for Secure.
We're using 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 security.
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.
Go to secure.
S-E-K-U-R dot com.
Guys, we have a little bit of a different approach with our guest today.
In fact, normally I try to have intelligent conservatives, conservatives who are doing interesting stuff on the podcast.
But I encountered a very interesting character on social media coming from the left and evidently using the name Luna Activist Teacher.
Now, this is a woke character, and I replied to one of the posts, and I said something dismissive.
And basically, what I got back is, Dinesh, you know, you're living, you don't understand the woke personality, you don't understand what wokeness really is.
So I was like, you know what? I'm telling you, Luna, why don't you come on my podcast and explain wokeness to my audience?
And so, without further ado, I want to introduce Luna...
Activist teacher.
Luna, welcome to the podcast.
I gotta say, based on social media, it was a little difficult for me to even identify clearly if I was dealing with a male or a female or some intermediate species in between.
Can you begin by revealing what species you are and perhaps what your preferred pronouns are?
I don't normally ask for pronouns on the podcast, but in this case, I thought I would respect your desires.
Thank you for respecting my preferred pronouns, Dinesh.
I'm actually gender fluid, and so I wear scrunchies around my wrist so that you can understand which pronoun I'm going by for the day, because I know how you right-wingers don't know how to respect pronouns.
So on pink days, I go by she-her.
On white days, I go by they-them.
Blue days, I go by he, him.
And a very special red scrunchie is when I do the neopronoun dragon self.
And that's usually during my menstrual cycle.
It doesn't come out very often. And you actually lucked out today.
I'm going by she, her.
That could change by the minute, by the day, by the hour.
Well, if anything I say triggers you in such a way that you flip to one of the other pronouns, please don't hesitate to weigh in on that.
Oh, I'm very much already triggered being here, but I thought that I would re-educate you before you go to your re-education camp.
Luna, explain to me this woke phenomenon.
Now, you know, just by the metaphor itself, wokeness implies that someone is in some sort of a slumber, but then they kind of wake up.
What have you woken up to?
I mean, first of all, you look like you just got out of bed.
What does wokeness to you mean?
Well, for one, I'm a fourth grade teacher in Florida, so it's been very awful here because I have all of these right-wingers pushing against all of the progressive ideals that I push in my classroom.
I mean, wokeness means that I reject white supremacist ideals like patriarchy, Marriage between man and a woman, the gender binary, which is oppressive, you know, the mansplaining, which you're trying to do to me right now.
All of those ideals I reject.
And of course, I'm trying to train the next generation to be woke as well.
Very interesting. Let me ask you this.
There's certain aspects of ourselves that are just sort of biologically given, right?
I mean, for example, I have in front of me outstretched now two hands, and they're my hands, and they're hard to understand in any other way.
Truth is relative, Dinesh.
Truth is relative, but go ahead.
You can keep going. Well, here's what I'm getting at.
Is it possible for us to become things by simply imagining that we are that?
If I were to imagine myself being Napoleon, do I become Napoleon?
If I imagine myself being a toad, do I then get to be a toad and jump around in a swamp from morning to night?
What is the connection between the imagination and what we used to, or probably still do, call reality?
Well, it makes sense to me that you'd like to become a toad, Dinesh.
But yeah, I do a gender exploration week in my fourth grade class where I actually bring in a basket for kids to try out different genders.
And in the basket, I have very typical male and female items like a hard hat and a jock strap and a tiara and a ballerina costume.
And I let the kids just explore their gender because, again, the gender binary and being told that you're a man or a woman when you're born is a white supremacist social construct.
So I like to make sure that my kids are exploring their gender in their fourth grade class.
But Luna, let me ask you this.
Why stop with gender?
I mean, for example, if you have a pet parrot, why don't you allow this imagination to run even wilder?
Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's why I have my dragon self pronoun.
I mean, it's usually during my menstrual cycle.
But yeah, I actually have a child that identifies as a fourth grader that identifies as it.
They just don't even identify as male or female or as a human being.
Do you think that white, you know, there have been cases where white people have been busted for pretending to be black.
Do you think that that's wrong?
Do you think that white people should be able to claim?
Oh, absolutely. They should never be allowed to do that.
That is very oppressive to black people.
And in fact, someone who does that should be thrown in prison.
