Dinesh D'Souza - LONG LIVE THE KING! Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1193

Oct. 21, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

55:48

LONG LIVE THE KING! Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1193

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	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 gonna be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel?
	The Dragon's Prophecy.
	Watch it now, or by the DVD at the Dragons Prophecy Film.com.
	Coming up, is Trump really a king?
	If so, long live the king.
	I'll offer some sardonic comments on the No Kings protest of this past weekend.
	I'm also gonna talk about the Trump peace plan in Gaza.
	And also I'll reveal how John Bolton finally got his come up in.
	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.
	I'd appreciate it.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	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 want to talk about a couple of subjects in this opening segment.
	The first one is what is happening in Gaza and what is the path forward.
	I also want to talk specifically about the issue of civilian casualties.
	And then I want to offer a few comments about the No Kings protests that occurred over the weekend.
	I know Danielle sat in for me yesterday, and she and Jack Posobiec talked about this.
	But I haven't had a chance to give you my take on it.
	Let me begin with the fate of the peace plan in Gaza.
	And by the way, um if you haven't seen it yet, check out the film The Dragon's Prophecy, The Dragon's Prophecy, Film.com.
	it ties into all of this, and it does so in sort of the most wide-angled and profound way.
	It integrates the political and the spiritual, and there's so much confusion about this out there.
	Just this morning, somebody tweeted at me, Dinesh, don't you know what Jesus said about, quote, the synagogue of Satan?
	So the underlying assumption here is that Jesus was calling Jews the, quote, synagogue of Satan.
	Now, if you look at the passage where Jesus says this, it's very obvious he is condemning the religious leadership, the Pharisees in particular.
	Jesus had separate grievances also with the Sadducees.
	These were two of the powerful religious schools of his time.
	But quite obviously, Jesus is not talking about Jews.
	He's not talking about the Jews.
	He's certainly not condemning the Jews.
	All Jesus'own followers are Jews.
	He's not counting them in the synagogue of Satan.
	And so the idea that somehow Jesus was against the Jews is downright preposterous.
	It's a little bit like if Trump were to criticize, let's just say, left-wing Democrats and call them, as he sometimes does, psychos or sickos.
	Could you then reasonably say Trump is condemning America?
	He's condemning Americans.
	No, he's not condemning Americans in general.
	He is attacking a specific group within America.
	Trump himself is an American, just as Jesus was a Jew.
	And ask yourself a simple question did Jesus ever say something like this?
	You know what?
	I'm done with Judaism.
	I don't know what no longer want to be a Jew.
	I'm out of here.
	I quit.
	I'm starting a new religion.
	I want it to be named after me.
	Let's just call it, let's say Jesus.
	Oh no, let's go with Christianity.
	That's what it's going to be.
	So from now on, you can consider me to be a former Jew and the first Christian.
	So my question to you is can you find a single passage in the Bible, either by Jesus or by anyone else, that takes this view, either directly states it or even clearly implies it?
	The answer is absolutely not.
	You cannot do it because this view is bogus.
	This is not actually what happened.
	Jesus never exited Judaism.
	Jesus never declared his intent intention to found a new religion.
	And so the idea that somehow Jesus went against the Jews, think of it, if Jesus really went against the Jews, if God wanted it to be that way, that Jesus sort of went against the Jews, why didn't God have Jesus be born a Gentile?
	If Jesus was born a Gentile and then basically clashed with the Jews, and then the Jews conspire to put him to death collectively, working together, then you could say, you know what, this was um this was a clash between Jesus on the one side and the Jews on the other.
	But obviously, if Jesus is a Jew, if he's part of the ongoing debates that are occurring inside of Judaism about the Messiah, who is the Messiah, what are the qualities to be expected in a Messiah, how are the prophecies of the Old Testament going to be fulfilled, then Jesus is in no way going against the Jews.
	In fact, he's claiming to be as Christians believe he is, the fulfillment of Judaism, the fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures.
	And by the way, I think you know this already, but for those who don't, I'm not here advocating uh Christian Zionism.
	I'm not advocating dispensational theology.
	I'm basically stating the mainstream view of Christianity.
	I'm stating what C.S. Lewis called the mere Christianity, the common deposit of belief of all Christian believers through the centuries.
	Now, with regard to this issue of the peace plan, the peace plan is some Israelis think a bad idea because it's taking us right back where we started.
	Once again, Israel is out or meant to be out of Gaza.
	Uh, it's turning over Gaza back to the Palestinians, or maybe to some supervised authority largely made up of Muslims.
	And uh there are people in Israel who go, listen, those a lot of those Muslims themselves uh are part of the problem.
	They are part of the worldwide jihadi movement.
	They may consider themselves more moderate, but nevertheless, they are on the side of the Palestinians against Israel.
	So aren't we going back to 2005, which is when Ariel Sharon pulled uh the Jews out of Gaza and turned over Gaza to its own self-governed authority, which turned out to be you guessed it, Hamas.
