Dinesh D'Souza - GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1166

Sept. 11, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

54:22

GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1166

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Coming up, uh, good night, sweet prince, and may flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
	This is from Shakespeare.
	It's a reference to Hamlet.
	It's part of my tribute to young Charlie Kirk and his important life.
	I'll be talking about uh Charlie's assassination and consider the ramifications of this shocking development.
	And Peter Schweitzer, author, president of the government accountability institute joins me.
	We're gonna talk more about Charlie, but also the roots of leftist political violence and how it can be stopped.
	If you're watching on X or Rumble or YouTube, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to the channel.
	I'd appreciate it.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	Thank you.
	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 de Susa podcast.
	I believe that the political assassination of Charlie Kirk will turn out in retrospect to prove in our culture a turning point.
	Now, um you might notice that I'm somewhat more somberly dressed today.
	All of us as uh Salem hosts, hosts of Salem radio shows or the Salem podcast in my case are doing this out of respect to our colleague and our our friend.
	This was a shocking event uh to end all shocking events.
	And by that I mean although it is horrifying to see an attempted assassination of the president.
	Uh we've seen it uh before.
	Uh Hinckley tried to kill Reagan, although Hinkley did not try to kill Reagan out of any political motive.
	Hinkley was just an absolute bonkers loon.
	But there was the assassination of JFK.
	And uh so to some degree, uh gruesome though it is to say, we have come to uh anticipate, to expect.
	But it's a whole different matter when you have a young man, thirty-one years old with a family, and out he is on the campus.
	By the way, something I did for most of my career.
	Uh I started out, if you will, as a young Charlie Kirk.
	After my um early work, which was about education.
	I spent three days a week, four days a week, uh on college campuses.
	Uh, and skirmishing, debating, arguing, in some cases, people yelling at me, but it was a whole different thing.
	I typically didn't need any kind of certainly not armed security.
	If there was a local can campus policeman, he was a big huffing and puffing guy just there in case the argument got a little too loud, he would jump in.
	And that was kind of it.
	So it's a real uh measure of where we are as a culture that you could have a Charlie Kirk out there.
	Uh not by the way, Saying any kind of not uh championing neo-Nazi rhetoric, essentially arguing the issues of the day and arguing them with uh civility and uh a generosity and openness, he's always willing to hear the other side, he's encouraging people to ask him questions, and then uh the issue of the transgender comes up.
	Transgender ideology, transgender violence, transgender shooting, and as if on cue, bam, he is shot in the neck.
	Now, the video is almost unbearable to watch, and when Debbie and I saw it, uh, we looked at each other like we don't know how anybody can survive something like this.
	You have a fountain of blood coming out of his neck.
	Uh, I see that the video is not even easily that available now, and probably because of its graphic uh nature.
	In some ways, I think, though, that this is in a macabre way symbolic.
	And by symbolic, what I mean is, why was Charlie shot in the neck?
	Uh, normally a shooter won't do that.
	They shoot for the chest, right?
	It's the biggest area to go for.
	But I think the symbolism of this should not be overlooked.
	Basically, the psychotic left and the shooter were desperate to silence Charlie Kirk's voice.
	And this is a way of saying that this young man had a huge voice and a huge impact on young people.
	And he provided a vehicle and a forum through Turning Point to galvanize these young people, to make these young people feel represented in on campuses where they were often ostracized, ignored, belittled.
	Um, in other words, there is a leftist ideology regnant on the campus, pushed by the professors and the administrators and the deans.
	And so conservative students, MAGA students feel besieged.
	Well, Charlie Kirk was their voice, their spokesman, their hero.
	And I think that's why they wanted to shut down his voice.
	Obviously, it's our job now to make sure that that voice is not shot down, that voice is amplified.
	Now, we are not very good in the amplification business, and what I mean by this is that if you look at the aftermath of George Floyd, and think about it, George Floyd was a criminal, he was a degenerate.
	Um, Derek Chauvin, whatever you think of that episode, and I've discussed it in some detail in the past.
	Derek Chauvin was legitimately trying to restrain the guy.
	So Derek Shonman didn't set out to, I'm gonna kill this guy.
	Um Derek Chauvin was doing what police are supposed to do.
	Now, did he apply excessive force?
	I'll leave that aside for the moment.
	The point I'm trying to get at is that there is a chasm, a world of difference between Derek Chauvin and George Floyd, and this political assassination of a guy, a young man, a friend, a guy who was just out there to take questions and engage issues.
	And yet, in the aftermath of George Floyd, what did you see?
	You saw a memorial service that sounded like it was for a head of state.
	Uh, you saw mass uh demonstrations, uh, you saw innumerable calls to action, you saw over-the-top memorials, statues, um, proclamations, genuflections, Nancy Pelosi.
	So the left specializes in this.
	They can even take a thug and elevate him to a certain canonized status.
