Dinesh D'Souza - ANGRY YOUNG MEN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1211

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 13, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

01:02:29

ANGRY YOUNG MEN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1211

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 going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel?
	The Dragon's Prophecy.
	Watch it now or buy the DVD at thedragonsprophecyfilm.com.
	Coming up, my topic today, angry young men.
	I'm going to consider the life experience that has radicalized many angry young men on the right.
	I'm also going to explore the connection between a highbrow philosophy called post-liberalism and the somewhat lowbrow group called the Groipers.
	And the legendary radio host Michael Savage joins me.
	He's going to talk about what's up with this anti-Semitism stuff.
	If you're watching on YouTube, X or Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe, hit the subscribe, the follow, the notifications button.
	I'd really 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 D'Souza podcast.
	I want to go through today a detailed post by a guy on X talking about his son.
	And it is a way of explaining the phenomenon of these angry young men.
	Erica Kirk called them these lost or wayward young men.
	Some of them are known as the Groipers.
	Who are these people and what makes people go in this direction?
	I don't want to so much analyze or even argue with this.
	I have plenty of time to do this another time.
	What I want to do here is lay it out and explain it and understand it.
	So this is an effort to sympathetically engage with what produces these angry young men and what are they angry about?
	Because as we're about to see, a lot of what they are angry about is completely justified.
	So here's the post, and I'm only going to read a part of it, but enough to give you the full flavor of it.
	I despise the Groiper movement.
	Very important opening statement because this parent is saying, Look, I'm not defending all the stuff the Groipers say, and a lot of it may be out of line, a lot of it may be hysterical, a lot of it might be self-dramatization, it reflects very few of what we would call the conservative virtues.
	The conservative virtues, by the way, are things like resilience, an uncomplaining temperament, a certain respect for how things were in the past, a certain respect for parents, a love of history.
	And we find very little of this, by the way, among these angry young men.
	They don't seem recognizably conservative in the sense of they don't have a wry view of human nature.
	They don't accept that, hey, listen, the world is, of course, messed up.
	It's always been messed up.
	And the reason it's messed up is because human nature is a little messed up.
	So this is the conservative attitude.
	We're talking about a bunch of people who think of themselves as on the right, but they don't think like this.
	They don't have this temperament.
	But why don't they have it?
	Well, here is, let's listen to this parent.
	My 11-year-old son joined the elementary school band.
	The classrooms were inundated with, so the parent goes to the band and sees the classrooms are inundated with DEI messages and trans pride flags.
	On the walls were posters, stickers, various decorations invoking various totems of diversity.
	Black Lives Matter, decolonization, LGBTQ, every sort of race and gender social justice messaging you can imagine.
	Then you have these themes of social justice hammered into these young people, indigenous ways of knowing, safe spaces for all kinds of ethnic and minority groups.
	And then a woman in a mask, who was evidently in charge, got up and read a number of land acknowledgements before acknowledging the contribution of indigenous people to indigenous ways of knowing.
	So there's a little bit more of this.
	And then when it comes to how the teachers behaved, I'm going to draw on that night and the other times I've been at my son's school.
	To begin, the boys are treated almost as though they are defective girls.
	Wow.
	The feminine modes of interaction and socialization are treated as though they are the only legitimate modes of interaction.
	Almost all the authority figures in my son's school are women, with almost no exceptions.
	And one day the school hired a single male education assistant, and the boy comes home and says he's amazed to see a male teacher in the school.
	So my son comes home from school, expresses utter frustration that his own way of communicating is automatically treated as weird, maybe autistic, defective, handicapped in some way, and that he lacks all the qualities, basically female qualities that essentially make him out to be a deficient person.
	And now I want you to imagine what it's like for an 11-year-old boy to be saturated in this environment day after day.
	He's an alien in his own school.
	He's treated like a ticking time bomb.
	So the hostility toward the boys that is riven in at every level of the institution produces at some point a pushback and a revolt.
	And by and large, what this parent is saying, what I want to point out to you, how absurd the world must appear through the eyes of the average 11-year-old boy.
	He's told he has a host of advantages, white privilege, male privilege, trade privilege, that he has never experienced and he will never benefit from.
	And this justifies the system that he is immersed in.
	And the worst part is, if he tries to point this out, the very people who are doing it will look at him straight in the face and say, We're not doing it.
	This has never happened.
	And all of this is happening in your most formative years.
	So, according to the parent, look, this is going to produce a pushback that is very, very strong.
	Once you understand all this, says the parent, the real question is not, why are some young men radicalizing?
	The real question is, why are there any young men at all who have not been radicalized?
	Now, the parent goes on to say, none of this is to excuse any of the extremist radicals.
	The point here is to understand where this is coming from.
	But I also want to take this post, a very eloquent post, by the way, very heartfelt post, and in my view, accurate post, to show what it is that these young people are really against.
	Because to listen to them, they are against a whole bunch of different things.
	They're against the post-war economic order going back to 1945.
	If they believe a guy like Tucker, they're against the whole story of World War II.
	They're against the greatest generation.
	Some of them are against like Vivek Ramaswamy.
	They're angry at immigrants.
	But you notice that all of this that I've just described is nothing more than heavy-handed, browbeating leftist ideology.
	This is the leftist ideology that has overtaken their schools and their colleges.
	And this is what these young people are enduring day after day.
	It's the full triumph of leftism.