	Now, my answer to that is the following that Trump here, I think is uh playing a complicated game.
	Trump realizes that Hamas almost won after October 7.
	They are losing on the ground, they're being pulverized militarily, but in the global propaganda campaign, they're doing very well.
	And in fact, toward the very end, right before the Trump peace plan, all the major Western leaders, think of it, all Banese in um Australia, Keir Starmer in Great Britain, Macron in France, um, Markani in Canada, basically all came out unanimously for a Palestinian state.
	And by the way, had a Democrat been in power in America, you'd have one more endorsement of a Palestinian state, and essentially Hamas would have incredibly, I mean, think of it.
	You do October 7th, you inflict all these atrocities, you publicize them, and far from becoming the anathema of the world, far from becoming a global pariah, you achieve a political goal that was previously out of sight, namely a global convergence on your right to an independent state, which might even end up being a terrorist state if that is your goal for it.
	So, right at the last minute, you can say Trump swooped in and took away this political victory on the part of Hamas with his peace plan.
	But this being said, Trump nevertheless has communicated to Israel listen, you cannot fight against the world or the global public opinion indefinitely.
	What's really happened is that people have forgotten about October 7th, and by forgotten, I mean many of them never saw the footage of October 7th until I released it in The Dragon's Prophecy.
	I am the first guy in a global sense to put this image out there, put this, uh put these videos out there, and now more people are posting videos, which I'm, of course, glad to see, but for a long time, the Jews in general, but also the government of Israel, very reluctant to release this footage.
	And so think of it.
	Nobody sees October 7th, but what they do see is Israel bombing buildings, pulverizing all these structures, all the rubble in Gaza, children roaming around in that rubble.
	It looks like Israel is the bad guy, and it looks like the Palestinians are the poor victims of Israeli aggression.
	And so this is the way in which Hamas has pulled a propaganda rabbit, if you will, out of a hat.
	I think what Trump is hoping to do here is to bring in the Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and others, uh, and create a new option.
	It may not work.
	Uh, it may be that the global jihadi is thwarted, it may be that they're saying things, but they don't mean it.
	It may be that they don't want in the end.
	Uh the people of Gaza have become so twisted and propagandized, they prefer death to life, just as they say.
	Uh they prefer hardship to comfort.
	Uh they prefer plotting terrorist schemes to putting on a suit and going to work.
	Or um, they they don't want uh the path of prosperity that Trump is offering.
	Um, they want jihad.
	They want martyrdom.
	That could be the case.
	And in that case, the Trump plan, although successful in returning the hostages, will have been in some respects a longer term failure.
	I also do want to say that it is ironically the democratic society's commitment to human life and specifically of the hostages that creates a huge problem.
	Why?
	Because the hostages become the bargaining power of the other side.
	Uh imagine if Israel were to say at the very beginning, you have these hostages, and okay, you know what?
	Kill them.
	Do whatever you want with them.
	We are not going to bargain over them.
	In fact, we are going to pulverize you in such a way that you will regret having taken the hostages in the first place.
	And you are going to feel the power of our weaponry so much that the price that you will pay for having taken this hot these hostages will be so high, you'll never do it again.
	Israel didn't do that.
	We wouldn't do that if we were in Israel's place.
	Uh, the bottom line is that it's not, the problem is not that Israel is too hard.
	It's not that we are too hard.
	The problem is that democratic societies, in a way, are too soft.
	And because they're too soft, they make hostage taking A highly profitable enterprise.
	Think of all the thousands of terrorists, a small army that Hamas has gotten back in exchange for 20 live hostages and some dead bodies.
	Who got the better of that trade?
	Well, I would have to say Hamas.
	Who can disagree?
	So these are a few thoughts about what's happening over there.
	Let me turn even if somewhat abruptly and just make a couple of comments about this no kings rally or rallies around the country.
	The first thing is the whole thing has an air of absurdity about it, right?
	Why?
	Because Trump is not a king.
	Trump is a constitutionally elected president.
	Now, he happens to be a very powerful president, but that's because he happens to have a Republican House and a Republican Senate, both of which are largely deferring to him, and he happens to have a majority on the Supreme Court.
	If he didn't have those things, he would be much more paralyzed and being able to move.
	But because he does have those things, and by the way, he's not the first guy to have them.
	Obama had a, at the very least, a balanced court, and he did have both houses of Congress.
	Going further back, of course, LBJ did, FDR did.
	So you've had Democratic presidents that were able to get their will implemented relatively easily because they had these, they essentially had majorities across across the board.
	So all these grievances the Democrats are raising under the No Kings uh Project.
	Well, listen, if you were to elect a Democratic president, all your grievances would be addressed.
	Another way to put it is we are not operating in a choice between a constitutional democracy or a king, but operating inside of constitutional democracy.
	And here's a very telling post by our friend Mike Cernovich.
	Quote, they get to hold their protests without a care in the world.
	No snipers on buildings shooting at them, no masked thugs attacking them, every media outlet fawning over them.
	Irony levels, fit for a king.