I mean, pretending to be black.
I mean, that's just appalling.
I mean, ugh. Black people are oppressed and you're trying to take on that oppression.
That person should just become trans or something else if they want to be oppressed.
And finally, Luna, for people who say, listen, whatever the merits of what you're saying, I mean, is this really something we want to do to kids?
Aren't kids in the process of formation where their parents should have a kind of sovereignty over how these kids are raised?
What is this propaganda that you seem to be pushing in the classroom?
Dinesh, 50 genders are the future.
And right-wingers may want to deny that.
But I'm seeing kids, I mean, it used to be one trans kid in the whole school, and now there's trans kids in every classroom, especially in my classroom.
I actually have my students wear pronoun pins when they come to the class because they're exploring their gender so much and it changes pretty much every other day.
But you're just denying the future and this new generation that's coming up is going to basically wipe out your generation and then we'll have the communist utopia that we've always dreamed of.
Let's take a pause.
When we come back, we're going to talk a little further.
Guys, have you heard the news?
Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched My Mattress Stopper 2.0.
The new 3-inch MyPillow Mattress Stopper is made up of three unique layers.
Layer 1, MyPillow patented foam, which provides superior support and durability.
Layer 2, transitional foam, which provides optimal comfort, evenly distributes body weight, and helps relieve pressure points.
And Layer 3, the cover, made from a special material to keep your body temperature regulated through the night.
This MyPillow mattress topper is washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA. Comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So it's time to take action.
The incredible 3-inch mattress topper is as low as $219.59 with promo code Dinesh.
So go ahead and call 800-8760-227.
The number again, 800-8760-227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Guys, I'm back, but actually not with Luna Activist Teacher, but with the social media creator of Luna Activist Teacher, and that is Callie Fontania, who is an educator working in public and Christian schools.
She is also the founder of the Exodus Institute, by the way, the website thinkexodus.org.
She wrote the guide for the Blexit Foundation to expose the dangers of critical race theory and Welcome to my show!
And you parody what the left is up to, but you do it in such a way that you're, I mean, you are just a few hairs removed from the real thing.
The parody doesn't have to be all that over the top.
So talk a little bit about, first of all, the strategy and the thinking behind doing something like that and who is your audience and what are you trying to achieve?
Well, the reality is that even as ridiculous as I make Luna the activist teacher and the things that she's saying, it's still believable because we are seeing so many teachers that are brainwashing our children into leftism and doing crazy things in the classroom that are actually doing things like my parody character.
So she's gone viral several times with people thinking that she's real.
Because, again, all you've got to do is go on Libs of TikTok and find real teachers like her.
And I actually spent 15 years in the public schools in California, so Luna is actually a combination of all the woke teachers I had to be colleagues with.
And the mask was actually from a gift from my district.
So I received this Black Educators Matter mask from a gift from my district just for being a Black teacher, and I decided to make satire character with it.
Now, you know...
Psychologically, this is a different approach than Republicans and conservatives normally take.
So, I bet you could find videos on social media where you have conservatives or even conservative teachers deploring the woke phenomenon and basically saying this is harmful to our children, and there's a place for that.
Your approach is sort of different, and that is to sort of Show the world what these people sound like.
In a way, you're exposing their craziness by quoting them.
And not only do some people think, I bet you there are some conservatives who bash you and think you're a real leftist, but you've also gotten a lot of hate from the left.
Once they figure out what you're doing, they don't like it.
Talk a little bit about that.
Yes. So I've actually experienced what it's like to receive hate from the left and the right.
And it's funny because Luna will say some of the craziest things, and I'll get polite comments from the right like, oh, she should be fired, rightfully so.
But then when I share things from when I talk about the left and the racist comments that I received from the left, or I expose critical race theory, I have experienced what it's like to receive hate from the left.
left and that is just absolute racial slurs.
I've been called bed wench several times, the COO and dozens of times, house and dozens of times and I expose these comments and I actually a lot of times will get the videos taken down because they'll violate them for hate speech even though I'm sharing all the comments I've received from leftists just basically exposing them but they'll get taken out down and violate me for hate speech.
So I can officially say that the left is the side of racism.
My satire character Luna has not once been called a racial slur by anyone on the right.
Well this is really telling.