	And what I'm trying to say is we kind of need to do the same here.
	We need to do what Charlie Kirk would have done.
	And Charlie Kirk, look, his great strength, in my opinion, was his immense political instinct and political talent.
	He had a feel for that, and he had a feel for how to capitalize on an occasion, frame an issue, uh, take advantage of it.
	He was talking about the young Ukrainian woman who was killed in the train car in North Carolina.
	And basically, Charlie Kirk was like, guess what?
	Uh, we have to turn this into a cause celeb.
	We have to make hay, so to speak, to do what?
	For the good purpose of stopping this kind of crime in blue cities.
	Democrats have normalized it, they seem To some degree, even to want it.
	We are in a position to raise public awareness and to stop it.
	And Charlie also said that there's a kind of assassination culture that is developing on the left.
	What an ironic thing for him to have posted, not very long before that culture came right back to haunt him.
	What I'm suggesting is that we push for a monument on the mall, a medal of freedom, a national holiday.
	We do what the left did to turn this episode to make it self-defeating for the guy who killed Charlie Kirk.
	He thought he was shutting down Charlie Kirk's voice.
	He thought he was shutting down the MAGA voice.
	And look, to some degree, he succeeded, right?
	Charlie Kirk's voice has been shut down.
	We will not be hearing from Charlie Kirk again.
	Other MAGA thinkers, speakers, influencers have got to think twice, me included.
	I can't tell you how many messages Debbie and I have gotten already.
	Watch it, be careful.
	Do you guys have security?
	Don't go into, don't do public events like this, and on and on and on.
	And it's not just uh it's not just me.
	Uh we have a son-in-law, Brandon Gill.
	He's outspoken, he's Charlie's age.
	So if the shooter wanted to issue a shot across the bow, as they say, a warning, a you could be next.
	That message has in fact gone gone out there.
	So it's going to take work in order to combat it.
	Uh and for us to amplify our voices more than ever.
	But that is exactly what needs uh to be done.
	Now, I have so much to say about all this, and probably I can only cover a few uh things uh right now, but I'll start with a tribute from Melania Trump, which I don't think as many people have seen, people have seen the Trump statement, uh, which was about Charlie's um great impact on American politics, maybe even on world politics.
	But Melania Trump gives a beautiful tribute to his family, and I want to read it.
	Charlie's children will be raised with stories instead of memories.
	Photographs instead of laughter, and silence where their father's voice should have echoed.
	Wow.
	It goes on, but the essence of it is right there.
	The impact of this goes way beyond Charlie.
	It goes way beyond even ultimately his family.
	It affects our whole, our whole society.
	Now, sure enough, we see all kinds of voices attempting to grab onto this incident and interpret it to their own benefit.
	Here is David Hale, who describes himself as a concerned Republican.
	This is a kind of anti-Trump Republican, an anti-MAGA republican.
	He has a photo of Mitt Romney shaking hands with Obama.
	He goes, our politics must become this again if we are to survive as a country.
	He wants us to go back to Romney.
	And I comment, spoken like a true moron.
	This is the handshake of the weak and the diabolical that has brought us to where we are now.
	In other words, it is precisely this pact in which the Democrats are allowed the upper hand, they get to win the election, and Romney becomes the gracious loser.
	This is what has given the left and the Democrats the idea that they are above the law, they can function with um with impunity.
	We are the party of the Nambi Pambies and the Wimps.
	And I think what David Hale is concerned about is that Charlie Kirk's assassination is going to push the Republican Party further right.
	It's going to toughen the spine of the Republican Party.
	MAGA is already tough.
	MAGA doesn't need to be toughened, but the GOP does, because the GOP, by and large, has been the party of the sluggish, uh, the indifferent, the let's do it tomorrow, the I don't know.
	We don't want to resemble the bad guys, and on and on and on.
	But but here is the left.
	This is a New York comedian, Rahul Pandia.
	Isn't it just so refreshing to finally see an assassination pulled off successfully this time?
	This is to him a joke.
	Uh, And I would say it is intended half jokingly, which is to say that there's a serious point he's trying to make.
	He's actually pleased that the assassination was pulled off.
	And he's implying that, gee, things could have gone better for our side in Butler, Pennsylvania.
	Our guy missed.
	But this time, ooh, we didn't miss.
	He's very professional.
	This is the voice of the left.
	Now I'm not saying everybody on the left is doing it, but enough people are to raise concern because think about it.
	You don't need to radicalize the entire Democratic Party to create an atmosphere of violence.
	Let's say you radicalize 10%.
	That would be more than enough.
	We, by the way, make this point about the radical Muslims, right?
	You don't have to radicalize the entire two and a half billion Muslims in the world.
	Let's say you radicalize 10% of them.
	Well, how much is that?
	250 million Muslims?
	That's going to be a sufficiently serious, parless global threat, uh, and a lot to worry about.