	This hardly needs comment, but it really shows you the how the left knows that in a way that they are the party of violence.
	They don't, you didn't see heavy security at these protests.
	You didn't see militarization, you didn't see the the guard being brought out, you didn't see the local cops being brought out en masse.
	Why?
	Because from the point of view of the left, we have nothing to worry about.
	The other side is peaceful.
	By the way, we don't have that psychology.
	We can't afford it.
	Uh the last time I did an event and it was right here in Texas.
	Uh there was a there was a small army uh of militarized guards.
	I had to hire my own private security bodyguard armed to go with me.
	Uh and so this is the environment in which we function versus the environment in which they function.
	Trump, to repeat, is not a king.
	Uh he won the electoral vote, he won the popular vote, he won all the swing states.
	In other words, he won.
	And that is really what is galling the other side.
	Um, here, by the way, is a really funny line.
	Now, this was attributed to Trump.
	I didn't see Trump himself post it, but it really captures the mood beautifully.
	Basically, what it says is something like this.
	Everyone is worried about, everyone is worried about, here we go.
	I was very concerned that a king was trying to take my place.
	This is Trump speaking.
	But thanks to your tireless efforts, I'm still your president.
	So this is Trump in his very effective way, ridiculing the no kings protests.
	And you probably heard, I wasn't going to mention it, but I'll mention it glancingly.
	You'd probably heard about Trump with the hilarious meme of Trump flying from a plane and depositing, depositing excrement on the heads of all these no king uh protesters.
	I think what Trump is doing here is he's having some fun, and he's also showing his contempt for this kind of absurd implication that somehow we are back to the days of monarchy.
	Quite honestly, if we had a monarch in place, no king's protests would not be allowed.
	Are you tired of destructive Content flooding your screens.
	I was too.
	That's why I joined the Angel Guild community.
	I wanted entertainment that inspires and uplifts and doesn't drag us down.
	Now, with Angel Guild, I can vote on upcoming films.
	I can support movies that reflect values I align with.
	Plus, I get early access to inspiring content.
	I no longer have Hollywood Entertainment pushing its perverse agenda into my home.
	Angel Studios is leading the charge, creating high quality, faith-filled films like Sound of Freedom, Cabrini, and Homestead.
	These movies are powerful, impactful, and a must see if you haven't already.
	If you want to make a real difference, where we put our dollar shapes the future of entertainment.
	Let's support content that amplifies light and protects our kids from harmful influences.
	Join me in making a difference today.
	Visit Angel.com forward slash Dinesh.
	That's angel.com forward slash Dinesh to join the Angel Guild now.
	You know, friends, let's be honest.
	If your wealth is tied up in one place, let's say the stock market, you're likely exposed.
	Market corrections, inflation, and taxes can erase years of hard work.
	And this is why I've partnered with Lasseter Capital.
	They specialize in real estate, hard assets like affordable multifamily housing and resort-style hospitality investments, physical assets, and huge demand that can deliver true diversification and offset inflation.
	These investments can offer income.
	They offer equity growth and tax advantages different than your stock portfolio.
	And the best part, Lasseter Capital manages everything for you.
	No tenants, no toilets, no hassles, none of that.
	Check it out.
	Go to Lasseter L A S A T E R. Go to Lassiter Capital.com slash Dinesh, or you can call.
	Here's the number, 817-912-1569.
	That's 817-912-1569 for your free, no obligation consultation.
	I'd like to talk about the very peculiar figure with the walrus mustache.
	I'm referring to John Bolton.
	Now, Bolton is under indictment.
	He's actually facing years in prison.
	And I'll come to his indictment momentarily.
	I want to start by just talking a little bit about Bolton, the man, because I got to know Bolton moderately well.
	We were never friends, but I was for about 11 years a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
	And for a number of those years, Bolton was also at AEI.
	I saw him, if not every day, then frequently, probably three times or four times a week.
	We obviously were also often in the AEI dining room together, and we had several occasions to chat.
	My read on Bolton, even from those days, is the following: that Bolton would always kind of give me a sideways look, as if to say, well, sort of, how did you get famous and I'm not?
	In other words, he would constantly kind of try to get out of me.
	What is it that I was doing that was making me a recognized figure?
	And reaching a level of recognition or celebrity, whatever you want to call it.
	And I tried to emphasize to him that I didn't have a plan to do any of that.
	My book, Illiberal Education had been massively successful.
	And then there was a lot of controversy, but also success around my subsequent book, The End of Racism.
	I'd written the book on Reagan that became kind of the definitive biography of Reagan, Ronald Reagan, How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, and I was a ubiquitous figure on the college campus.
	I was speaking on campuses sometimes two, three, four days a week.
	And of course, I had license and leave from AEI to be able to do that when I when I could.
	And so because of that, I was reaching large numbers of young people, you know, five, six, eight hundred at a time, but day after day.
	And so I was building up a constituency of young Reaganites and young post-Reaganites.
	These were this was actually more the period of Gingrich and the Republican congressional takeover.