	Now, where they have a point is that when, now I didn't go to high school, except for the 12th grade in America, but I did go to college in this country.
	When I was a student, there were still remnants of the earlier generation, which is to say the pre-Vietnam War generation in the colleges.
	And that influence kept the colleges sane and balanced.
	What made the colleges tip over is when the 60s generation came fully in charge.
	And these are the people who essentially made sure that the economics department is six different types of Marxists.
	These are the people who kept all the conservatives out.
	These are the people who devised all these programs at the school level and at the college level that this parent is talking about.
	So I guess what my take on all this is is that we have seen leftism run rampant in our culture.
	Now, again, is this the fault of the conservatives?
	Because there's a lot of anger among the younger generation toward their own parents, even if their parents are conservative.
	And the idea is, why didn't you stop this?
	And it's actually worth answering that question because the truth of it is the reason we didn't stop it is because we couldn't.
	The reason we didn't stop it is because we were outnumbered eight to one.
	The reason we didn't stop it is because we didn't have anything like the resources of the people who were implementing these programs over our objection.
	Many of us in the Reagan generation have devoted our careers and our work to attacking these ideas.
	And given the fact that we were outnumbered, given the fact that the takeover of academia preceded us, we didn't let academia fall.
	Academia fell, and we were the victims of that fall, and we as students rebelled against it.
	We took on things like affirmative action.
	We fought DEI before it was even called DEI.
	And we fought it when our troops were numbered on the fingers of both your hands.
	And so the point I'm trying to make here is not to say that there is not a legitimate grievance.
	I'm just trying to point the blame, the focus on where it ought to be.
	Because if you have a correct grasp, you know, sometimes what happens, I think, generationally is people think that the earlier generation all operates as a single entity.
	But that's kind of like saying that the younger generation operates as a single entity.
	I could easily turn it around and say to young people, let's just say young people who are 35 and under, I could say, well, listen, you're to blame for all our social problems.
	Why?
	Because by and large, look at the voting habits of your generation over the last three elections.
	Most of you voted for Obama.
	Most of you voted for Obama's reelection.
	Even though Trump won in 2016, it was only a minority of you who actually voted for Trump.
	Most of you voted for Biden.
	And so you want to find out who's really to blame for the world's problems?
	It's you.
	Because if you subtracted out the young people's vote, Republicans and conservatives would do much better in the election results.
	Now, that would be, you would say that's horribly unfair because guess what?
	All these woke leftists are not our fault.
	We voted differently.
	We tried to fight them on the campus.
	We were outnumbered.
	Well, don't you see that's exactly what I'm saying?
	We were outnumbered the same way you were outnumbered.
	And so you can't put a sort of onus on an entire generation.
	The real question is this.
	Like, what did you do?
	Like, what did the conservatives of your time do to fight these things?
	How effectively did they do them?
	And how did they come out on all that?
	So all of this is a way of saying that I think that we are facing serious problems in our society.
	Some of them have to do with the economic structures that we're dealing with.
	Things like housing, things like the prospects of getting jobs, the impact of illegal immigration, possibly legal immigration, certainly technology, and with more to come with artificial intelligence.
	All these things are realities of our time and in many ways somewhat different from a generation ago.
	But nevertheless, these angry young men aren't going anywhere and their problems do need to be addressed.
	And the best way to do it, identify where the problem really lies.
	And that's where you want to focus on the solutions.
	If you are a homeowner in America, you need to listen to this.
	The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud on the rise called title theft.
	And your equity is the target.
	Here's how it works: criminals forge your signature on a single document, use a fake notary stamp, and file it with the county.
	And just like that, on record, they own your home.
	Using your ownership, they can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property.
	And you won't know about it until foreclosure or collection notices show up in the mail.
	Now, this is why I've partnered with Home Title Lock so you can protect your equity and find out today if you're already a victim.
	Use my promo code, it's Dinesh at home titlelock.com.
	You get a free title history report and a free trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.
	That's 24-7 monitoring of your title records, urgent alerts to any changes, and a fraud occurs.
	Their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix it.
	Find out why I trust Home Title Lock.
	Protect yourself like I did.
	Don't be a victim.
	Protect your equity today.
	Go to home titlelock.com, promo code Dinesh.
	You know, Thanksgiving holds so many memories, and I'm sure it's the same for you.
	But right now, there's a girl finding out she's pregnant, and in the next couple of weeks, she's going to make a decision.
	And whatever decision she makes will become her memory of this Thanksgiving season for the rest of her life.
	What will she be thankful for a year from now?
	Well, you.
	She'll be thankful that you introduced her to her baby by providing a free ultrasound.
	And she'll be thankful that she chose life as she prepares for her baby's first Thanksgiving.
	Take a stand for life by providing an ultrasound with pre-born.
	When a young woman sees her baby on the ultrasound and hears her baby's heartbeat, she is twice as likely to choose life.
	Just $140 provides five ultrasounds that can save five babies.
	$280 saves 10 babies.
	A gift of $15,000 provides an ultrasound machine that can save thousands of babies for years to come.
	Please help.
	Call 833-850-2229.
	The number again, 833-850-2229.
	Or go to preborn.com/slash Dinesh.
	That's preborn.com/slash Dinesh.
	I want to introduce in this segment some topics that seem somewhat broadly philosophical.
	They have to do with liberalism and post-liberalism.
	So I thought I would get into that in a rather practical way by talking about something that is related, and that is the simple issue of home prices.
