Dinesh D'Souza - TANTRUM AT THE CDC Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1160

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 3, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

53:59

TANTRUM AT THE CDC Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1160

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Coming up, uh Lawfer, the real reason why there are mass resignations at the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, and why is the left so eager to demand the resignation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	Comedian and podcaster Ami Kozak joins me.
	We're gonna talk about comedy, but we're also I'm gonna try to convince him to do a couple of his famous impressions of well-known personalities like Trump and Taco Carlson.
	Hey, if you're watching on YouTube, X or Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel, hit the subscribe, the follow, the notifications button, that would be really great.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	Music America needs this voice.
	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.
	This particular segment, which is also the thumbnail of today's podcast, is called Tantrum at the CDC.
	The CDC, of course, being the Center for Disease Control.
	I'm going to start by talking about the CDC, but I want to argue that the tantrum that we're witnessing is bigger than that.
	It doesn't involve the CDC by itself.
	It's really about HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and it's about the very charismatic and in some ways dramatic figure, uh revolutionary figure in some respects, who is the head of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	There is a organized campaign to dethrone this guy, to get rid of him, to pressure him to resign, to pressure Trump to make him leave.
	Now, knowing what we know about Trump, the second part of it is like not gonna happen.
	So you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you're gonna have Trump asking uh Robert F. Kennedy to to leave.
	That's now Kennedy on the other hand.
	I don't think he is going to leave.
	Uh I don't think he's going to succumb to this at all, but it's important for us to know what the this is.
	Uh now, all of this started with the with Trump uh firing the head of the CDC, which is his complete prerogative to do, but that was immediately followed by prominent people at the CDC resigning.
	Right away told you a lot about who these people are.
	I'm gonna quote from one of these guys.
	For decades I have been a trusted voice for the LGBTQ community when it comes to critical health topics.
	And this guy goes on then to post his pronouns.
	So right away you realize you're dealing with an activist, not really a someone who's bringing objectivity to medical science.
	And then I see another guy, and by the way, this guy is like into bondage.
	Uh he's uh into sadomasochism.
	He is uh this is the kind of guy you expect to see in the Folsom Street Fair.
	This is like gay pride, uh, you know, with a leash on himself barking like a dog.
	Uh and this guy is a top guy at the CDC.
	Uh, I see an interview with him, and he's basically talking about the fact that, well, listen, you know, the monkey pox, yeah, I know we have to be concerned about health and all, but like, gays just want to have fun.
	And I'm like, am I listening to somebody from the medical community?
	Uh am I listening to someone who's concerned with public safety?
	This guy appears to be like an advocate for gay, like bacchanalia.
	Uh, and uh, and by the way, it sounded to me like the mood in the early days of AIDS when people were like, I don't care about AIDS, and then of course you just had, you know, uh processions of corpses until the message finally got through that this was something serious that you needed to be worried about.
	But uh what started out as this just weird um uh escapade within the CDC, uh, and I began to notice a procession of media articles, nine former CDC directors basically wrote this joint article, basically saying that RFK is doing the health system, quote, is unlike anything our country has ever experienced.
	And I'm like, hmm.
	Well, the CDC's mismanagement of COVID was also, quote, unlike anything our country has ever experienced.
	Have you ever seen the head of the health agency issue one after another false statement?
	Things like, if you take the vaccine, you can't get COVID.
	If you take the vaccine, you can't give somebody COVID.
	This is Rochelle Walensky.
	Um, and um, and so the CDC was, I think, as Martin McCarey pointed out, they were the main source of misinformation during COVID.
	Um, they first of all were putting out lies about the origins of COVID.
	This, of course, went all the way.
	This wasn't just the CDC, this was Fauci and the whole health establishment, and they put out lies about the vaccine.
	And so Robert F. Kennedy is there to fix this problem.
	He's there to correct what's going on at the health agencies, including the CDC.
	Now, the Brownstone Institute, which is um a research organization, has gotten a hold of an internal document that the pharmaceutical companies uh created.
	Uh, this is a document provided by a whistleblower, and so you have to take it with a little bit of caution.
	Whistleblowers provide these internal documents.
	And this and but this internal document is very revealing for what it says.
	And I'm now relying here on an article by the Brownstone Institute, and I'm going to kind of go through some of its key points.
	Um it is a document compiled by one of these health uh lobbies that Pfizer belongs to and Merck belongs to, and uh a bunch of other biotech firms, and they're allocating a whole bunch of money.
	In fact, they have four million dollars of cash.
	They're putting $2 million to a publicity campaign and a lobbying campaign that is concentrated in the month of September 2025, i.e.
	this month, for what purpose?
	Quote.
	It is time to go to the hill and lobby that it's time for RFK Jr. to go.
	They are absolutely terrified of RFK Jr.
	Now, why are they terrified of RFK Jr.?
	It turns out the pharmaceutical industry has captured the top medical associations, uh, associations that uh the American Medical Association, uh, the um the um American Academy of Pediatrics.
	So suddenly you'll notice in the media, you'll see people like um like Bill Haggerty, or you'll see people like Bernie Sanders.