It's telling to me not only because it exposes the bigotry on the other side, in other words we're seeing some of that now for example toward Clarence Thomas.
I mean the left doesn't like Gorsuch and they don't like Alito but why the venom?
They always single out Thomas.
And it's almost as if they feel like Thomas has left the plantation.
Thomas is no longer following the rules that blacks are supposed to.
Do you think that that's part of the reason it's because you are a person of color?
You are the one doing it.
It brings out a particular venom on the left?
Absolutely. And they especially attack your color.
I mean, I've been called that I'm trying to be white.
I've been reminded that I'm black.
I've never seen so much colorism in our country until this last five years.
And it's actually heartbreaking for me because what I'm seeing is it's producing a whole new generation of racists when America was headed towards being a colorblind society and now the left is reversing that.
Now, the other reason this is interesting to me, the reaction of the left, is that in some ways when they see your character, they must recognize that they're being made fun of, right?
They must recognize at some level that they are ridiculous.
Otherwise, they'd be like, wow, this is a beautiful presentation of what we actually think.
How is it that you've managed at the same time to sound like them and aggravate them?
I think that's, I don't know, actually.
That's a good question. I mean, I also do a parody of Dylan Mulvaney, the trans activist.
And I do Days of Being a Man.
And I just make a ridiculous parody of, you know, what it means to be a man.
So, for example, I'm losing stuff in the fridge.
I can't find the ketchup.
I, you know, it's just, it's fun.
But at the same time, That's exactly what Dylan is doing, is making a parody out of being a woman and making a ton of money out of it.
And basically taking female stereotypes and turning it into a clown show.
That's what I think of it as.
And I have received some comments from leftists like, oh, you're transphobic and you're just trying to make fun of people.
But you remember in the 90s, we used to be able to laugh at people.
And I don't like that there is this protected class that we aren't allowed to mock or make fun of, especially considering what they're doing and how they're spreading.
A man in a dress has always been funny.
It just has. And so now we're just supposed to deny what's funny and be called transphobic and full of hate because we want to mock it.
And so, yeah, I also think that young people need to see that this stuff is ridiculous, and that's part of the reason why I created the satire characters.
There is a lot of...
You can win the culture wars with humor.
I really do believe you can win some of the culture wars with humor.
Well, I think the cool thing is satire and ridicule are very powerful weapons and you're deploying them really well.
Guys, you can follow Kali at at Kali Fontania, F-O-N-T-A-N-I-L-L-A on Twitter.
The website again is thinkexodus.org.
Kali Fontania, thank you so much for joining me.
Thank you for having me and I'd love to bring Luna back whenever you watch.
She always has commentary on stuff.
Absolutely. Friends, I want to tell you about a new film.
It's called Nefarious.
It hits theaters on April 14th and you gotta see this movie.
Debbie and I had the privilege of watching it.
It's just captivating, suspenseful, beautiful in a haunting way and also profound.
I guess I'd call it a Supernatural thriller starring Sean Patrick Flannery, who I'm going to have on the podcast this week, and Jordan Belfi.
The film is very well acted.
It keeps you on the edge of your seat.
It was written and directed by Carrie Solomon and Chuck Conselman, who also did God's Not Dead and Unplanned, two movies that I'm sure many of you saw.
The plot involves a psychiatrist who must pronounce a murderer sane before he can be executed.
The problem? The murderer says, I'm innocent.
He claims to be possessed by a demon.
In effect, he says, the demon did it, not me.
The plot takes off from there and never lets up until its shattering climax.
This is a film unlike anything you've seen before will leave you moved and speechless.
Buy your tickets today.
Go to whoisnefarious.com.
Whoisnefarious.com. Yesterday was Easter Sunday, and I hope you had a wonderful Easter.
I certainly did.
We just did kind of a quiet Easter at home.
In fact, we watched a wonderful Easter service.
The pastor, Alistair Begg, who is out of Cleveland, is just a marvelous and gifted Bible teacher.
And if you haven't encountered him, you should check out his sermons.
And his Easter sermon of yesterday was just fabulous.
But as often happens, he'll say something, and sometimes it could just be a line or two that gets me thinking.
We were talking about...
Of course, the meaning of Easter and the meaning of Easter is that as Christ rises, the resurrection, the resurrection comes after Christ's perfect sacrifice.