	Let me say that uh Charlie Kirk was a patriot.
	Uh he was a Christian.
	Uh he has he was a defender of living the traditional life.
	Marry young, stick with your wife, raise a bunch of kids, go to church, find a sense of purpose in your life.
	This is the underlying ideology of Charlie Kirk.
	And so all the people who are saying he was hard right, he was a uh a white supremacist, all of this kind of nonsense.
	Now, I will say that that Charlie Kirk was brave in taking on the crucial issues of our time.
	He took on the Israel issue and was outspoken about that, but notably he also took on the trans issue.
	And that might have been, it seems to be uh his undoing.
	Why?
	Because while the identity of the shooter is at the time of my recording this podcast not yet known.
	The FBI has put out a photo of the their person of interest, as they call it.
	They had a couple of sort of false alarms.
	They thought it was this guy, they thought it was that guy, which became obvious it wasn't those guys.
	But they now have their like help us identify this person.
	And it's a pretty clear shot of a pretty clear image of the person of interest.
	The Wall Street Journal is also reporting that there is trans propaganda, trans slogans, believe it or not, engraved on the ammunition that they found from the gun.
	They found a bolt gun, a long gun, a uh a high uh precision gun, I think they call it.
	They found it thrown in the bushes.
	So they that's probably the gun that was used.
	And there's apparently, quote, trans and anti-fascist slogans on the ammunition, giving you.
	I know the left will be like, we wonder what the motive may be of the shooter, and they're gonna go on like that, uh, even when the motive could not be more clear.
	Uh the left is these are the people who hear Allahu Akbar, kabam!
	I wonder what the motive of the shooter was.
	And similarly, in this case, the motive is being divulged on the actual bullets themselves.
	Uh, here's, by the way, CNN.
	Uh, their CNN is reporting the Wall Street Journal says, ammunition engraved with transgender and anti-fascist ideology was found inside the rifle.
	Authorities believe was used in Kirk shooting.
	I'm now gonna give you the CNN version.
	Very telling.
	A range of phrases related to cultural issues were found scrawled on a rifle and ammunition found in the woods, where conservative activist Charlie Kirk was murdered, according to sources.
	So CNN knows exactly what was said.
	They want to suppress the fact that this was trans, this was Antifa.
	Uh, and so what they're saying is, oh, there's cultural issues, there were some cultural messages.
	So this is the atmosphere of lying that is fostered By an academic culture, a media culture, a Hollywood culture.
	And so the shooter is the shooter.
	He did what he did.
	But if you want to know the atmosphere that has legitimized and encouraged and in some way cheered this kind of extremism, you would have to look at Hollywood.
	You would have to look at media outlets like CNN.
	And yes, you would have to look at academia as well.
	Most people over 62 have tens of thousands of dollars in home equity, but that wealth is only paper value unless you sell or take out a mortgage, and traditional mortgages require monthly payments.
	Movement mortgage offers a home equity conversion mortgage, often called a reverse mortgage, where payments are optional.
	These FHA insured mortgages can be one of the best ways to increase cash flow and maybe decrease taxes in retirement.
	Even if your home value drops or you live past 100, you're never required to make monthly payments.
	If you remain in the house and keep up with taxes and insurance, you will pass on all the equity you didn't use to your heirs.
	Yet millions think that these mortgages are risky or only for desperate homeowners.
	Find out the whole story from Movement Mortgage.
	They will send you a free book, Home Equity and Reverse Mortgages, the Cinderella of the Baby Boomer Retirement.
	Go to Movement.com/slash Dinesh, or you can call 580 reverse.
	That's 580738-3773.
	NMLS 39179.
	I'd like to take a moment to tell you about Freedom Chat.
	It's a next generation messaging app designed for people who still believe privacy matters.
	The team just launched their alpha version, available today on both Android and iPhone.
	I'd like you to download it right now.
	Unlike the so-called free apps that spy on you and sell your data.
	Freedom Chat was built with your privacy first.
	Your messages are end-to-end encrypted.
	They're not stored on servers, even screenshots are blocked.
	There's no tracking, no mining, no listening in, just private communication the way it should be.
	And Freedom Chat has no ties to big tech.
	It's built by people I trust, and you should too.
	I believe in it so much.
	I've created my own private channel inside Freedom Chat.
	It's at Dinesh D'Souza, which you can subscribe to.
	There, I'll share exclusive posts and content you won't find anywhere else.
	And the best part, no one can see what channels you follow, which posts you react to.
	It's your own secure curated feed.
	So if you're ready for a messenger that actually reflects your values and keeps your conversations private, head over to freedomchat.com.
	That's freedomchat.com, where freedom still means something.
	Guys, it is uh always a pleasure to welcome back to the podcast the one and only Peter Schweitzer.
	He is the president of the government accountability institute, the website, by the way, G-A-I.org.
	Peter's a New York Times bestselling author.