	You know, Bernie Sanders likes to pose as he's an opponent of the big pharma, he's an opponent of big corporations.
	Oh no.
	In the back pocket, he collects money from these big corporations, he collects money from big pharma.
	And so he will say things like um Robert F. Kennedy has to go, and then he will say, like, I'm gonna cite the American Academy of Pediatrics, I'm gonna cite the American Medical Association, I'm gonna cite the World Health Organization.
	Yes, but what he doesn't say is all these organizations receive funding from, you guessed it, these exact pharmaceutical companies.
	American Academy of Pediatrics, 50,000 from Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, 25 to 49,000 from Eli Lilly, tens of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.
	American Medical Association, $1 million from Pfizer, between 500,000 to 999,000 from Merck from AstraZeneca from Eli's Lilly, 250,000 to 499,000 from Novo Nordisk and GSK and hundreds of thousands more.
	And the story goes on.
	The point is that what these pharmaceutical companies do is they not only become oceans of cash for these associations, but they also become a way to give lucrative positions to people affiliated with these organizations.
	So bottom line, it is a highly profitable racket.
	But somebody has to pay for the racket.
	And who's who pays for the racket?
	Well, if you're looking in the mirror, it's you and it's me.
	We paid through exorbitantly high prices for drugs.
	And by and large, our government and our and our medical establishment signs off on this because they're being paid, as I said, through the back through the back door.
	So Robert F. Kennedy threatens to upset this whole arrangement.
	Just think about he's he's put out so many ideas and proposals, and all of them are like little missiles, little rockets fired at the pharmaceutical industry.
	If he were to stop, for example, the pharmaceutical advertising on, let's say, television.
	Well, one way that the pharmaceutical companies keep these TV companies in their back pocket is they fund them.
	Some of these programs and shows would go out of business if they didn't have pharmaceutical funding.
	So the content is completely controlled by what the pharmaceutical companies want to hear.
	He who provides, you know, the saying about he who provides the gold uh makes the rules.
	That's the golden rule, if you will.
	And um Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also exposes things that the pharmaceutical companies are doing that most people are not aware of.
	And here's one of those things that kind of blew my mind away.
	I had heard a casual statement from Robert F. Kennedy to this effect, but I didn't really um concentrate on it.
	And look how important this is.
	Uh, the the nine uh CDC guys in their article about the great work of the CDC talked about the fact that they have conducted such a successful campaign about against smoking.
	And smoking is in fact gone down.
	People smoke less than they used to.
	But here's something I didn't know that I learned from our Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	And that is that when smoking rates dropped, the tobacco companies started investing and buying up food companies.
	Did you know this?
	So what the essentially what they did is that they went from making one addictive product, tobacco, to now making our food more addictive.
	Let me quote RFK Jr.
	By the mid-1990s, the two biggest food companies in the world were R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris.
	I have to admit, I did not know this.
	The scientists who worked on nicotine, the scientists who worked on cigarettes, are now working on, according to RFK, making our food more addictive.
	So we are by and large tempted to buy food that benefits these companies rather than benefits our health.
	And you might say, well, why isn't the government telling us this?
	Because the government is kind of in on it.
	They are also the people who are getting money.
	And so this is the threat that RFK Jr. poses.
	And so what we have here in this internal document is let's use powerful messaging, uh, in which we don't have, we don't put the pharmaceutical companies out front because if they put the head of Merck or the head of Pfizer, everybody goes, oh yeah, you're the guy ripping me off.
	So they don't want that.
	What do they want instead?
	Well, according to this document, what they want is politicians who are seen as kind of centrist, but are nevertheless in a sense obliged to or beholden to Big Pharma.
	Let's put those guys out front so that they can give a kind of objective opinion, which of course is not objective at all.
	I was actually kind of alarmed to see my former employer, the American Enterprise Institute, listed as a quote, trusted conduit for pro-vaccine messaging.
	So again, what's going on here is that these pharmaceutical companies want to use politicians, use media, use think tanks, all to put out a message that somehow Robert F. Kennedy Jr. poses a grave threat to our health.
	When in truth, the only thing he poses a grave threat to is their obscene profits.
	Reverse mortgage.
	Those two words cause a lot of people to respond in a negative way without thinking.
	But quite frankly, I thought the same, and I found out I was wrong about these unique tools for retirement planning.
	Read the book I read: Home Equity and Reverse Mortgages, The Cinderella of the Baby Boomer, Retirement, provided by Movement Mortgage, a valued partner.
	If you're in or close to retirement, you owe it to yourself, whether you need money or not to learn how to properly use the equity in your home the right way.
	If you want more cash flow or simply want to eliminate mortgage payment, or you would like to see if you can save on income taxes, get this book for free today by going to Movement.com slash Dinesh or call Movement Mortgage Today, 580 reverse.
	That's 580-738-3773.
	N MLS ID 39179.
	When the cultural tide turns against truth, it becomes more important than ever to support the storytellers who are willing to stand for it.
	And that's what Angel is doing.