	Now, here's a post by a young guy I actually know quite well.
	He's talking about the fact that his grandparents a generation ago or two generations ago could buy a house for $25,000.
	And he says that same house today, $500,000.
	And he goes on to show that even if you adjust for inflation, the house has gone up even more in value.
	And then I see a post by Benny Johnson drawing on some data, which says that when the greatest generation came home from World War II, half of America's 30-year-olds were married and owned a home.
	And today, he says a generation later, really two generations later, only 10% of Americans own a home and are married by 30.
	Now, there are some big issues here, but I want to just focus on why people are getting married later.
	And that is, of course, related to the ability to buy a home, but that's not the only factor.
	But let's just focus on the home prices here for a couple of reasons.
	Why is it that home prices have gone up like this?
	And how much have they really gone up?
	Now, the second question may seem almost absurd.
	Like, what are you talking about, Dinesh?
	Obviously, they've gone up tremendously, but it's not so simple.
	I want to just mention two facts that we need to pull in because those of us who are older, and of course, there are people who are older than me, will remember that the situation as it's being portrayed now is not exactly the way that it was.
	So your grandparents, for example, yes, they could in fact buy a home, but the average home size in 1950, let's say, I just looked it up this morning, was 900 square feet, two rooms.
	So the home is not what most people today call a home.
	It was rather essentially little more than an apartment with a roof on it, 900 square feet, two rooms, and then a small kitchen, and usually one small bathroom, not two, not three, no powder rooms, none of that.
	But that's what it was like.
	That's what it meant for the average American to own a home in 1950.
	Now, what about, let's fast forward a generation to the Reagan generation when I bought my first home.
	This would be in the late 80s, but I'm not just talking about myself.
	Let's just look at people who bought homes for their first home we're talking about, let's say between 1988 and 1992 in that period.
	Well, home prices were a lot lower than they are now.
	But guess what?
	What was the interest rate?
	Well, the interest rate was somewhere between 8 and 10%.
	Now, compare that to the interest rate of today.
	When you are paying, well, you just have to take a house today that has a mortgage of, let's say, 4% or 4.5%, and change that number to 10%, and now run the map, and you get an idea of what kind of a difference it makes whether your interest rate is 4.5% or whether it is 9%.
	Now, I mentioned this not because it isn't a fact that homes are difficult to buy today.
	Of course, they are.
	But if we're going to have an intelligent discussion, you have to compare like to like.
	You have to compare the conditions then to the conditions now.
	You have to look, for example, not just at, for example, like what was the price of the home in 1990, but when you factor in the 9.5%, let's say, mortgage rate, what were we paying in 1990 or 1989 for that house?
	And not only that, what was our income at that time?
	So we have to look at the affordability of that house given those interest rates and given our income, our average income in that era, and then compare it to today.
	It's still a valid debate, but I guess what I'm saying is I see these kinds of discussions that look at all the sort of positive facts from the past.
	Hey, our grandparents could afford to buy a house.
	And hey, home prices, even the 1980s were less without looking at the other side of the coin.
	So that makes it very difficult to have an intelligent discussion when you are not inputting all the data, when you're not looking at the full picture.
	But I think something is going on here more broad than all this.
	And this is something that is worth discussing.
	I'm only going to begin my discussion of it today.
	And that is this issue of post-liberalism.
	Now, what is post-liberalism?
	Well, post-liberalism, I'm going to take the Harvard law professor, Adrian Vermoul, says, I see we're having another round of puzzlement about what post-liberalism means.
	It's not that complicated.
	It's a negative category.
	A genus that includes many different species whose common trait, here we go, is that all members of the genus reject the central premises of liberalism, but who may or may not have anything else in common.
	And this is the question I actually want to focus attention on, which is to say, what does it mean to reject liberalism?
	The reason this is a complicated question is because liberalism has two different meanings.
	You can find this out very quickly if you travel to places like Australia or to Europe, where you discover that the right-wing parties in those countries are called liberals.
	And the left-wing parties are called socialists, and sometimes they're called the Labour Party, but they are certainly not called liberals.
	Why?
	How can liberalism be right-wing in one context and left-wing in the context of America?
	Well, the answer is we're talking about two different liberalisms.
	Let's call it small L liberalism and big L liberalism.
	So big L liberalism is leftism.
	Big L liberalism is in fact kind of a cousin of socialism.
	Big L liberals call themselves progressives.
	These are people who want to raise taxes, for example.
	These are people who don't like the free market.
	These are people, for example, who want all these left-wing social policies that I've actually talked about earlier in this podcast.
	These are people who are into climate change and they're into diversity and they're the ones who do the land acknowledgements.
	These are the big L liberals.
	But the liberals abroad are not like this.
	They don't like any of this.
	They are the small L liberals.
	And this small L liberalism has its roots in the Enlightenment.
	It also has its roots in the American founding.
	The American founders were, to a large degree.
	Now, to a large degree means not entirely, but it means mostly.
	To a large degree, the American founders were classical liberals.
	They were small L liberals.
	And this is important because if you're trying to repudiate liberalism, my question to you is: are you trying to repudiate big L liberalism, in which case we're all on board?
	Or are you also trying to repudiate small L liberalism, which is a more problematic matter for the simple reason that to repudiate small L liberalism is to repudiate the American founding?
	It's actually to make you anti-American in the classic meaning of that term.
	Being anti-American is to be against the ideas and premises of the American founding.