	It was post Reagan, but the Reagan era was still in full swing.
	But I think I got the idea from Bolton that he was an older man, he was a little grumpy.
	He wanted to be a public intellectual.
	He wanted to be something of a recognized figure.
	And I say all that because I think that he later decided that being a Republican never Trumper would be his way to gain that kind of recognition.
	I've subsequently seen interviews with Bolton where he says things like, well, you know, Trump doesn't represent the Republican Party, I do.
	And whether or not he's right about Trump, I mean, he's obviously wrong.
	The Republican Party is very much in the Trumpian camp.
	But even if he was right, it wouldn't follow that the leadership of the Republican Party would be John Bolton.
	And I've seen Bolton scratching his head on places like CNN.
	Well, you know, I might very well run for president.
	I'm I'm weighing it.
	I'll tell you, if I ever get into it, it's gonna be to win.
	And I'm like, how delusional can you be, old man?
	Uh you are talking gibberish.
	You are talking political nonsense talk.
	If you think that the Republican Party that, let's say decided not to go with Trump would go with you.
	What kind of this is the kind of talk you hear in lunatic asylum.
	So to hear a man who is intelligent and Bolton is an intelligent guy, uh, but as I'm trying to suggest, he's a little warped, warped in his self-understanding.
	Now, here he is facing a charge that very interestingly is the exact same charge he tried to uh not stick himself on Trump, but he celebrated when Trump was raided.
	He celebrated the case over the classified documents, he emphasized the gravity of it.
	He you could see was salivating at the idea that Trump may face years in prison over it.
	And so isn't it peculiarly ironic and in a way appropriate that this exact same charge has come back to haunt him?
	He's facing not any charge, not some other unrelated criminal charge, uh, but he's facing a charge over the same thing.
	And by the way, this is not unique to Bolton.
	Think of Letitia James.
	She went after Trump on the idea that you know you falsified your information in real estate in order to get favorable terms of credit.
	And you got those favorable terms of credit, and we are now going to punish you for it.
	We're going to claim that you have injured the taxpayer, you have injured New York, and so we're going to go after you.
	And Letitia James uh promised to go after Trump.
	She went after Trump, and now she is facing mortgage fraud charges.
	So again, uh what uh what is the DOJ saying about Letitia James?
	Well, you falsified information, you provided false information for what purpose?
	To get favorable terms in real estate, to get better mortgage deals than you otherwise would have gotten.
	So there is a beautiful symmetry here between these people who try to go after Trump, let's just say on charge X, and now they find themselves facing in some version Charge X, or went after Trump in Bolton's case on charge Y, the classified documents, and now Bolton himself is facing charges dealing with why classified documents.
	And maybe it will go on like this.
	Maybe with Adam Schiff it'll be Z and this kind of poetic uh equivalence will continue to play itself out.
	Now, what did what did John Bolton do?
	It looks like what John Bolton did is he took all this classified information home, and he shared it with people who are not entitled to see it, notably members of his own family.
	It seems like the two people mentioned in the indictment are his wife and his daughter.
	Now, the indictment doesn't say wife, it doesn't say daughter, but if you read between the lines, it looks like this is what it's talking about.
	Now, again, uh John Bolton was a national security advisor.
	He actually is entitled to have access to those documents.
	What he's not allowed to do as the national security advisor is show those documents To others who are not authorized.
	I mean, this is the very clear and strict line.
	The other thing that Bolton does is he sends this information through unauthorized emails.
	And in fact, his emails were even hacked.
	So here we have a double level of danger.
	You're sending the emails to people who should not see this information, and they're seeing it.
	That's bad enough.
	But when your email is hacked, that creates the possibility of this information getting out, being seen by just about anybody, being seen by bad actors, by the worst people in the world.
	You could have the enemies of the country pouring over this information.
	So this is very oddly stupid behavior and careless behavior by a fairly seasoned DC guy.
	Like I say, John Bolton was in the neoconservative camp.
	He was a foreign policy pundit.
	He aspired to these kinds of jobs.
	Very interestingly, he did not get those kinds of jobs under Reagan, but he did get the appointment under Trump.
	Then he turns against Trump.
	He wants to see Trump jailed, and now he himself is facing jail time.
	So isn't it interesting how all of this comes around, as they say?
	What goes around comes around.
	Now Bolton is going to be in for a hard time because he's going to have to hire a very good criminal defense attorney.
	He's going to be subjected to a blizzard of motions.
	He's going to have to deal with the anxiety and trauma of a serious case that could put him away for years.
	What is the probability that he will be put away for years?
	In my view, somewhat low.
	He's going to be, unlike by the way, the Trump himself, and unlike by the way, a lot of Trumpsters, these indictments, which are by and large in the DC area, are going to left-wing judges.
	Judges appointed by Biden, judges appointed by Obama.
	Obviously, the jury pool is also going to be, if not left wing, certainly leaning to the left, which means it will have jurors sympathetic to Bolton, sympathetic also to Letitia James.