	They're not just producing entertainment, they're giving a home to stories that reflect the principles this country was founded on faith, family, and freedom.
	They've released films like Sound of Freedom, which expose the modern day reality of child trafficking when Hollywood refused to touch it.
	They're backing projects like The Last Rodeo and Green and Gold stories that celebrate Middle America sacrifice and generational legacy.
	Angel isn't answering to Hollywood gatekeepers, they answer to their members, and that's where the Angel Guild comes in.
	Guild members vote on which projects move forward.
	They help support the stories that deserve to be told, and they're proving that when ordinary people unite behind truth, extraordinary things happen.
	Join the movement.
	Go to Angel.com/slash Dinesh, join the Angel Guild today's support films that reflect your values.
	Go to Angel.com slash Dinesh.
	Guys, I've been uh following this dude on social media, really enjoying his content.
	He's a comedian, he's a musician, he's an impressionist, he's a podcaster.
	And hey, look, there are a lot of guys out there that do comedy and they make you sometimes uh smile or chuckle, but not a whole lot of people can make you laugh out loud.
	But Ami Kozak can.
	He has hilarious uh bits that he does, and he does them pretty regularly.
	Um, by the way, he's been featured on Fox News, Sky News, Daily Wire, Adam Carola.
	He hosts his own podcast.
	It's called Ami's House AMI, Ami's house.
	His website, AmiCozak.com.
	And you can follow him on X at Ami AMI Kozak, K-O-Z-A-K.
	Ami, welcome.
	Thank you.
	Uh thank you for joining me.
	I uh really appreciate it.
	Uh I want to start by um asking you about the relationship of comedy to seriousness.
	And I say that because I've actually seen some segments where you're discussing uh Israel, you're discussing anti-Semitism, and you know what?
	You're talking like a regular guy.
	You're not delivering one-liners or quips.
	You are speaking uh in kind of a normal mode.
	At other times, you have on your Hamas outfit, you have on your wig, uh, you do Tucker Carlson, you do President Trump, you do other people.
	I uh you're now threatening uh to do Nick Fuentes, which would be a real treat.
	Um so talk a little bit about how you combine kind of the serious side and the comedic side.
	Uh are those two sides of the same coin.
	First of all, thank you for having me on.
	I've been following you for a long time since way back when, since the early Christopher Hitchens debates, I think, when I was uh just a college student getting into getting into this space.
	So I appreciate it.
	I credit, you know, I think what happens is when you're an impressionist and a comedian, but you imitate a lot of intellectuals, you get pretty good at the uh at the intellectual side yourself.
	And I think that they are two sides of the same coin in that what comedy does and what commentary does are two approaches to finding something that's true and revealing something that's true.
	I think comedy does it in a way that's almost visceral, that people can't help but be persuaded by it.
	Because if it's funny, the reason comedy is so impactful and powerful is that you it's almost unfalsifiable as an argument.
	It's undeniable when you highlight something and it's funny to a large swath of people, you are bringing something that's been seen but not been made aware of by people.
	Maybe something that they've subconsciously processed and you're making it conscious.
	And I think commentary does the same thing, uh, and it's the same attempt at highlighting something that's true.
	I'm speaking specifically about satirical comedy.
	I mean, when you're making a joke, it it's also highlighting something that's true, but maybe the subject is more benign or just something relatable.
	Satire is sort of aimed and pointed at making a specific possible serious point.
	But the reason comedy is so effective at doing that is because it reveals that truth, and you can't help but laugh at something that you kind of agree with.
	And with commentary too, with words, with putting those things together and formulating your argument, you're attempting to do the same thing.
	So I would say they are two sides of the same coin.
	You're using different tool sets to get there, but you're essentially highlighting something resonant and true.
	That's a very interesting point, Ami.
	What you're really saying is that I think that there is a something about comedy that makes one recognize something that you may not even have admitted to yourself.
	But some part of you knows is true.
	And this is maybe why comedy is so effective around topics that are taboo, uh, even around topics that are stereotypical, because there's been a campaign of about half a century to convince us that all stereotypes are false, they're not really true.
	Uh, but of course, uh, you know, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the world if we didn't make generalizations.
	And what comedy does is kind of punctures the orthodoxies of a time and makes you go, whoa, that's this guy actually is saying something true.
	Uh and I think the laughter to some degree may even be laughter at oneself and one's own uh inability to or unwillingness to say those kinds of things in public.
	Right.
	Well, laughter is an admission, right?
	When when I if somebody makes a serious argument uh in the form of commentary or tries to persuade you, you can hide the fact that you may be agreeing with it by saying, okay, I have to think about it.
	But if you get a room to laugh at a point you've made, they're all agreeing with you before they've even admitted it to themselves.
	So I think that's what makes it uh so powerful.
	I think the problem is where things can turn dark is all about intention.
	You know, making jokes and stereotypes is all kind of okay in a society in a world where we all in real life respect each other despite our differences and have a certain level of uh Western civility and tolerance towards each other, not to the point where it's extended where you're tolerating uh anti-Western ideas, intolerant.