	He's uh written a number of um books that have gone to number one on the bestseller list Blood Money, Red Handed, Secret Empires, Profiles and Corruption, Clinton Cash, the list go goes on.
	Of course, the highlight of his career was appearing in one of my films.
	Uh Peter's chuckling as I say that.
	Uh, but uh Peter, it's a great pleasure to uh to welcome you.
	Obviously, a sombre occasion with the uh shocking assassination uh yesterday of Charlie Kirk.
	So let's uh let's start by uh me asking you about that.
	What do you think was the importance of Charlie that made him a target for this for this assassin?
	Well, Dinesh, I'm still a little numb.
	I didn't know Charlie well.
	I'd been on his program a couple of times and certainly watched uh what he did from afar.
	Uh I think, you know, sadly, the reason he was a target were the many good qualities he had.
	Um he uh it actually reminds me a lot of um you know your speeches on college campuses.
	He always talked about first principles.
	You know, he didn't he didn't get into the weeds, it's about where our rights come from, um, the importance of God in America's history.
	He always wanted to debate and discuss and dialogue.
	And he was very effective, I think, at persuading people, particularly young people.
	And I think that's probably why he was targeted in this way.
	And, you know, as we've talked about before, as certainly you've experienced on college campuses, I mean, the left has gone from, you know, I will die to defend the right of you to state your opinion opposite mine to I will kill you if you have an opinion opposite of mine.
	And you have to wonder where is this going to end with the left?
	Um people are making pro forma comments on the left how terrible they feel.
	And I think we have to take them at their word, but uh there's a lot of horrible, horrible language out there uh on the left, sort of cheering this on.
	And um at some point it's gotta it's gotta stop.
	You just think it does, but but we're certainly not there yet.
	You're certainly right, Peter, that it's uh it's a shift, it's a sea change.
	Um I was doing kind of what Charlie did a generation ago.
	You remember my book Illiberal Education, 1991.
	Uh I was speaking four times a week on the college campus, and I've probably spoken at hundreds of campuses over the years, but not once did I ever get into a physical fight with anybody.
	Not once did I uh seriously worry that someone was going to put a bullet in my neck.
	So I think it's a measure of the shift in the culture that we have to worry about those kinds of things now.
	Uh what do you think is behind the shift?
	Is it the fact that uh is it the universities that are doing indoctrination?
	Uh is it the fact that uh the um in social media both sides inhabit their own bubble and sort of are fed a certain propaganda that radicalizes them?
	What do you think has caused us to degenerate in this way?
	Uh it's a good question, Dinesh.
	I think uh a lot of it has to do with the demise uh of what I would call the traditional liberal.
	Um, you know, these were sort of the moderate liberals, uh, you know, the Walter Mondale types, uh, you know, to pick a politician.
	Or I think of um maybe I'm getting the name uh wrong, Nadine Strozen, who was the head of the ACLU.
	I think you debated with her sometimes, sometimes on the same time, sometimes opposite.
	But these were liberals who really did preach tolerance in the real sense of that word.
	Um, and they have grown silent.
	Um, I don't know if it's that they're extinct.
	Maybe you have some theories on this.
	I don't know if it's if they've grown extinct.
	I don't know if they become intimidated uh by the by the harder left by the progressives, but they are no longer there.
	And they were always, I think, the adults who would restrain the worst impulses of the left.
	Because what you have now with the left, it it reminds me of, you know, 40 years ago.
	It's it's much less common today.
	40 years ago, you would have stories come out about, you know, a woman who is raped and and um, you know, she was drunk at a bar dressing a low uh wearing a low-cut dress, and you know, the murmurs would be, well, you know, she kind of got what she should expect.
	Um, that has really become the left's view of if you say things that we don't agree with and you get shot, you kind of got what you were asking for.
	Um, and that to me does not reflect what quote unquote liberals were 40 years ago.
	So I think it's the silence of those liberals that has allowed the hard left to go unrestrained.
	I don't know if you share that view or have a different one.
	Well, uh, I've been talking on my podcast about my book Life After Death.
	And I mentioned this, Peter, only because right on the back, I have um Dinesh D'Souza here shows the argumentative skills that made him such a formidable opponent.
	This is an endorsement of my book by Christopher Hitchens.
	So you have a leading atheist, um, dug in into his position and not bending an inch, but nevertheless, gracious enough uh to extend uh a kind of branch.
	Uh And um and this was, like you say, uh a powerful faction, uh a powerful presence uh in our culture, but there's no Christopher Hitchens on the horizon uh today.
	By contrast, a couple of years later, I debated the philosopher Daniel Dennett, and this was in Mexico, and after our debate, uh, we were supposed to take a helicopter from Pueblo, Mexico to the uh Mexico City airport to fly back home.
	Dennett would not say one word to me on a 45-minute flight.
	We were sitting right next to each other, not even civilities, not even the weather, not even, hey, it's a long flight home.