	And so it's kind of crazy to go, I'm America first, but I hate the founding.
	I'm America first, but I repudiate the small L liberalism of the American founders.
	Now, where do we find this small L liberalism of the American founders?
	We find it throughout the Constitution and we find it throughout the Bill of Rights.
	When the Bill of Rights asserts these rights, let's just look at a few of those.
	The right to free speech, we find in the Constitution a protection, although it's not, you don't find this actual phrase, but the Constitution is structured around Locke's idea of property rights.
	So we have economic freedom.
	And then we find that the Constitution itself is a structure for political freedom.
	So if we were to tease out these freedoms, we would say that there are three basic categories of freedom that make up small L liberalism.
	And liberalism itself, the word liberal, means the free man as opposed to the slave.
	So the American founders emphasized political freedom.
	That's constitutional republicanism.
	That's constitutional democracy.
	That's the political freedom, self-government.
	The second type of freedom is economic freedom.
	That's the freedom to own property, the freedom to have your own possessions, to control yourself, freedom over your own body and your own being.
	In some ways, for Locke, you yourself are property that you own.
	A little bit of a strange way to put it, but nevertheless, we do, in that sense, own ourselves.
	And so you have economic freedom, you have political freedom, and finally, you have what can be called civil liberties, which by and large is things like freedom of movement, freedom of speech.
	So these interlocking freedoms are what make up small L liberalism.
	Now, did the founders also care about some other things?
	Yes, they did.
	They cared about social order.
	They cared about the common good.
	They cared about ideas of civic virtue.
	And they saw freedom, these freedoms, as the means to reach those goals.
	So some of the post-liberals like the goals.
	They go, yeah, we're all about the common good.
	But they are skeptical of the interlocking three freedoms that the founders saw as the pathway, as the vehicle, as the mode of reaching the good.
	And so this is the issue I want to put front and center on the table: to have us think about this question of post-liberalism.
	What is it that we are affirming, and what is it that we are rejecting?
	There's a powerful new film coming from Angel Studios on the Wonder Project.
	It's called Young Washington.
	It tells the untold story of how George Washington's character was forged long before independence, when he was just 20, facing failure, loss, and near death.
	Directed by John Irwin, who made Jesus Revolution, American Underdog, and starring Andy Serkis, Ben Kingsley, and Kelsey Grammer.
	It's a sweeping, high-quality production that reminds us what true leadership, virtue, and providence look like.
	This isn't revisionist history.
	It's the real story told with courage, truth, and respect for the values that shaped America.
	Young Washington releases Independence Day 2026 on the 250th anniversary of our nation's founding.
	So become an early supporter by joining the Angel Guild today.
	Premium members get two free opening day tickets and help bring this inspiring story to theaters across America.
	Go to angel.com/slash Dinesh.
	Help make Young Washington the number one movie this Independence Day.
	Go to angel.com/slash Dinesh.
	Have you heard about the new movie Call Sign Courage?
	It's the story of Space Force Commander Matt Lohmeyer.
	He's the one who blew the lid off the military's DEI agenda.
	He saw how Marxist messaging, critical race theory, and rampant DEI training was changing the culture of the military.
	Suddenly, everyone was equal.
	They stripped away merit-based selection and promotions.
	And the lack of accountability, competency, and effectiveness had actually become a domestic threat.
	He spoke up, how it was tearing apart the military's unity, readiness, and the whole reason why we have a military in the first place.
	Lethality, the ability to fight and win wars.
	They broke into his home.
	He was spied on and threatened.
	But Lomeyer didn't back down.
	So career officers kicked him out.
	Then President Trump made him undersecretary of the Air Force so he could solve the problem.
	When the stakes were high, this guy stood up.
	Don't miss call sign courage, the Matt Lohmeyer story.
	Watch it and buy the DVD at salemnow.com.
	It's salemnow.com.
	Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast a legend, a legend who has Michael Savage, who needs really no introduction.
	But if there's anyone who doesn't know him, he is an author.
	He's a political commentator, former radio host of The Savage Nation.
	And also, by the way, an inductee into the National Radio Hall of Fame.
	Well deserved.
	You can follow him on social media on X at A Savage Nation.
	His website is michaelsavage.com.
	Hey, thanks for joining me.
	I really appreciate it.
	And you were just telling me a moment ago that you have a new article out, a new post up that is about how the woke right is fracturing the GOP.
	This has obviously become a huge topic.
	And I'd like you to spell out some of your themes so that we can start to get into it and understand better what's going on here.
	Thanks, Dinish.
	It's a pleasure to be on your program.
	I always enjoy the interchange between the two of us.
	And as I awoke this morning at dawn, alone in the bed in the darkness of the night, in the still of the night, I thought, wait a minute, I have something that I could write for Dinish's show called Woke Right Fractures GOP.
	And the reason I wrote this, it's on X.
	I can read it to you.
	It'll take a minute, is because last night I was communicating with a friend of mine who writes for Breitbart, brilliant guy.
	And he's saying to me almost the same exact thing in another way.
	I have to find it.
	I won't repeat his name.
	It's about, he's saying, can we do an article today right after your show about what's going on in the Republican Party?
	Like, what happened to Trump?
	Why is he losing his base?
	What has he done here?
	Is he losing his base, in fact?
	And of course he is.
	And I then did a thing on the H-1B visas last night online.
	It attracted a big response.
	And all I said was, if you've been affected by H-1B visas in the tech industry, respond here.