	But when you get to this point where in real life people actually have hateful intentions or nefarious intentions, then it's not funny.
	A joke or a stereotype isn't necessarily funny, or it's harder to get that point across because that's the relationship I think of art to real life.
	I think you take like a song like Kanye West's controversial song or different kinds of stereotypes, it all depends on what the reality context is.
	So, like in a world where Kanye is actually anti-Semitic, for example, then his artistic expressions of that are a lot darker than just trying to be edgy.
	And I think a lot of people in this space are confusing art and reality by not properly judging reality and mistakenly judging reality as art and art as reality, and I think that's where things get really confusing.
	You know, um I just what you just said made me think about the fact that when I when I first came to America at the age of 17, this was the age of comedians like Johnny Carson, Don Rickles, George Carlin.
	I'd watch these guys and I realized that many times they were attacking things that I believed in, Carlin particularly, but I always laughed because I felt that this is a guy who will get a joke out of anywhere.
	Uh this is a guy who will go where the joke is.
	And so there's a certain generosity of spirit in that.
	Uh but what happens today is I'll listen to jokes and I realize that they are they're so one-sided.
	They're all pointed in a way at me.
	And so even if they're pretty good, I'm reluctant to laugh because I feel like, look, you know, Bill Maher is on a crusade.
	You know, this guy's this guy will never make a joke about the, you know, the um uh the the crippled mind of Joe Biden, but he's gonna make jokes about how Trump is out of it.
	And so since I know that, it's harder for me to take the joke in the spirit maybe that it's intended.
	So this is your point that the context is is critical.
	Right.
	And there's a subjective component to all that.
	I mean, we all filter things through our own confirmation biases, and humor is subjective.
	All kind of artistic tastes are subjective.
	It's just also a question of, you know, intention.
	It's sort of like, are you at the end of the day when you can laugh together at something and share a certain observation uh and admit to something being true?
	You you it's sort of like when you laugh at family members or close friends, I mean the closest of friends can be brutally honest with each other.
	And even if it's not in the form of a nicety, you can be uh harsh or have a critique.
	That's shit that highlights a sense of comfort, a sense of closeness, a sense of cohesion.
	But when it's used in the opposite to actually divide rather than unite, when its intentions are nefarious, that's when things get very, very dark.
	So you have to keep an eye on when you're assessing something in real life.
	I I I uh in Bill Marr's case, I I know you've had some contentious interviews with him, but I I think he has.
	I mean he does offend the far left and do those things too.
	So he's one of those people that kind of goes between.
	But sometimes I'm assessing the problem with satire is you can have people who can wear the comedian uh face and then try to make a serious point, but then always pivot back to I'm I'm just a comedian, so you don't have to assess my words.
	Chappelle has done this a few times where he gets up there and people will say, Well, he's a comedian, so he's just saying what he wants in their jokes, and you have to accept it.
	And it's like, no, no, no.
	When he's making a joke and there's a punchline, I can assess if I found that funny or not, and all's well and good, he can do that.
	But then he'll shift into making a serious point and there is no punchline, and then I have to say, okay, did you mean that to be funny, or did you just mean that?
	And are you actually saying something serious in which I have a totally different parameter by which I judge your statement?
	Do you mean it literally?
	Because comedians always have the sort of cover of saying, well, I meant it as a joke.
	And that really matters.
	If you meant something as a joke, that's one thing.
	If you meant something as a statement, that's another thing.
	And that's another area where there's been a lot of confusion over the years.
	I remember Chappelle's uh SNL monologue, where in the beginning, all the Jewish jokes I really liked.
	You know, he's like, uh, I had all these Jewish friends growing up in Ohio and they made jokes about Jewish holidays.
	I don't want to go to school tomorrow.
	It's Shanan Ottomar.
	And he would make these jokes.
	Uh I'm okay with any sort of subject and any sort of matter that you could find the humor in.
	But then he started going into defenses of Kanye and sort of explaining and forming sympathy for Kanye, where he started making statements, and there was no punchline.
	And so now you're like, okay, wait a minute, there's a manipulation here going on.
	And so by the end of his set, if he's leaving the audience feeling a little more understanding of Kanye rather than the Jews that Kanye is trying to victimize, I think that's uh that was a strange moment.
	So I think comedians have this power, and you have to be responsible with it.
	Let's talk a little bit about Israel, uh a very small country, as you know, the size of New Jersey.
	Uh it's got a this massive worldwide campaign coming from Australia, from Europe, from Canada, many parts, the campuses of the United States.
	It's given, I think a lot of Jews and a lot of defenders of Israel a little bit of a siege mentality, a little bit of uh uh a nervous edginess about it, and would therefore seem to be a difficult topic for humor.
	Um Apart from you, and I'm sure there are others, but I'm only aware of you as a singular guy who's like, guess what?
	A lot of these people are like downright ridiculous.
	And if I capture their ridiculousness, that is actually a very effective form of polemic.
	I'm not going to uh submit to the siege mentality.
	I'm going to unleash on these guys.
	And that is what you do.
	Um, but what is the sensibility behind that?