	So, in a way, to me, those two little episodes encapsulate the way in which things have gone.
	Now, uh, is there any coming back from it?
	Do you think, um, Peter?
	Uh, and how would even one go about that?
	Well, I I think it's gonna take um, you know, and you're seeing a little bit of this, I think, with Bill Maher.
	You you know Bill Maher better than I do.
	You're seeing a little bit of this with Bill Maher.
	I think you're seeing this with some other voices.
	That's the hope.
	I think we have to hope and try to elevate those members uh uh uh of the left um and encourage them to speak out.
	And and the importance of it has always been you've done so many of these debates, and and and I I think you know you could uh certainly say the same thing of Charlie Kirk.
	There's nothing wrong with being sort of rhetorically strong.
	I mean, Chris Hitchens would savage people with his words.
	Right but but privately over a cocktail, he would be friendly.
	Um that was certainly what Charlie Kirk uh did.
	That is certainly as I've known you over the years what you have done.
	Uh so we need to encourage them and embrace them, but but it's got to reach that tipping point.
	And my hope is that there is still enough of that uh sense of decency among people on the political left.
	The real question is, are they gonna have the courage to say it publicly?
	Um and that's where I think maybe what Bill Maher is doing and uh what a few other voices are doing, you know, is so particularly important because the old liberals, sort of the Walter Mondale type liberals in in politics or the Nadian Strozers, are a rare, rare breed, and we need them for a healthy democracy in a healthy country.
	Um and and they are they are dying on the vine, unfortunately.
	Peter, I want to go straight to the sort of elephant in the living room, or maybe the the man in high heels.
	I don't quite know how to put it, but um there is a sort of a transgender element to all this.
	It has now emerged.
	When this first happened, uh Debbie and I were speculating, we were thinking out loud, and we realized that people don't get shot in this country, not even today, uh, over tariffs.
	You know, they're not going to shoot Charlie Kirk because he's for lower taxes.
	Uh there are certain explosive issues, probably abortion is one of them.
	Maybe the Palestine issue is one of them.
	Uh, but the trans issue is maybe the top of the list.
	And we were ruminating that this looks to be maybe some trans guy, maybe or trans ally as they say these days, uh, maybe a trans guy with a military background given the precision of the shot.
	And um, and all of this was just talk, right?
	I wasn't going to put it out or anything like that.
	We were just, we were just speculating.
	And then I see in the Wall Street Journal that the ATF is evidently saying that when they found this guy's gun, it had bullets in it and written on the bullets and on the ammunition, unbelievably, were so-called trans and anti-fascist slogans or rhetoric.
	Uh this is highly illuminating, I think, uh, and gets to something that I had originally asked you to come on and talk about, which is the way in which trans propaganda is fostered in this country.
	Um, I'm assuming that if, you know, when you're dealing with the trans, you're dealing with people who are not the most stable people in America.
	They're obviously going through some major issues, so you can take their instability for granted.
	All you need to do is add the element of rage and the predisposition to violence, and it's a very toxic uh combination.
	But you have done some critically important work exposing the way in which foreign actors, uh, a couple in particular, uh have played a role in all this.
	And this is not something I was aware of, and I don't think many people, certainly people watching or listening to me now, are aware of.
	Can you spell out what you have discovered with regard to foreign influence on our culture on this trans issue?
	Yeah, I mean, it it is certainly perhaps the most divisive issue uh in America today in terms of the heat uh that it is generating.
	Um, and I think part of that is because they use this term identity.
	I identify as this identifies that.
	It takes on a religious, a deeply religious component.
	Uh, and if you don't have the constraint um of the Judeo-Christian tradition, for example, uh, the notion that you can just lash out to protect your your belief uh is is one of the things that seems to be at work here.
	The foreign component is very interesting.
	I bumped into this as I was researching my book Blood Money, which we talked about on your podcast last year.
	And what I found was two of the largest funders of the trans movement in the United States are actually billionaires who live in China.
	Um, one of them is a guy named Roy Singham.
	He's an American.
	He owned a tech company called ThoughtWorks.
	He sold it for about a billion dollars.
	He's a self-described Maoist, and he moved to Beijing, which is where he lives today.
	Um he is married to uh uh a woman who's ahead of Code Pink, which is an activist group that I'm sure you are familiar with.
	Um they're very radical in a lot of respects, but they have really gone in heavy on the transgender movement.
	So that's the number one source of support.
	Uh, and what should be said about Singham is he is an American, uh, but he is closely tied to the CCP.
	He goes to Chinese Communist Party events.
	He um it has been reported in the Chinese press that he's good friends with one of the chief propagandists for the CCP.
	Um, so this is a guy that is wedded to the the uh Chinese uh political power structure.
	Um, the second big funder of the trans movement in the United States is also a Chinese billionaire.
	Um, his name is Joe Psai.