So what was Christ's perfect sacrifice?
Well, it was his substitutionary atonement for our sins.
Let's remember that in the Old Testament, people would use what we now kind of call, in a slightly different context, a scapegoat.
And what I mean is that people would sacrifice an animal, a goat or a ram to God.
And the idea wasn't just that we're making a propitiation where we're giving something that we tend to as shepherds.
We're offering something valuable to us to God.
The idea was that the scapegoat, the offering, would take away So, symbolically, we've wronged God and we've wronged our fellow man, but we're not able to fully atone for that.
So, what do we do? It's almost like we symbolically take our offenses and we put them into this animal, and the animal is then sacrificed to God and Is as a kind of substitute for human failings.
Well, it turns out that in the New Testament, we discover the true meaning of all this.
Christ is, in fact, the Lamb who provides the substitutionary atonement.
But, as I was thinking about all this, I was actually also thinking about another common theory that explains Christ's sacrifice, and it is the so-called ransom theory.
A number of times in the Bible it is said that Jesus gave himself up, sacrificed himself as a ransom for human sin.
And I was reminded of an argument that was made by the medieval theologian Peter Abelard against this ransom theory.
Peter Abelard was kind of a little bit of an iconoclast, a little bit of a flamboyant theologian, but also extremely penetrating and interesting.
And he embraces the theory of substitutionary atonement, but rejects the ransom theory.
He says that you cannot take that term ransom in a literal sense.
And he explains why, and I want to go into it because I think it's really interesting.
So let's think about what happens in a ransom.
Let's say you have a kidnapper, and a kidnapper kidnaps, let's say, you know, Debbie's daughter, and the kidnapper says, you and Debbie have to pay a million dollars or a hundred thousand dollars in order to get her back.
So now let's look at all the main parties here.
You've got the bad guy, which is the kidnapper or kidnappers.
You've got the victim that has been seized, and that is Debbie's daughter.
You've got the money that is due, the ransom itself, that's the $100,000.
And then you've got the party or parties that are going to have to pay that, and that's Debbie and me.
And Peter Abelard, in using this framework, now says, now let's supply the ransom theory to God.
God is supposedly the one who's paying the ransom.
So God is in the position of me and Debbie.
What is the ransom?
Jesus. So Jesus is in the position of the $100,000.
Jesus is actually what is being given up.
But what has been taken?
Who has been taken ransom?
Man. Mankind.
So mankind is in the position of Debbie's daughter.
Mankind is being held captive.
But captive by whom?
Who's the kidnapper?
Who's the bad guy? Well, Peter Abelard said that has to be Satan.
Satan is the bad guy.
Supposedly Satan is holding mankind captive and therefore God has to pay the ransom.
But then, says Peter Abelard, this doesn't really make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense because it implies that God is indebted to Satan.
God sort of owes Satan or God needs to pay Satan up because Satan is somehow legitimately holding mankind.
Satan has a right to hold mankind and therefore God is either reluctantly because God has no other way to get mankind back or God, in order to satisfy the requirements of justice, has to pay Satan.
But Peter Abelard says Satan is a cheat.
He's a deceiver.
He has wickedly seduced mankind over to his side.
So even if Satan is holding man in captivity, God doesn't owe Satan anything.
God doesn't have to pay up.
That doesn't really make any sense.
I think what makes more sense is to think of the ransom theory sort of this way, that the reason that Jesus is given up as a sacrifice by God is not that God owes Satan, but that one attribute or one side of God owes something to another side of God.
What does this really mean? God is all just.
And God is also all-loving or all-merciful.
So the justice side of God cannot admit man back into heaven without paying some atonement for sin.
So God's requirement of justice requires some satisfaction.
And so the sacrifice of Jesus is a way ultimately of reconciling divine justice with divine mercy or love.
And I think that's a better way to think about it.
Than the simple idea, directly applied or non-metaphorically applied, of God somehow paying a ransom to Satan.
Who likes aches and pains?
Nobody. 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 supports your body's fight against inflammation that's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer she can now do the exercises that for several years she wasn't able to do.
Relief Factor's been a real game-changer for her, her aunt, other members of her 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, to find out more.
The number again, 800-4-RELIEF. Or go to relieffactor.com, feel the difference.