	Is it that you feel like, listen, I'm not gonna be cowed by these dudes, and look how crazy they are.
	And my job is just to expose it.
	Right.
	I think ever since October 7th, it became sort of this paradigm shift in that what the obvious side to take on a particular issue seemed to be seemed to confuse people because it was Israel.
	That for so long, for decades upon decades, there's been so much propaganda and seated territory from the academic institutions from the media, that when it comes to Israel and the Jewish state, what is obvious is not obvious.
	And the good guys and the bad guys, it's a complicated subject.
	It's it's controversial.
	There's history, you don't really understand.
	And in the very beginning, in the days after October 7th, it seemed that we had this inversion of morality and a combination of those who were celebrating October 7th, but then all these other people who I think wanted to speak out about it because it just seemed like the clearest expression of proud depravity, proud evil, flaunting it.
	It's not like Hamas was trying to hide what they were doing.
	They were proud of it and they were trying to show the West, look at what we are.
	And in the face of evil, there's sort of two reactions that you see in the West.
	There's the ones who step up to confront it and call it for what it is, and have moral judgment and a sense of uh um hierarchy that there are good people and there are bad people.
	There is good and there is evil.
	And then there's the moral relativistic posture of that can't be real.
	It's all externalized.
	There must be some other institutions or some other actions from the West that are causing people to do this, even when they're telling you, no, there isn't.
	We want to kill the Jews, and we're proudly doing it.
	And the the way this ties into satire into comedy is that I found that as this conversation was unfolding, the I was wanted to give permission for people to say what you're instinctively thinking is true.
	You do not have to be clouded by these ridiculous intellectual ivory tower ideas that plot twist, it's the West that's actually bad.
	What's good is good, what's bad is bad.
	It's not anything else.
	And I know that's hard to process.
	And as you started to see these purveyors of confusion, these instruments of confusion in the commentary coming in, especially on the right, with Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, people trying to sort of confuse the conversation.
	Do we and ask these questions to sort of make people think, is what's obvious to me not obvious?
	Um so I think pointing out those absurdities, sometimes it can be masked because they don't come out and just say, I'm pro-Hamas, I'm pro the barbarians.
	What it is is you have the barbarians at the gates, and you have us warning that we don't want to let them through and we want to take a stand, and you have other people saying, No, they're not really at the gates.
	That's overblown, that's propaganda, and they basically let them in and gaslight you to think that you're not seeing evil for what it is and seeing anti-Western ideas, anti-freedom ideas, anti-civilization ideas.
	So, in calling it out through commentary and through comedy, you can identify what I think for a lot of people has been pretty shrewdly masked.
	You know, Tucker is out there talking about this as if he's just curious and using principles of free speech, extending it to the most, you know, uh, I think darkest corners where no one's saying Tucker should be arrested, right?
	But he uses it as, well, this is free speech, and therefore all speech should not be judged.
	We cannot take clear moral stances because of free speech.
	And I think there's a lot of post-traumatic stress, post like PTSD and trauma that have come from excess woke leftism, which said you can't say anything.
	You can't talk about any topic, you can't joke about anything, and we're seeing the identitarian right reaction to that.
	Let's talk about anything, let's not judge any speech, let's not have any standards.
	And you see the exploiters of that.
	And I think satire and you know, pointing out those absurdities, you it's sort of like what an impression does, where you're revealing the thing about a person that's not necessarily apparent, but it is seen by everybody.
	And bringing that to people's consciousness, I think is powerful.
	And that's what I've kind of behind the scenes tried to do is recognize what is the ridiculous thing that's going on here?
	Because I sense something.
	I pick up on what's Tucker doing.
	It's because it's easy in a sense when someone's just a Nazi and they're proudly like, in a way, it's honest.
	They're proudly hateful.
	And you can make fun of that, but it's almost easy work.
	You're like, okay, that's what they are.
	But what about the people who are kind of morphing between, exploiting that, using that?
	I mean, that takes a little bit more of a kind of a fine-toothed comb to expose it, but it's like surgery, you know.
	So that's what I've been trying to do.
	Yeah, I don't remember the guy that uh was on Tucker's show, but who was making the claim that he was like, well, you know, when you look back at the debates around World War II, he's like, maybe, maybe we should have done it differently.
	Maybe we should have sided with Hitler against Stalin.
	Now, this is when I heard this for I had to like listen to it twice because there is a debate about World War II, but the debate was not about that at all.
	In other words, there was no question across the spectrum that Hitler posed a greater threat uh to the West than Stalin.
	Stalin was invaded by Hitler uh after the Hitler-Stalin pact.
	Uh so Hitler posed the greater threat.
	Now, there was a subsequent question raised by Patton and others, which is that Hitler having been defeated.
	Should the United States basically also pulverize Stalin, who was in his own respect a very bad guy.
	But that is not the same as saying maybe we should have thought about going with Stalin with uh of allying with Hitler against Stalin.
	So the idea of bringing that idea into respectable discourse struck me as not only shocking in itself, but a misrepresentation of the actual debate that occurred in the 40s uh over Nazism and over the Cold War.