	Uh, and Joe Sai is the executive chairman and one of the co-founders of Alibaba, which is China's Amazon, essentially.
	Um, he has poured hundreds of millions of dollars uh into the trans movement in the United States.
	And what's interesting about both Tsai and Singham, uh, I have found no evidence that they uh have a personal uh tie to the trans movement.
	They certainly don't seem to be trans themselves.
	There's no indications that they have a family member who is.
	But I think even more uh stunning, uh Dinesh, is that neither one of these gentlemen is pushing for trans rights in China.
	They're only funding the trans rights movement in the United States.
	And the situation in China, as you can imagine, when it comes to these matters, is much more uh restrictive.
	It's very severe compared to um, you know, what the claims are here of, you know, quote unquote oppression and discrimination and all of that.
	So this is a mystery.
	Do I know what their motivation is?
	I would speculate that they know that this is a divisive issue.
	It is a revolutionary issue.
	That's something that some of Singham's groups that he funds have talked about, the revolutionary potential of the trans movement.
	So I think it is a divisive wedge that they are trying to fund to divide America, and I think it's working.
	Um, this is not to suggest, obviously, there's any ties to any of these shootings or anything else, but this core movement, the radical trans movement, there is no question that these two Chinese billionaires, one who's an American living in China, the other one who is actually Chinese, uh, are absolutely key funders uh behind.
	Peter, what you said to me is so um important that I want to re recapitulate it in my own words and have you react to it.
	What you're saying is that the Chinese are not big on the trans.
	In fact, I think I've seen in the past the Chinese saying things like, we don't want the cissification Of our society.
	We don't want our boys acting like girls or vice versa.
	This kind of nonsense will not be tolerated in Chinese society.
	Oh, words to that effect.
	And China, the China, and the Chinese government is behind all that.
	And what you're saying is that these billionaires who live in China, one American, the other seemingly Chinese, they've realized that they cannot promote CCP propaganda in an obvious way.
	If they were to talk about Marxism and class consciousness and running dog capitalists, this would go nowhere.
	So they don't do that.
	What they do is they go, listen, if we're trying to break down this American society, let's find an issue where there is genuine confusion, moral instability, uh kind of destructive angst.
	And let's sort of stoke that fire.
	Let's feed into that.
	Let's encourage it because what's going to happen?
	Uh the divisions, uh, the radicalization of American society will continue.
	Uh, and this can't be a good thing for America, which may mean it's a good thing for China.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Yeah, no, I think that's uh I think that's a very good uh uh summation, Dinesh.
	I mean, when pressed, Joe Psy and Roy Singham will defend the CCP.
	Um, but but you're right, they don't lead with that, because I think they believe that there is sort of limited uh cost effectiveness there.
	Um it should also be pointed out that Joe Sai, um uh who is the you know founder of also owns an MBA team, the Brooklyn Nets, and the WMBA uh sister uh basketball team.
	Uh and in his capacity there, he has pushed for uh the possibility of trans players playing in the WMBA.
	So this is not just silently kind of funding these activities.
	At the same time, uh, China has had a push in recent years.
	You talked about um, you know, not wanting the wussification of of uh young men in China.
	Uh the Chinese media uh has really gone on a witch hunt uh uh against actors or even news broadcasters in China if the CCP deems them to be too effeminate or not masculine enough, that is grounds alone uh for being blackballed by the CCP.
	Neither one of these gentlemen have said a peep that I've been able to find about any source of criticism as it revolves.
	So, yes, I think you're right.
	That the the question becomes why is there this radical inconsistency?
	If they are trans true believers, you would think they would go to the place where the situation is is one of the worst, which would be China.
	They have nothing but praise for that government in the United States, they see it as a wage issue, they see it as a decisive tool.
	And I think as far as stirring division in the United States, it's hard to beat the bang for the buck that you get on any other issue uh in the United States than the trans issue.
	Coming back and closing out, Peter, on the on the Kirk uh assassination, one of the things the Biden administration did after January 6th is they quite clearly identified, and actually a lot of this was going on before January 6th.
	They infiltrated the oathkeepers, they infiltrated the Proud Boys, they created a kind of intelligence penetration of what they saw as the MAGA right.
	And the premise was that they said these are the most violent people in our society.
	Uh and I wonder if something similar to this might be done by the DOJ on the grounds that this is not this, if this turns out to be a trans-related assassination, uh, it won't be the first one, right?
	There have been other shootings, obviously, the school shooting, Audrey Hale uh in Nashville.
	There was a shooting more recently, the trans shooting at the Catholic school uh in Minneapolis, I believe.
	Um, but uh so there's a pattern emerging here of the trans ideology moving rather frighteningly toward violence.
	Um would that be one way to try to ferret out at the very least, the most unstable and violent elements and stop them before they strike again?
	Yeah, I mean, I think that is um probably the only course of action.