	And of course, you see the horror stories.
	But can I read this woke right fractures GOP, Dinesh?
	Yeah, let's hear it.
	How the woke right fractured the Republican Party.
	Just as America is climbing out of the rubble of the woke left, which blames white people and America itself for all the problems of the blacks, gays, and immigrants, along comes a black racist named Candace Owens with her little gerbils, Nick Fuentes, and the once reasonable Tucker Carlson.
	Collectively, they have found a new niche, the Jew.
	Find a problem, the Jew is the cause.
	The fireflies, who comprise the leadership of the woke right, wrap themselves in patriotism in a form of Christian nationalism that borders on outright Hitlerism.
	They claim the Jews are satanic without realizing their own religion, which they have hijacked.
	That is, Christianity is based on Judaism.
	In essence, they are condemning themselves without knowing it.
	Eventually, they will find themselves exactly where the Hitler movement found itself as national socialists without a belief in God.
	Now, while insisting their anger and hatred is directed at Israel's leader, Netanyahu, all Jewish people now find themselves in the crosshairs of a new Reich on the right, especially prevalent online.
	This race-based hatred will, if not stopped, follow the natural course of all racist movements, resulting in attacks upon the weakest and most vulnerable amongst the Jews, the pious, and the elderly.
	That's the entire piece.
	And believe me, if you want to seek hatred, all you've got to do is go on my ex account and see the denial, rage, hatred, and I'm not following you anymore.
	Yeah, I mean, I've got to say that I'm seeing a fair amount of this on my own feed now.
	Some of it is just, you know, and it's very odd because Debbie and I were talking about this until a few years ago.
	If you were to ask either of us, and we're both immigrants, she's from Venezuela, I'm from India, you'd have leftists who would say to me over the years, Hey, Dinesh, you know, you've been all your life on the precincts of the right.
	You know, tell us what kind of vicious racism you've experienced on the right.
	And I would go, you know what?
	I have nothing to tell you because the right is not racist.
	Even the so-called far-right is not racist.
	I've experienced very little, if any, of it.
	And so it is very different than what you think.
	Now, I don't know if Debbie or I could say that today.
	And I think what you're saying is you can't say it today either, because we are seeing ostensibly from our own side a type of degrading kind of rhetoric and attack.
	Now, I don't know about you, Michael, but my personality is such that I find all of this it doesn't fluster me.
	I'm actually very entertained by it because I find it unbelievably stupid.
	These are people, Dinesh, you know, you'd had a career-ending post on X.
	And I'm like, my career has supposedly been ending since like 1991, so tell me another one.
	It doesn't phase me, but I don't.
	My wife says, Dinesh, you're not normal.
	You don't react in a normal way to this kind of stuff.
	A normal person would be completely disgusted, would be totally revolted.
	But what we agree on is what we are both seeing out there.
	So here's my question to you: if the anger is about the economy, if the anger is about H-1B, if the anger is about woke indoctrination in the schools, like where do the Jews come into it?
	Like, why would you go there as your mode of rescue?
	Well, it's this, I think, this is simple answer.
	Jews don't fight back generally.
	They're a pacifist people in America.
	Israelis are one thing, Jews are another.
	American Jews have always been supine in the society, except for the dominant and obvious types that I myself detest, you know, the Hatzenberg, Katzenberg, Mattzenberg, and Ratzenberg, the Hollywood types.
	I wrote a thing a while ago called From Einstein to Einstein in one generation, actually, from Einstein to Epstein in one generation, to make it more clear.
	Interesting title.
	How did we go from Einstein as the, let's say, the image, the national image of the Jew, to Epstein now as the image of the Jew?
	How did this happen in one generation?
	And how do we come to a place where a new Reich has arisen in America?
	They don't call themselves that.
	And of course, they're very clever by saying, oh, we don't hate all Jews.
	That's like some of my best friends are black from the 1960s.
	That used to be a joke.
	If you're much younger than me, but that was a joke where you caught a racist saying, why are you picking on blacks?
	They would say, some of my best friends are black.
	So now they're saying some of Tucker says some of my best friends are Jews.
	I don't hate Jews.
	So it's a clever way of disguising a convenient scapegoat, which is not to say that there aren't people of the Jewish heritage who I find, let's say, abhorrent, but that's my position.
	But it's true in all races.
	You can find abhorrent people in all races.
	You can find saints in all races.
	My mother taught me that.
	And I grew up learning that to be true.
	Why the on with only stereotypes Of the person of Jewish ancestry is something evil and foreign is the question.
	And I think the answer is the one I gave a minute ago, Dinesh.
	The Jews don't fight back.
	You know what they say?
	It's like you.
	Who cares what they say?
	Let him ge and they would say in Yiddish.
	Let him go to hell.
	Who cares what they say?
	Who are used to it?
	They shrug it off and they go on with their lives.
	They just do what they have to do.
	They're not going to react to these slurs.
	But I have to say that I've studied the origins and the manifestation of Hitler's Germany over and over again because it traumatized me as a child.
	And I studied it.
	I actually read Mein Kampf when I was 11 years old.
	My father had a little used store with used goods, and sometimes books would arrive and I'd sit in the basement reading stuff.
	And I found an English translation of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
	I'm 11 years old.
	I read the book.
	And basically, he found a scapegoat in Germany for all of Germany's problems after World War I.
	And all fingers pointed in his racist mind, he found the scapegoat, the Jew.