	Yeah, as you say that, I mean it it occurs to me that there is this common thread and pattern that you see from these people, which is not necessarily overtly lying or being deceptive, uh, but confusing the moral urgency of matters.
	In other words, if there are real problems in this country, like and real problems in the world, like the fight against radical Islamic terrorism or the fight against Hamas, or fight against people who are actually genocidal and murderous and anti-civilization, they're focusing on BB and APAC, and those being the real darkest forces in our society, just like as you're saying, it's not like Stalin is a good guy.
	Now I'm not making that comparison, but there was a priority during World War II of a moral imperative, uh a moral urgency of who we need to tackle, who are the forces that are immediately pose this threat to us.
	And it seems like the same people who revise that history are inverting it now today by saying the people who are really a threat to us, the real problems we actually have to talk about, we're gonna avoid that.
	We're gonna find different scapegoats, and we're gonna shift the moral imperative and the urgency there, as to say it's the Jews that are the Jewish supremacy, this just manufactured uh paranoia concept that's that you're seeing on the like woke right elements of like Jewish supremacy.
	And they're just kind of manufacturing things as a way to project because they know that we're just kind of gonna take it.
	And the real things that you have to scriticize that you can't, they completely ignore.
	And that's interesting.
	I'm just it's a thread between both things, the revised history of the past of what was the moral imperative and the same current urgency of what the moral imperative is today, are both evading what the true, you know, I think uh uh the the true things were that needed to be addressed, you know?
	I mean, I'd be remiss if we didn't close out by me uh asking you just to do, if you will, uh a brief impression.
	I'm gonna start uh I want you to be President Trump.
	I'll pose a question to you and have you answer in the Trumpian mode, and then maybe we can do the same with you being with you being Tucker.
	So let's start with with you as President Trump.
	President Trump, um you have had many spectacular accomplishments, but I know that there are many other amazing things that you've done that you have not gotten full credit for.
	Can you tell us about a couple of the things that you have not, a couple of things that you've achieved for which you have not gotten due credit?
	Well, uh Denes is a great guy.
	He's a great guy.
	And you know that.
	You know, I've done amazing things.
	No better president than me, even better than Lincoln.
	They say better than Lincoln, because you know, I was the one who freed the slaves.
	People don't know that.
	People don't know I freed them.
	I mean, they thought it was honest A, but it wasn't.
	It was Trump.
	Trump went back and he did it.
	We we worked on a time machine.
	I haven't talked about it yet.
	I'm doing it with Elon secretly.
	We had a falling out, but that was fake.
	We worked on the Tesla time machine, we called it.
	And I went back and I freed the slaves.
	People don't know that.
	And uh and the tariffs.
	But we we freed the slaves and we put the tariffs in, and we're doing great things.
	That's why they love me.
	Everybody loves me, and no one's doing it better than me.
	We're building a Tesla time machine.
	Marty McFly.
	Back to the future force coming out, and it's gonna be starring your favorite president.
	That's what we're gonna do.
	And you know that.
	Well, let me now pose a question to uh Melania laughing in the background.
	Melania, she really left them.
	I hear Melania, there's something going on there, but we'll do it.
	Yeah, it's uh it's it's Melania D'Souza right here.
	My producer who's really enjoying the show.
	I wish Melania would produce me, but she doesn't.
	She doesn't go near me.
	That's okay.
	We produced Barron.
	That's what we did.
	Then she was done.
	Good stuff.
	Um let me pose a question to Tucker Carlson.
	Um He's cooky, he's a cookie guy.
	Cookie guy, let's bring him out.
	Let's bring him out.
	Tucker, I think one of the things that I I find interesting about you is that you you don't seem to really take stances.
	You you merely raise questions.
	Um talk about the uh talk about why you you you um you think raising questions is is so important in what you do.
	I I I mean so and so I think I have questions, but I also think answers are important.
	I I I really believe that.
	I really do.
	I think having questions and having answers and having quenchers, which is a combination of questions and answers, is is very important.
	I mean, why can't we ask questions and have answers and have contradictory answers?
	I think quencers is a concept that doesn't even exist yet.
	I don't think it exists.
	Does it exist?
	I I don't know that.
	Do you know that?
	I mean, what do we know?
	I just I have quencers.
	I have quencers, which is a combination of questions and answers.
	And I think we need to think about.
	I mean, I just I simply really want to combine questions and answers to create quencers, which is maybe maybe we create uh some sort of concept that doesn't exist yet, which is quencers, in which people don't know anything at all, like at all.
	Does that answer your question?
	I don't really know.
	Neither do I. I'm a little I'm a I'm a little speechless.
	But that's that's the thing.
	I think I think speechless, I believe in free speechless, in which things you can say anything and nothing.
	I mean, I I really believe that.
	I really do like like genuinely believe that.
	Like as a Christian, as a man, as a white person.
	Um I live across from my parents' graves.
	I was molested by a demon.
	Does that answer your question?
	I believe.
	Well, I think we may have to leave it right there, Tucker.
	Uh I don't have any more questions.