	I mean, there were these rumors floated, um, I don't know who was behind them that you know that they were looking at the possibility of a gun ban, you know, for people who identify as trans.
	That may have just been trolling, I don't know.
	But I think you would probably agree with me.
	That's a terrible idea.
	You don't want to take a group of people's rights away.
	That can be used against anybody.
	Um, so I think that kind of approach is entirely wrong.
	Um, but I think particularly these these sort of radical organizations.
	There was, of course, remember um this cult, I forget the name of it, where there was a there was a murder in Seattle, there was a murder of a border agent up in Vermont that was sort of this odd vegan trans cult.
	Um these are entities that seem to be prone to violence.
	Um there's there's clearly a track record, and it would absolutely warrant a law enforcement approach um that is trying to monitor uh entities, organizations, and individuals who could potentially be violent.
	Um we all recognize the the this the civil liberties involved.
	You had the the case in Michigan where there seemed to be entrapment of the guys that were allegedly trying to kidnap the governor Whitmer.
	There seemed to be entrapment there.
	Nobody wants entrapment, but there is a clear pattern of violence on the part of this community.
	It's being fed somewhere, and and I think it is high time that there be more law enforcement resources used uh to try to infiltrate the the the radical elements of that movement.
	Guys, I've been talking to Peter Schweitzer, the president of the government accountability institute, um, the website G-A-I.org.
	Uh the books you know about them, Blood Money, Red Handed, Secret Empires, Profiles and Corruption, so many others.
	Uh Peter, thank you very much for joining me.
	Always great to be with you.
	Thanks, Dinesh.
	Mike Lindell tells me a major retail chain just canceled a massive order, leaving my pillow with an overstock of classic my pillows.
	But hey, their loss is your gain for a limited time.
	My pillows offering their entire classic collection of true wholesale prices.
	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 you order over 75 dollars, you get a hundred dollars in 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.
	Go to MyPillow.com.
	Don't forget the promo code DINESHDINESH and you can grab your standard MyPillow for just $17.98 while supplies last.
	Is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians the revival of an ancient conflict recorded in the Bible?
	The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation.
	What if there was going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel?
	Dinesh this is went into a war zone to make his new film.
	It offers a new way to understand October 7th.
	Israel, radical Islam, anti-Semitism, and biblical prophecy.
	Could the fate of the world of humanity itself be tied to this place?
	We came back to a land that was largely barren and empty, and we brought it back to life.
	And we're going to keep it.
	The dragon's prophecy isn't just about the Middle East.
	It's about you.
	Because without that Jewish foundation, there is no Christianity.
	Based on Jonathan Kahn's international bestseller in theaters October 6th and 8th.
	Streaming at DVDs available October 9th.
	Get the film at the Dragons Prophecyfilm.com.
	This film contains graphic violence of October 7th.
	I just learned from Debbie who keeps track of these things minute to minute that JD Vance, the vice president, is going to send Air Force II to transport the family of Charlie Kirk and his body.
	Hard to believe I'm even saying that, his body, his dead body back home to Arizona.
	I think this is a small mark of the importance of Charlie of the close ties that he had with the administration, of the seriousness with which the administration is taking uh all this.
	And so what this means, I think, is that Charlie's name and his legacy will uh live on.
	But will Charlie live on?
	Um what happens to us when we when we pass away, when we die, however we die.
	What what is the aftermath?
	That's the subject, of course, of life after death.
	It's by a kind of strange uh coincidence that I'm discussing this very topic on the podcast.
	I'm just uh in the introduction.
	Um, and I thought it appropriate to say a word about Charlie before I dive right back into the book.
	I'm on page 11.
	I had introduced a concept called reductive materialism.
	And I want to pick up on that because that I think is central to the ideology that denies uh life after death.
	It's the ideology that would say to Charlie, you can only live on through your children and through your reputation.
	There's no other way to live on.
	So reductive materialism is the great intellectual fuel for atheists and skeptics, it gives them a kind of philosophical framework to understand reality.
	And the reason that the skeptics and the atheists are so confident is because they think that this philosophical position, this reductive materialism, is synonymous with reason and with science.
	And indeed, there's a bunch of um philosophers and scientists who agree with them.
	And as a result, they think that beliefs like God and the afterlife are without scientific basis at all, in fact, anti-science, and therefore must be rejected.
	If such beliefs persist, because you have to account for, if these beliefs are so irrational, why do people have them?
	And the answer is wishful thinking.
	Here is Sam Harris.
	Clearly, the fact of death is intolerable, and faith is a little more than a shadow cast by the hope for a better life beyond the grave.
	So here's Harris, and he's pretty confident that this is wishful thinking, he's right, everybody else is wrong.
	And now, many people who uh encounter this um reductive materialism will reject it, but they won't know how to answer it.
	And when it raises its head in the public arena, they will go silent, they will not contest it.
	Uh and uh and the proof of this is very simple.