	And again, that isn't contradistinction.
	That is in contrast with, say, January 6th juries, which were almost uniformly made up of bureaucrats and uniformly hostile to Trump and also to the Trumpsters.
	So maybe there's a possibility on the part of Bolton to get jury nullification.
	And jury nullification simply believes the jury looks at it, and even if they think that he did it, even if they think that he's guilty, they just decide we're going to sort of nullify the verdict.
	We're just going to declare him acquitted.
	Juries, after all, do have at some level ultimate power.
	They are asked to follow the law.
	They're given jury instructions that tell them what the law is that they are supposed to apply.
	But what if they don't apply it?
	What if they just go, well, yeah, okay, fine, but we still think the guy's not guilty.
	At that point, the jury becomes the final word.
	At that point, there is no further way to get around a jury decision.
	If Bolton is acquitted, he's a free man, he walks free.
	So I think he has a chance for this kind of a jury nullification outcome.
	Um, but it's still going to be a painful process to get there.
	And maybe in the end, it is that process itself that will be his real punishment.
	Mike Lindell and MyPillow are excited to announce they're having their biggest three-in-one sale ever with a limited edition product, a back in stock special, and a close-out deal you won't find anywhere else.
	My pillow bed sheets, just 29.88.
	Any color, any style, any size, even kings.
	Regular price, 119.98 now, just 29.88, but move fast because once they're gone, they're gone for good.
	My towels, finally back in stock, but not for long.
	Get a six-piece my towel set.
	Regular price 6998, now only 3998.
	And for the first and only time, get their limited edition premium my pillows made with Giza Cotton and a designer gusset, queen size 1798 Kings only 1998.
	Also for a limited time, when you order over 100, you get free shipping plus 100 and free digital gifts.
	Call 800 876-0227.
	That's 800 876-027, Or go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Dinesh for the best offers ever.
	Quantities are limited, so order now.
	Go to myPillow.com and use the promo code D I N E S H Dinesh.
	Hey guys, with the new film, The Dragon's Prophecy now in my locals channel.
	I'd like to invite you to check it out and become an annual subscriber.
	I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content you won't find on other social media platforms.
	On locals, you get Dinesh unchained, Dinesh uncensored.
	You get exposed to a kind of personal side of me that you won't find anywhere else.
	On locals, you can also interact with me directly.
	I do a live weekly QA every Tuesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	No topic is off limits.
	I have a movie page on locals with a bunch of cool films, as I mentioned, the new one, The Dragon's Prophecy, but also a bunch of my old films, 2000 Meals, Police State, Vindicating Trump, Trump Card, even our feature film, Infidel starring Jim Cavizel.
	Now, when you become an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch all this movie content for free.
	It's just included with your subscription.
	So check out the channel.
	Uh become an annual subscriber.
	It's very simple.
	Go to dinesh.locals.com.
	I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
	Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
	Guys, I've talked on the podcast before about reverse mortgages.
	And I'm partnered with the movement mortgage, movement.com is the website slash uh Dinesh.
	But the concept, in my view, is elusive for a lot of people.
	And so today I have Harlan Ocola.
	He's the National Reverse Mortgage Director at Movement Mortgage.
	I'm going to press him a little bit more for clarity on how these mortgages actually work, how they can benefit you as a practical matter.
	So do listen to this with a with an open mind.
	By the way, Harlan is the author of a book that I found really fascinating and eye-opening.
	It's called Home Equity and Reverse Mortgages, The Cinderella of the Baby Boomer Retirement.
	And I'll tell you later how you can get a copy of this book and uh and learn more than we're even able to cover today.
	Harlan, welcome.
	Thank you for thank you for joining me.
	It is a common belief among people.
	Well, first of all, there's a negative odor around reverse mortgages among some people.
	They just think, well, I need to stay away from this.
	It's not a good idea.
	But others have a somewhat different misconception, I think, and that is I can only start thinking about a reverse mortgage if I've completely paid off my home.
	My home is free and clear.
	And now maybe I can borrow some money to get some equity against the equity that's built up in my home.
	Can you talk about how an ordinary guy who's let's say been paying on his mortgage for a bunch of years, has a good bit of their home paid off, but not all of it.
	They're still in the process of paying it off.
	What is a reverse mortgage and how does what kind of help can it provide to that kind of a guy who is, let's call it mid-stream of paying off their existing mortgage.
	Well, I'm that average guy, Dinesh.
	I I had paid my mortgage down, but I had not paid it off because I moved up to a more expensive home that was closer to where my kids lived.
	And so I was a typical situation of still owing on my mortgage and having a substantial payment when I hit 62, which I could afford to make.
	It wasn't a problem.
	I was still working.
	It wasn't that I was in a financial trouble, but it didn't make sense for me to continue sending $3,000 a month to an illiquid asset because I had better things to do with it.
	And so there's a lot of people that either there's two groups.
	The one group, they really can't afford to make the payment.
	They've retired, and that payment that was easy to make when they were working when the paychecks were coming in.