	So America's in trouble right now.
	There's massive unemployment amongst the educated class, particularly amongst young white kids who never had an identity to begin with other than being young and a male.
	Now they found out that they're actually a member of an oppressed group, the white boy.
	And they have been picked on.
	I mean, let's be clear for a whole generation now.
	We've heard whites are no good, whites did this, whites did that, colonization, this and that.
	So now the white kid is waking up and saying, wait a minute, who's doing this to me?
	And along comes this weirdo, Candace Owens.
	And maybe you can elucidate me of who she is.
	I never heard of her until recently.
	She's an attractive lady of African-American heritage, I guess.
	She used to work for a Ben Shapiro, right?
	Something like that.
	All these people, you know, whom I've known fairly well, they came up sort of in one way and they've metamorphosed into something else.
	So Candace came up basically as a feisty young black woman who was attacking DEI, attacking affirmative action, and telling blacks to leave the Democratic plantation.
	That was her shtick.
	She started.
	So that was, she was a good black.
	Yeah, she started this group called Blexit, which was kind of like, you know, playing off the idea that blacks are going to be exiting, kind of a clever.
	And she'd have these forums around the country.
	And I would participate in them because I thought, wow, this is a wonderful opportunity to present these ideas.
	So all of these people, it's like she climbed up one ladder and now she's on a completely different ladder.
	And you know, the other thing about it is, I mean, you're probably more aware of the hatred toward the Jews.
	I'm also noticing a lot of hatred toward like Asian Indians.
	Now, again, it's one thing if you want to talk about H-1B, I've actually, I haven't talked about H-1B my whole career.
	But the kind of people who get bashed are not H-1B.
	People are bashing like Like Usha Vance.
	You know, they're bashing like Harmeet Dylan, Vivek Ramaswamy.
	You know, they're bashing me.
	So the point is, we're not responsible for demonizing these white males.
	On the contrary, we've actually devoted our whole career to fighting against DEI and affirmative action.
	So I think what makes this kind of weird is that there is a broader base scapegoating going on.
	And I think what you and I are saying is that while you know, we understand why these young people are in the mood that they are, but the blame really belongs with the leaders, people of the Candace and the Tucker Stripe, because they're the ones who are steering these young people and saying, listen, the master manipulators are all in Israel.
	And they're also trying to make people like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro into being non-Americans.
	I know, I've seen it.
	So, again, it goes back to your first question from my point of view, just to follow up on your question.
	Why is there suddenly a hatred for the Jew?
	So Jews are overrepresented as rich as billionaires.
	They say, how could 2% of the population make up 50% of the billionaires?
	So I say to them online, because they work harder and they work smarter than you do.
	While you're spending your time espousing hatred on the internet, they're working at their careers or at their businesses making a living.
	They're not paying attention to this drivel.
	That's how.
	There's another reason for it that goes deeper than that.
	The Jewish person in all the years, the thousands of years since the dispersal from the ancient times, has been in the diaspora.
	And what did the Jew do in these 2,000 years of the diaspora?
	They were still following their religion, which was they were the people of the book.
	They were reading the holy book, the Bible, the five books of Moses.
	Then they were reading a thing called the Talmud, which the Nazis or racists or the white supremacists, oh, the Jews said this in the Talmud.
	They don't read Hebrew, but they know the Talmud.
	They're experts in the Talmud, all of these white nationalists.
	So there are horrible things in the Talmud written by what?
	The Talmud is commentary over 2,000 years by thousands of different opinion makers.
	They were the talk show hosts of their time.
	And they didn't have a microphone.
	So they wrote commentary on various things.
	And amongst them were some nuts, crazy people, weirdos.
	It got encoded into the thing called the Talmud.
	So the white nationalist reads about this and says, oh, all Jews believe what this guy in the 14th century said somewhere in Mongolia in a Jewish temple.
	And that becomes the Jewish religion for them.
	But you see what I'm saying?
	So what I'm saying is, so the Jewish person was reading the Bible.
	They're people of the book.
	They're very literate people because they were reading and commenting upon the holy books for thousands of years.
	So now they find themselves in the modern world.
	They're freed suddenly of racism and they can apply their intellect to numerous fields and they excel.
	Not because they're devious, not because they cheated, because they worked harder.
	You worked harder.
	You said you came in with nothing as a kid, basically.
	Well, I want to remember.
	It just occurred to me that the Talmud is a little bit like the X platform of its own day, right?
	Where you have all kinds of crazy people and kooks and smart people too, all kind of weighing in.
	I don't think most people know that's what the Talmud is.
	Think the Talmud is kind of like the Jewish perspective, you know, the authoritative version that is basically telling Jews this is the way that you need to interpret the ancient scriptures, not realizing that the Talmud is actually more like a platform for a wide and disparate group of voices of all different types,
	weighing in on very often opposite points of view about the ancient scriptures.
	Yes, and in the 19th century, a rabbit anti-Semite somewhere, I think it was in Germany, I'm not sure which European nation picked up on some of the crazy ones who had written in the Talmud over the years, pulled out the nutty stuff and said, This is the Jew.
	And that's what the Christian nationalists, the loser ones, the forlorn ones, the lost souls, are focusing on without even knowing what they're talking about.
	So before we get sidetracked, I've just got to say this to all of you who don't believe a word I'm saying.
	It's always one of them.
	He's a Zionist.
	Listen to me.