	But thank you very much, guys.
	I've been talking to uh and really enjoying Ami Kozak, comedian, musician, impressionist podcaster.
	By the way, he does live shows combining stand-up impression songs.
	Uh follow him on Exitami Kozak website, AmiCozak.com.
	Ami, a great pleasure.
	Thank you for joining me.
	Pleasure, thank you.
	Mike Lindell tells me a major retail chain recently canceled a big order, leaving my pillow with an overstock of classic pillows.
	But hey, their loss is your gain.
	For a limited time, my pillow is offering the entire classic collection of true wholesale prices.
	I've never seen them this low.
	Get a standard my pillow for just 1798.
	Upgrade to Queen size for just 2298, king size 2498.
	You can snag body pillows for 2998 and versatile multi-use pillows for just 998.
	Plus, when your order is over 75 dollars, you get a hundred dollars and free digital gifts, no strings attached.
	That's right.
	Premium pillows at unbeatable prices and bonus gifts to top it off.
	So don't wait.
	Call 800-876-0227.
	That's 800-876-0227.
	Or go to my pillow.com.
	Make sure to use the promo code.
	It's D-I-N-E-S H Dinesh and grab your standard MyPillow for just 1798 while supplies last.
	I'm uh doing a preamble to my book, Life After Death, The Evidence, which is the next book I'm going to be uh discussing in some detail.
	And in the preamble, I like to sort of set the stage, explain why I think the topic is interesting and important.
	I won't say timely because there's no timely occasion to pass away.
	But let's just say this is a topic of enduring uh importance and significance, and it's something we all we all experience, but we also experience differently.
	Uh by the way, I don't mean we experience death.
	One of the interesting things about death is that death itself is not an experience.
	In fact, it's probably more accurate to say that death is the end of experience.
	It's the termination of experience.
	And so if ever you think, well, what's it like to experience death?
	There is no answer to that question.
	Life goes on and then it stops, and that stopping point is called called death.
	Some ways it's similar, I think, uh, as we think about it to sleep.
	Uh notice that you're awake, and then you're asleep, but you're never conscious of that exact moment at which you fall asleep.
	You're seemingly awake, you're getting drowsy, and then you're out.
	And you wake up.
	You're in a very weird way, you give up your consciousness in the time that you're asleep, and then you recover it again when you wake up.
	Really uh remarkable feature of uh life and particularly of human life.
	Uh with death, of course, we give up consciousness, it seems forever, but that's the question.
	Do we?
	That's that's what I'm exploring here.
	Is consciousness lost uh at the point of death?
	Now, most of us uh experience uh death through our parents.
	As we get older, our parents get older, and then at some point they die.
	In Debbie's case and mine, we we've lost both our parents, so we we don't have parents anymore.
	Uh what we do have is a couple of grandchildren, and I was talking to Debbie last night, and we were saying, you know, these are two events that really refocus your mind.
	In other words, the death of your parents, which basically makes it really clear that you're the next one up, you're the next generation, you're now moving into the spot, the slot uh previously occupied by your parents.
	And so you're conscious of your own mortality in a way that you might not have been before.
	And interestingly, grandchildren kind of signal the same thing, don't they?
	Because they they pop into the picture and they are the very picture of life and vitality.
	But what are they telling you?
	They're telling you, hey, the new generation is here.
	So previously we were only conscious of our generation and then the generation of our kids, but our kids, even though we use those terms, uh, are no longer kids.
	They're now in their late 20s or they're in their 30s, they're having their own kids.
	And so once again, you're aware that in the sliding scale of life, if the grandchildren occupy the new generation, then your children are now their parents, so they take the spot of the parents.
	You now move to the grandparent slot.
	So all of this is again both from the from both ends of life, so to speak, from the death end and the birth end, you're getting little signals that are telling you, hey, uh, you now have to move into a new uh stage or new position in life, um, in which uh the consciousness of mortality is more acute than uh than before.
	Uh Debbie was telling me a couple of days ago that uh her mom's sister uh made to her uh kind of an interesting comment.
	Uh Debbie's mom's uh nickname was Mitzi.
	And um her sister says, I'm going to go visit Mitzi.
	What a striking statement.
	What she really means is I'm going to go to Mitzi's grave and spend some time there.
	Um recollect, pay my respects.
	But of course, I'm going to go visit Mitsi, kind of a natural way to speak, but Debbie's like, well, my mom is not, in a sense, there.
	My mom is not in the grave.
	Yes, her mortal remains are in the grave, but my mother is not there actually.
	And this again is getting right to the core of the issue I'm going to be discussing, which is, you know, we think of ourselves as human beings, we're body.
	We have a material aspect to us, and that is undeniable.
	And some people think that that's the only aspect to us.
	We are material through and through.
	We are objects in the same way that a stone is an object.
	And a stone has properties, light has properties, other objects have properties, and we have properties, including the property of being able to move around and the property of being able to purposefully do things.
	But that is just a property of a material object, not any different in any fundamental way.
	And I would say that the predominant philosophy of atheism is in fact materialism.