	Uh that was simple for them.
	Now it's not.
	Or they've lost a spouse.
	Um, and so we want to help those people take their mortgage payment to zero.
	Um, and they don't have to have it paid down to zero.
	They just have to have about 60% equity, depending on their age.
	And uh let's say they've got a $500,000 House and they've got it paid down to 200,000, that's enough.
	You don't have to pay it to zero to get rid of the payment.
	So refinancing a regular mortgage that requires payments to a reverse mortgage that has optional payments is the most powerful use of a reverse mortgage.
	And that's what I did.
	I'm part of the second group.
	I could still afford to make payments, but I didn't want to.
	And that's where things change for me is I eliminated that payment, sent more money to my investment advisor to bolster my retirement accounts in my IRA's 401ks, Ross accounts, and so on.
	That's really the powerful use of a reverse mortgage is simply redirecting that cash flow to a better, uh a better place where it simply makes more sense.
	Let me press you on this for further clarity of what it is that when you did this, what is it that you are actually doing?
	So let's take the example that you gave.
	You have a $500,000 uh home, you've paid off $300,000, you still have $200,000 to pay off.
	And let's say that either you have trouble now making the payment, or you have the money, uh, but you have some other use in the money.
	You've noticed that there are other investments that are going up really well.
	Uh let's just say the federal government is printing money, and so you figure out, hey, I'm gonna, I'm gonna put some money in stocks, I'm gonna put some money in gold, or I'm gonna, I'm gonna do something else with that money.
	Uh how does the reverse mortgage sort of jump in and save you from having to continue to make those payments?
	How do you achieve that?
	You describe my situation almost perfectly.
	I at I as soon as I hit 62, my payment was $3,000 a month.
	Yep.
	I hit 62.
	I have my 62nd birthday, and I immediately refinance my forward mortgage into a reverse mortgage.
	And I get no money.
	I simply eliminate the payment.
	And so I traded a mortgage that requires a monthly payment to a mortgage that gives me an optional monthly payment.
	It's really as simple as that.
	A reverse mortgage when you're old enough at 62, it just allows you to say, no, I don't want to make a payment anymore because I've got a whole bunch of equity.
	I want to send it somewhere else.
	I sent some of the money to gold, some of the money to stocks and bonds, some of the money to annuities and cash value life insurance, and my net worth dramatically increased over the last three years, just like all of my clients have, because they sent it to a better place.
	We all know what happened to gold.
	We know it happened to some stocks and bonds, and and those are things that I simply increased over there over on the other side.
	Now, what happened is people is what people are afraid of.
	Oh, but I had negative equity.
	I lost equity.
	Yes, I spent or used 100,000 worth of equity in my house over the last three years.
	I have a house that's worth about 1.5.
	But in that situation, I was able to increase the other side of the equation by over two and a half times that.
	So I lost a little bit of equity in my right pocket, but gained way more cash in my left pocket because I had more options of what to do with that money.
	And people can say, well, uh, the last three years was incredibly easy to make money.
	Um, there's always a way to make money, but if you want to make a payment, we'll accept the payments.
	If you say I don't have any place to put money that's better than paying off my house, well, then pay off your house and send the money to your equity because we will refund it to you whenever you want that money back if you make a payment on a reverse mortgage.
	You can't do that with a forward mortgage.
	With the traditional forward mortgage, once you pay in, you can't get it back without refinancing.
	We don't require you to refinance.
	We'll just give you the money back that you sent us at any time that you want because you were never required to send it in the first place.
	A very different way of thinking.
	I think this is actually really important because what you're saying is that when you are locked into a long-term mortgage, 15 years, 30 years, this is sort of like a burden that you cannot normally get out of.
	If you get out of it, you have you're in, you you basically fall in arrears, then you default, then they start putting a lien on your house.
	And what you're saying is that there's always alternative uses for money.
	And that if you can think of a better way uh to use your money for whatever purpose, whether it's to give it to your kids, or whether it is to give Christmas presents, or whether it is to invest it in in better um things than just putting it into the mortgage itself, because you're getting the appreciation on your house no matter what, right?
	In other words, if your house goes up in value, you're in the house, you do have a mortgage, your house is going to get uh go up in value, you're going to get the benefit of that.
	The reverse mortgage is introducing an element of flexibility that most people, by the way, including me would not normally have thought of.
	Is that a is that an accurate summary?
	Well, it's so true.
	People think nothing of taking money out of a savings account.
	They think nothing of taking money out of their IRA or their 41K Dinesh, but they they just kind of, well, I don't want to take money out of my house.
	Well, why?
	It's just an asset that you're using some of it, so I have less equity in my house account, but more in the other accounts.
	It was just simply a better place to put it.
	And to have that option in the fourth quarter of life is powerful because you can do so much more because the only thing we know for sure is that things are going to change.
	I do not want if if somebody came to you and said, Would you like to put uh $500,000 into an illiquid asset that never pays you any dividends and uh just requires you to keep sending money in?