	Go into a very religious, pious Chabad house on a Saturday morning, unannounced, and see what goes on in there.
	See about the conspiracy that you have in your mind about Jews.
	And what you'll find instead are people praying to God, not talking politics, chanting together in the same way they have done throughout the world for thousands of years.
	There's no politics.
	It's all religion.
	It's all worshiping the one true God.
	Period.
	That's what the religion is.
	It's not a political orientation.
	It's a religion.
	So you could hate the religion.
	You don't have to be Jewish.
	You could be Christian.
	You could be Buddhist, Hindu, you could be agnostic.
	You could be atheist, doesn't matter.
	But before you attack an entire ethnic group, because they're making Jews into an ethnic group, when it really isn't, there are blonde, tall, blue-eyed Jews.
	There are short Jews.
	There are fat Jews.
	There are skinny Jews.
	There's not an ethnic group.
	It's a religion.
	You've got people in Sweden who look like Vikings who are Jewish.
	It's a religion.
	They don't understand that.
	It's not an ethnic group.
	And then they come up with the weird thing, Dinesh.
	Have you seen this over the last few years?
	The Kazarians.
	Someone came up with that nonsense.
	That the Jews are an offshoot of some tribe, the Kazarians.
	They're not really Jewish.
	The real Jews are the Arabs.
	You talk about denaturing an entire people, stripping them not only of their identity, but of their whole reality.
	It's pretty ugly, Dinesh.
	It really is.
	And here's the thing: if you start by debasing an entire people, it ends up with violence.
	The first law in Germany was really benign.
	I don't know.
	People don't know this.
	I may have mentioned it on your show last time we talked.
	You know, the first law in Nazi Germany against Jews was benign.
	You know what it was?
	Jews cannot swim in public pools with Aryans.
	That's all it was.
	It was nothing more than that.
	The Jews figured who the hell cares.
	You know, they don't want us to swim.
	We'll build our own swimming pool.
	That's the way the Jewish people figured.
	They just shrugged it off.
	I learned from that.
	Unless you nip this in the bud, we're now at the swimming pool phase online.
	Unless you stand up to these small-minded, basically intellectual dwarfs, this could metastasize into something much worse.
	I agree.
	Guys, I've been talking to the one and only Michael Savage, author, legendary radio host, podcaster, former host of the Savage Nation, and also member of the National Radio Hall of Fame.
	There's a lot here, Michael, and we'll have to pick it up the next time.
	But really appreciate it.
	And thank you for joining me.
	Thank you for listening, and thank you for having me on your very, very important show, Dinesh.
	My Pillow is having the 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.
	MyPillow bedsheets, only $29.88, any color, any style, any size, even kings.
	Regular price, $119.98, and now only $29.88.
	But move fast because once they're gone, they're gone for good.
	My towels, they're back in stock.
	Get a six-piece MyTowel set, regular price $69.98, but now only $39.98.
	And for the first and only time, get their limited edition premium MyPillows made with Giza Cotton and a designer gusset, queen size, $17.98 Kings only $19.98.
	Also for a limited time, when you order over $100, you get free shipping plus $100 in free digital gifts.
	Call 800-876-0227.
	That's 800-876-0227 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 don't forget the promo code.
	It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
	Today we begin a new chapter in my book, Life After Death: The Evidence.
	It's called The Physics of Immortality.
	Pretty wild stuff.
	You're going to learn a little bit of physics in the next few days, but you're going to learn it explained by somebody who is not a kind of science geek, but someone, namely me, who can convey these things in a manner that's completely understandable.
	You don't need any science background.
	You just need to listen carefully and you're going to learn a lot.
	You're going to learn a lot about science, but you're also going to learn a lot about the possibilities of life after death.
	I'm going to begin with a quotation.
	Well, the subtitle of the chapter: Multiple Universes and Unseen Realms.
	So, normally, if I were to say a phrase like unseen realms, you'd be thinking you're going to plunge into theology.
	I'm going to show you that science is now going to introduce us to the concept of unseen realms and make more plausible theological concepts that for many, many centuries seemed really out there, seemed really dependent entirely on faith.
	But now we see that these conceptions are entirely consistent, harmonious, maybe even demanded by the findings of modern science.
	So, we're going to begin with a quotation from Brian Green in a very popular book.
	This is, by the way, a string theorist, Brian Green, a physicist.
	The book is called The Fabric of the Cosmos.
	And here's the line: The overarching lesson that has emerged from scientific inquiry over the last century is that human experience is often a misleading guide to the true nature of reality.
	Now, this alone is worth pondering for a moment because think of it: from the dawn of mankind, our basis for learning things is our own experience.
	How do you know that there are trees?
	Well, I see them out there.
	That's my experience.
	How do you know that other people exist?
	Well, there they are.
	I can talk to them.
	So, my experience becomes the main reliable source for me learning things.
	And what Brian Green is saying is one of the most important findings in science of the past 100 years is our own experience is misleading.
	It is wrong.
	It comprehends things at the local level.
	Obviously, no one is denying that there's a tree or that I'm living in my house.
	What modern physics is denying is that your house is made up of the kind of stuff that you somehow think it is made up of.
	According to modern science, at the most fundamental level, your house is actually made up of something else, something that until recently you never even heard of.
	All right, let's go into it to build out this idea in its full and spectacular implications.
	Now, we begin with the kind of atheist doctrine of the past 100 years, which is materialism.
	I mentioned this earlier.