	We have millions of Christians in this country, fervent Christian believers, they certainly believe in life after death, they certainly believe in Christ's resurrection, which is of course a form of life after death.
	They know that without a belief in resurrection, you can't really have Christianity.
	And yet, how often do you see these exact same Christians in the public square defend the resurrection or defend life after death?
	Very, very rarely.
	In fact, Christians very often don't respond to this kind of discussions at all.
	When people say the contrary, they say nothing.
	And uh, as a result, this gives the skeptics, this gives the secularists, this gives the atheists the high ground to say, well, these Christians don't say anything because, well, obviously they have nothing to say.
	They're parochial, they're anti-intellectual, they're against science and reason and logic and inventions.
	And so what I'm getting at is that in this environment, it appears like science and reason have become sort of like enemy-occupied territory.
	They've been hijacked by the bad guys who now are able to go along and say science shows this and science proves that, and reason forces us to accept this.
	And Christians have a different view.
	Christians know that reality is bigger.
	Christians believe that there are ways of apprehending reality that go beyond science and go beyond uh even rational syllogisms.
	And um, what Christians are really objecting to is this reductive materialism, this kind of shortened or truncated or narrow view of reality.
	But since Christians do not take the field to challenge this, the net effect is that Christians themselves, we tend to live in two worlds.
	And what are these two worlds?
	There is the world of the church, and there is the world of the world.
	So there is the world of revelation.
	That's the world that we enter when we go to church on Sunday.
	Pastors teaching out of the Bible, and there is the normal life that we live, which is kind of operates on a different basis.
	Not on the basis of revelation per se, but on the basis of practical reason and science and experiments and logic.
	So you have secular society running alongside uh, you can say the institutions of the church, and this creates a certain type of schizophrenia.
	When when you have claims in secular society that contradict the church, you've sort of got to decide, okay, well, am I gonna go with my pastor or am I gonna go with the professor?
	Um, the professor, of course, speaking loosely here for reason.
	One is invoking scripture, the other is voking the latest study, the latest survey, the latest finding of modern scholarship, the latest discovery in modern science.
	And so what I'm saying is Christians are in a frustrating position where it's difficult to reconcile these two spheres.
	And many Christians don't do that.
	They go, well, I just believe because of faith, and they leave it at that.
	Uh and as a result, they also are debilitated in communicating their faith, our faith, to others.
	Why?
	Because we live today in a secular culture.
	Very different, by the way, than the culture that our ancestors lived in.
	We live in a culture where there are a lot of people who don't believe.
	Uh, they don't practice, they're not just not Christian.
	Some of them practice other religions, but others practice no religion at all.
	So the Bible is a really good source of authority when you're speaking to a fellow Christian.
	But what good is it when you're speaking to somebody who's non-Christian or a lapsed Christian who thinks I like, I've been there, done that, or an atheist.
	So in a secular culture, the fact is that the arguments most likely to succeed are going to be secular arguments.
	And these can only be made, ironically enough, on the basis of science and reason.
	Uh, remember, science and reason are very powerful forces in education, in the media, the institutions of education in the media have a huge impact in the formation of citizens, but especially the formation of young people.
	And so it seems to me to relinquish science, to relinquish reason to say, I want to have nothing to do with that when it comes to certain issues.
	Well, the problem with that is not just that you are losing the argument, the problem with that is that you are losing your own kids.
	Uh, what I'm getting at is that young people today go off to school, they go off to college, and so the beliefs in which they are inculcated as when they're very young are now tested, are now challenged.
	They have to take these beliefs from I believe because my parents taught me, I believe because my parents said so, to I believe because I say so.
	I believe because this is what I think.
	And this is where you can say the forces of education, of skepticism step in, uh, and what they do is they, in a sense, woo our children away.
	And what I'm saying here, and this is kind of the setting up the theme of this book, a rejectionist strategy.
	By rejectionist, I mean rejecting the language of reason, rejecting the language of science, saying you want to have nothing to do with any of that.
	People will say things like, you know, the Bible says it, I believe it, that's that.
	Okay, well, that's gonna work for you.
	But what happens when your kid comes up to you and goes, hey dad, you know, I just heard something in history class that intrigues me.
	How do you know that Jesus Christ was even an historical person?
	How do you know he even lived?
	Forget about the miracles, forget about the resurrection.
	How do you know that there was a guy named Jesus who walked on the face of the earth?
	Prove it to me.
	And then you have Christians who are like, Well, uh, oh, I don't I I well, well, well, and pastors too, who are unable to give a straight answer to a simple question, a question that would seem To be pretty foundational for Christian beliefs.
	If Jesus Christ was himself mythological, if he didn't even exist, if he is in the same status, for example, as Athena or Zeus, one of the figures of what we now call Greek mythology, then I would say that Christianity itself is on a pretty shaky foundation.
	Of course, I don't believe it is.

▲