	You'd say, well, I don't like that uh that investment.
	But that's what a house is.
	You just keep putting money into it.
	You never get an income from it uh until you sell it.
	And you must put it in, or else you get in trouble, uh, like you just mentioned, a foreclosure, whatever.
	Why would I want to put that much money into something that's illiquid that I can't get my hands on, that I can't enjoy doing things with my kids, helping my kids, um, giving, gifting when I see a worthy cause, I have a whole lot more control of the money than what I would if I just stuck it into my house.
	Because you can't get money out of your house quickly without selling it or mortgaging it.
	And if you mortgage it, you usually have a payment for the next 15 or 30 years or uh a HELOC with a required monthly payment of at least interest.
	I mean, I think it's also the case that people drift into portfolio allocations that they never plan for, but they end up in nevertheless, right?
	So you you might you might get some really good advice that says, look, put uh put, let's just say 30% of your assets in real estate, put 30% of your assets in stocks, let's just say 30% of your assets in gold and cryptocurrencies.
	I'm just obviously speaking hypothetically here.
	And the guy might go, well, yeah, but I've been making payments on my house, and that takes a chunk of my income.
	I'm like 80% in real estate, not because I really want to be, but because I have a mortgage and I don't know another way that I can move any money around.
	And you're saying, hey, have I got a solution for you?
	And you do.
	Uh, guys, I've been talking to Harlan O'Cola and the book that you should get, and you will get for free from movement mortgage is called home equity and reverse mortgages, the Cinderella of the baby boomer retirement.
	I think you owe it to yourself to check this out to learn more about this.
	It's a really flexible option that opens up some real doors for you.
	And uh and the website, movement.com slash dinesh, it's movement.com slash dinesh.
	And also, Harlan, you have a number uh to give out if someone wants to call and get some questions answered.
	What is that number?
	And that number is 580 reverse.
	And even if you don't want, uh if you don't want to really read a book, uh let we'll just go over the details with your personal situation and say, what does it look like for you stop making a mortgage payment?
	People are shocked when they see what the results of that are.
	580 reverse, and we'd be thrilled to just run through some options of how it could change your life.
	Great stuff.
	Harlan Nicola, thank you very much for joining me.
	Thank you.
	Really appreciate the opportunity to get the news out, Danesh.
	I'm going to begin today a new chapter in my book, Life After Death, The Evidence.
	And uh by the way, it's kind of interesting.
	I'm uh engaged in this ongoing debate on social media over replacement theology and uh dispensationalism and uh what is the connection between the old testament and the new.
	And uh I try to remind some of my interlocutors, many of whom have sort of um wandered into this territory like Six weeks ago or maybe six months ago, that these are questions I've been thinking about and writing about all my adult life.
	And I have, in fact, published three fairly detailed and original works of Christian apologetics.
	I say original in the sense that they are real efforts to make the case for God and Christianity not relying on the authority of the Bible.
	You have a bunch of Christian apologists, and typically what they do is they teach in the church youth group or the church Bible study.
	And even though they are they profess to be engaged in apologetics, they're really not.
	They tend to revert quickly back to claims that are made based on revelation or made based on faith.
	I try hard not to do that.
	So I keep the vocabulary secular, I keep the mode of investigation that way.
	And you'll see that that is in fact the approach in this particular book, Life After Death.
	This chapter, chapter three, is called a universal longing, two types of immortality.
	And I begin with a quote from the famous sociologist Peter Berger in his book called The De Secularization of the World.
	He says the religious impulse, the quest for meaning that transcends the restricted space of empirical existence in this world, has been a perennial feature of humanity.
	So what is he saying?
	He's saying that it is a universal longing, a universal quest in all civilizations at all known periods of history to somehow go beyond the quote restricted space of empirical existence in the world.
	It's almost as if we know intuitively that there is something more.
	There's something beyond the empirical.
	In fact, we need that something beyond to make sense of our life in the empirical world.
	And this, what Peter Berger is saying that's important here is that this is true of all places and all times.
	Now, why is that significant?
	Let's think about this for a minute.
	It's significant because people could say, all right, well, Dinesh, we can understand why people accept the assumptions of Christianity.
	They're born into a Christian culture, they've been subjected to Catholic catechism, or they've been going to uh young people's Bible study for decades.
	And so this is all they know.
	They don't know anything else.
	And so, therefore, the explanation for their beliefs lies in the sort of cultural soil in which they were raised.
	And so that's why they believe in life after death, because their parents did, maybe their parents before them.
	Uh, they grew up in a religious community, they don't know very many people who don't believe in life after death.
	And what we're getting at here through Peter Berger is no, uh, this is not the product of a particular space or time.
	This is a product of humanity itself.
	This is just as much a part of human nature as let's say the desire to eat food, the desire to reproduce, uh, the belief in a better life, uh, the idea that we use our intelligence to navigate our environment.
	Those are all universal staples of humanity.
	And what Peter Berger is saying is so is the belief in life after death.