	Goes all the way back to Democritus and Epicurus, ancient Greeks who thought that the human beings were nothing more than collections of atoms or collections of some kind of physical material.
	But ever since Socrates, and perhaps in some ways, even before, it's been widely believed that human beings are made up of two things, not one thing, but two things, uh, and that is body and soul.
	Now, if soul seems like a very elevated and maybe even a kind of uh abstract or spooky thing.
	What's a soul?
	Have you ever seen a soul?
	What does the soul weigh?
	The fact of the matter is we don't have to get into such um metaphysical technicalities to recognize that we have so many things about us, our thoughts.
	They're in the same bucket as the soul, right?
	What is your thoughts weigh?
	What are their dimensions?
	How would you measure them?
	What is their physicality?
	They don't have any.
	How about your feelings?
	Same thing.
	How about your memories?
	Same thing.
	Now, no one denies that these thoughts and feelings and memories are contained within a physical frame.
	Uh, and not only that, are dependent on that frame, the way that, for example, your thoughts are dependent on having a brain.
	If you remove your brain, you don't have thoughts that uh will occur to you because the brain is the mechanism for those thoughts.
	And yet, again, I want to stress that if something is a mechanism for enabling something else to emanate or come out of it, it doesn't mean that those two things are the same thing.
	Let's give you an example.
	You might need a physical uh uh substrate, you might need a computer, for example, to house software.
	Uh but that doesn't mean that the software and the computer are the same thing.
	The computer is the physical frame.
	Software, in a sense, is immaterial.
	Software is programs, software is not some physical object that is hiding inside the computer.
	Uh software, you could say, to use a famous phrase uh that has been disseminated widely by atheists, not coined by them, coined actually by the philosopher of I remember Gilbert Ryle, uh, the ghost in the machine.
	But hey, softway is the ghost in the machine, just as our thoughts and feelings and memories um are perhaps ghosts inside of the machine, otherwise called us.
	Now, how do we how do we learn about the topic of life after death, which is such an elusive topic?
	By and large, we have to realize that there are two Ways in which these grand questions of life are answered.
	These two ways go to the very heart of Western civilization.
	And if we think of Western civilization as defined by Athens and Jerusalem, these two ideas are encapsulated in those phrases.
	So Athens represents reason.
	And Jerusalem represents divine revelation.
	It's very notable that the Bible very much is written in the voice of Revelation.
	Now the Bible contains a lot in it that is verifiable.
	It has historical claims, factual claims.
	So I'm not suggesting it is simply some kind of voice from high that cannot be checked out at any human level, not at all.
	But nevertheless, the Bible doesn't try to prove things.
	It declares them.
	In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
	That is just stated in the beginning.
	no empirical evidence is offered there is someone obviously saying this it's not god But at the same time, who was it?
	Who could be, who could possibly be there other than God to observe this remarkable event of creation?
	Interestingly, the opening line of Genesis doesn't say in the beginning, I, meaning God's not speaking, someone else is speaking.
	God is represented in the third person.
	So this is the voice of revelation in the Bible.
	Athens represents reason.
	And by reason here we mean essentially the kind of talk that you learn in university.
	It's the language of history, it's the language of logic of science of archaeology.
	It's the language of proof of evidence.
	And what I'm doing in this book is I'm combining Athens and Jerusalem.
	I'm trying to combine reason and revelation.
	I'm essentially subjecting revelation to a kind of interrogation by reason.
	So using the techniques of Athens to vindicate Jerusalem, that's basically my project in this book.
	And the book begins with a forward by Rick Warren.
	I'll just read the opening line of this.
	I want to go into his forward in more detail simply because it's such a nice encapsulation of what the book is, but I'll just begin and then pick it up tomorrow.
	He says, Who hasn't wondered what happens after death?
	It would be unreasonable and foolish to live your entire life never considering and being unprepared for an event that we all know is inevitable.
	So here Rick Warren is raising, I think, a very fundamental question that was in some ways philosophically pondered by the philosopher Emmanuel Kant.
	Kant says that there are certain things that seem to be beyond the compass of reason, and yet such is the nature of our reason that we cannot help raising such questions.
	So if you think about something like why is there a universe, it's very difficult to give an answer to that question.
	But on the other hand, you can't help if you're a thoughtful person wondering that, like, hmm, why am I here?
	Hmm.
	What's going to happen after I die?
	Hmm.
	Uh, even if these questions were in some level unanswerable, uh, we would still want to ask them.
	Now we have answers to these questions from Revelation.
	I don't mean just the book of Revelation, I mean throughout the Bible, throughout other religions have a lot to say on these topics, and by and large, they all affirm life after death.
	And so the question we're going to be examining and examining in a very fresh way that will sometimes kind of surprise you because the book takes so little for granted.
	A lot of times when people make an argument, they smuggle in the conclusion into the argument.
	They kind of presume that the thing that they set out to prove has already been proven.
	Um, but I'm not doing that here.
	I'm going to begin very much like we don't know.
	Here we are flung into the world, we don't know, we need to find out, so let's go together and have a look.
	Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.

▲