I'm continuing my discussion of scientific laws and I've made the argument that scientific laws are not verifiable in the sense that you cannot prove them.
I mean, think about what a law means.
It's not a law if it works some of the time and doesn't work other parts of the time.
It's a law only if it works all the time.
And in order for us to know that it works all the time, we would need to have some logical certainty that it's always and everywhere going to happen this way.
And I've argued that no scientific law can provide that.
None at all. The astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has heard this before, is outraged.
And he says it's simply ridiculous to believe that scientific laws are not completely reliable.
He says, quote,"...science's big-time success rests on the fact that it works." This is the key point.
If science, he says, didn't accurately describe the world, then, hey, airplanes wouldn't fly.
People who undergo medical treatments wouldn't be cured, but airplanes do fly.
Sick people are healed in the hospital, and on that basis, we have to say that science is true.
Now, I agree that science works in that sense.
But it doesn't follow that scientific laws are known to be true in all cases.
Now, consider this dismaying realization.
Newton's laws were, for nearly two centuries, regarded as absolutely true.
They worked incredibly well.
Indeed, no body of general statements had ever been subjected to so much empirical evidence.
Every machine incorporated Newton's principles.
The entire Industrial Revolution was based on Newtonian physics and Newtonian mechanics.
Newton was vindicated millions of times a day, and his theories led to unprecedented material prosperity and material success.
And yet, Einstein's theories of relativity contradicted Newton's.
And when the two were tested one against the other, Newton's laws were shown to be wrong or at least insufficient.
And this doesn't mean that Einstein's laws are true either.
It means that in the future, they too could be shown to be erroneous in certain respects.
Now, the philosopher Karl Popper, thinking about all this, thinking about how Newton was superseded by Einstein, how this body of scientific thought that was previously regarded as incorrigible, unchangeable, true for all time, was suddenly seen as part of a larger framework.
And Popper said, look, no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to prove anything at all.
Science doesn't verify theories.
The best it can do is falsify them.
So what does falsifying a theory mean?
Well, here's the difference. If I say that bouncing balls or a ball always bounces, that's a positive statement.
And Popper says, I can't prove that.
I might find at some point a ball that doesn't bounce.
But if I were to say...
That balls don't bounce, then all I need is one ball to bounce, and I've falsified that claim.
I falsified the claim that balls never bounce because, hey, here's a ball, and it did bounce.
So the point being here that science works kind of in a negative way.
When we've subjected a theory to a lot of testing and it hasn't been falsified, Popper says, well, okay, you can provisionally Believe it to be true.
You can operate as if it is true.
Why? Because practically you don't have a better way to proceed.
You give the theory the benefit of the doubt until you find out otherwise.
But at the same time, you don't fool yourself into thinking you have discovered absolute laws of nature.
You really haven't. These are human laws and they represent a kind of Human best effort to try to understand the world.
Close approximations.
We're trying to get as close as we can to approximating the way the world really is.
What we call laws are nothing more than observed patterns and sequences.
We think the world works this way until experience and evidence shows the contrary.
So, where am I going with all this?
I want to remind you that what I'm doing is I'm overthrowing Hume's argument against miracles using his own empirical and skeptical philosophy.
To recapitulate, Hume basically says miracles violate the known laws of nature.
I'm saying Hume's own skeptical philosophy has shown that there are no known laws of nature.
Miracles can be dismissed only if scientific laws are necessarily true, if they admit of no exceptions.
Because after all, what's a miracle?
A miracle is a claim that there has been now an exception to a law of nature, and if exceptions are obviously possible, then miracles are also possible.
So, Hume has demonstrated that for no empirical proposition whatsoever, do we know that here is a law that admits of no exceptions.
Miracles can be deemed unscientific only if our knowledge of causation is so extensive that we can confidently dismiss divine causation.
From Hume, we learn how limited is our knowledge of causation.
In fact, says Hume, we have no knowledge of causation at all.
We merely see sequences, one thing coming after another, and we think that because these two events are kind of going together, causally conjoined, you might say, one to each other, therefore it follows that one must cause the other.
And Hume says we have no basis for knowing that, and since we have no basis for knowing that, we really don't know what As a logical matter, what causation is, and moreover, we cannot write off the possibility of divine causation in exceptional cases.
▲
Export Selection