	So that's a very um important observation borne out by the way, by all kinds of anthropological and other types of study.
	All right.
	Let's begin the chapter.
	Atheists regard life after death as a religious claim, one that does not have to be taken seriously.
	So there are two parts to this opening sentence.
	Uh, the first one is the idea that life after death is the special province of religious believers.
	We're going to look in a moment to see if that's even true.
	I will show that it's not.
	And second, one that does not have to be taken seriously.
	Now, the second statement obviously follows from the first.
	If it is the case that life after death is a religious claim, then people who are not religious can say, well, we can safely ignore it.
	That is the kind of stuff that religious people believe, things like miracles, life after death, a belief in God.
	Since we are not religious, we can safely disregard those kinds Of claims, which, after all, the believers themselves will often admit are based upon faith, and we do not navigate our lives, so say the atheists by faith.
	Now, the atheist argument pushes forward kind of in this way.
	The reason is, this is from the point of view of the atheist, there are many religions in the world, and they seem to offer competing visions of the afterlife.
	Therefore, in the atheist view, clearly all of them can't be right.
	At most, one can be, and most likely all of them are wrong.
	For atheists, life after death is part of a religious picture of the world.
	A picture that has been largely discredited.
	Discredited by what?
	Discredited by science.
	And so say the atheist, religion is therefore, you can look at it as a kind of bad science.
	And atheists go, well, it was understandable at one time people gave religious explanations for what we now know to be scientific phenomena.
	And so why don't we just go about, so say the atheists again.
	Why don't we just replace the bad science, i.e., religion, with good science?
	Let's develop a scientific outlook and to the degree that we are devoted or passionate about anything.
	Let's be passionate about that.
	Now, this is in summary the atheist critique.
	And I'm going to show in this chapter that these arguments are dead wrong.
	They are wrong from the ground up.
	I'm going to like obliterate them.
	And again, what I'm doing here is a process very important in apologetics.
	It is basically called the clearing.
	It's called, it's called brushing away the debris.
	It's called taking all this stuff, a combination of sophisticated and unsophisticated nonsense that has penetrated our textbooks and our history channel and our media.
	So there's some work to do to blast it out so that we can clear our heads and sort of begin anew.
	But the first couple of chapters, I don't remember exactly, maybe two chapters, maybe three, are devoted to this kind of uh, let's call it uh apologetic deconstruction.
	I'm deconstructing the secular model.
	I'm trying to bring it down and show its incoherence.
	It's the fact that it's unmatched by reality, and the atheist pretends to be standing firmly on the ground of reason uh and knowledge is dubious at best.
	So let me tell you a little bit of what I'm going to show.
	I'm going to show number one that the belief in life after death is in no way exclusively religious.
	In fact, it is shared by Western philosophy, going all the way back to Plato.
	In other words, from the very beginning, the idea of transcendence, the idea of something that is beyond the material world to go further, the idea of a world behind the world, to go even further, the idea that the world behind the world is the real world, and the world that we live in is a kind of pale imitation or copy or reflection or refraction of that world.
	All of these are philosophical ideas that arose in secular environments outside of religion and sometimes in contrast with it, but nevertheless, this is the foundation of Western philosophy.
	So again, the idea that this is a religious belief exclusively demonstrably false.
	Now, I'm also going to show that there is complete agreement among the world's great religions that there is life after death.
	In other words, the idea of life after death is a universally held belief.
	And when we look at how these beliefs developed in sort of ancient civilizations, we will be able to completely dismiss the hypothesis that this is some kind of primitive science.
	In other words, that people were making a kind of simplistic or botched understanding of the world.
	They came up with the idea of life after death out of this kind of bad science.
	I'm going to show that the belief in life after death has a completely different source.
	It has nothing to do with making a kind of half-baked attempt to understand the world prior to the emergence of modern science.
	And while there are in fact differences between the way that the great religions of the world look at life after death, I'm going to show that these differences aren't all that big.
	In fact, I'm going to show that there really are two main versions of life after death.
	And this is in fact the subtitle of this chapter.
	The chapter to remind you is called a universal longing.
	Two types of immortality.
	So what are the two types?
	I'm going to tell you right now.
	There is basically an Eastern view, and there is a Western view.
	And you'll see when I spell them out, they're not that far apart.
	Basically, the Eastern view is this.
	And the soul becomes part of some transcendent or ultimate reality.
	So the material body is destroyed, but the immaterial soul lives on.
	This is the Eastern view.
	Here's the Western view.
	The Western view is that the Eastern view is absolutely correct, with the only modification that there is going to be in the Western view, and certainly in the Christian view, a bodily resurrection.
	In other words, the life after death in the Christian scheme does involve some form of the body.
	Not the body we have now, not the body in the same form that it exists today.
	But nevertheless, there is a view of life after death that includes a bodily as well as a spiritual resurrection.
	We will talk later about what that means.
	We will introduce the concept of the quote resurrected body.
	We'll talk about that later.
	But the point is these are the two forms of immortality that people actually believe in.

▲