	Human beings are made up of atoms and molecules.
	The idea is that matter acts according to natural laws, and these laws are known to scientists today.
	Given the recognized qualities of matter, which is matter disintegrates, matter breaks down, our chances of life after death are actually nil, because human bodies, we all know, break down and disintegrate.
	Moreover, say the atheist, the religious concept of eternity presumes that there's some sort of exotic location somewhere called like heaven or hell.
	And the atheist goes, no, we live in a physical universe, and there is nothing outside of it.
	Remember Carl Sagan, the universe is all that there is, never has been, and ever will be.
	The universe, in a sense, stretches out in space and time, and that's all there is.
	There's nothing beyond it.
	And so something else might exist in your imagination, but it doesn't exist in reality.
	So it's ridiculous to think that humans can continue beyond their deaths.
	The materialist evidence appeals at bottom.
	Yes, it appeals to biology.
	Yes, it appeals to neuroscience.
	And we'll get to all that.
	But its primary claim is it appeals to physics, that in the end, we are all made up of matter.
	Now, this is the argument that I've just stated that I am about to decimate at the most root level.
	And what I'm going to show in this chapter is that the atheist argument isn't just arguable, questionable.
	It's actually false.
	Far from undermining the chances of life after death, modern physics undermines the premises of materialism.
	Moreover, new discoveries in physics show scenarios in which matter can survive with different properties in realms other than our universe.
	This is crazy, but nevertheless, it's true that the laws of our universe apply only to our universe.
	And in other realms, and we're going to talk about how those realms might exist, matter, if there is matter, would behave completely differently, other laws.
	So fantastic though it sounds, modern physics has legitimated the possibility of the afterlife.
	Now, this is what this chapter is about.
	Before you show that there is an afterlife, you have to show that it's even possible, right?
	If someone could tell me that miracles are impossible, I can't then say, well, let me tell you about this miracle or that miracle.
	If miracles are impossible, no miracles can occur at all.
	So first we have to show miracles are possible.
	There's nothing in modern science that contradicts the idea of miracles or makes miracles somehow beyond the realm of science.
	Similarly here, we're going to show that life after death and the scenarios of life after death, which requires life after death, requires certain things to be true.
	Let's look at what those are.
	What has to be true for life after death to occur?
	Well, first of all, we have to have some kind of enduring post-mortem existence.
	And this requires that we have a survival of our souls.
	But in the Christian view, not only our souls, we have to also have survival of the body.
	Now, the body in Christian theology is not the body we have now.
	No one's claiming that I'll have this pair of hands, but resurrected bodies, which is to say bodies made up of some other kind of stuff.
	But what other kind of stuff is there?
	Well, we're going to look at science to see what other kinds of stuff might be there.
	We also have, for life after death to be true, at least in the Christian scheme, we have to have the possibility of alternative realms, or let's call it alternative universes.
	Because after all, what is heaven and hell?
	They're alternative universes.
	And by universes here, I just mean a kind of whole, a kind of realm operating according to its own laws.
	Let's not worry about what's inside the realm, if it's going to be, you know, harps or fire.
	We're not going to talk about that.
	But these alternative realms must be possible.
	If they're not possible, then after all, you can't have heaven, you can't have hell.
	So we need realms, and we need these realms to be somehow outside of space and time.
	In other words, we need these realms to be eternal.
	And what that means is one way we can show that is we have to show that space and time are properties of our universe.
	A very startling idea, but I'm going to go on to show you that this is in fact true.
	Space and time are properties, they're qualities, they're attributes of our universe and our universe alone.
	Finally, as I say, we need matter to be capable of showing up in forms radically different from any matter that we know.
	If all the matter that we know is kind of like the stuff we see, then where's the question of there being any kind of resurrected bodies that have qualities and traits that we've never seen before?
	So we have to have the possibility of matter that is unlike any matter that we see or experience in the universe.
	And I'm going to show that not only does modern science posit those kinds of matter, the whole scheme of modern physics is impossible without taking into account forms of matter that we cannot see with the naked eye, that we cannot measure with any instrument that we possess.
	In other words, what is sometimes called dark matter and dark energy.
	Now, are these things even possible that I'm talking about?
	The philosopher Bertrand Russell about a century ago thought about these questions and he said no.
	Basically what Russell said is all our experience as human beings is tied up with space and time and matter.
	And outside of space and time and matter, he says, we don't have any experience at all.
	So how can we even talk about what is outside of our experience?
	He says we can't even really imagine life outside of space and time and matter.
	And so, according to Bertrand Russell, if you can't imagine it, how can it even exist?
	The problem with Russell, and again, the problem is not that after Russell's time, Russell, by the way, was a very capable philosopher.
	And it would be one thing to say to him, hey, Bertrand Russell, sorry, but you lived in 1930.
	We live in 2025.
	Lots of stuff has come out since then.
	You're basically just wrong on all counts.
	But the remarkable thing is Bertrand Russell was wrong on all counts, even when he said this.
	In other words, the revolution in modern science that I'm about to talk about preceded Russell.
	It actually began in the late 19th century.
	It reached a certain type of pinnacle with Einstein and his discoveries of special relativity and general relativity.
	It then was taken to a whole new level with what is called sometimes quantum physics.
	But all of this had already happened.
	This all happened by the 19 teens and the 1910s and the 1920s.
	So it all happened kind of right around the time poor Russell was writing.
	And so Russell's argument was being blown to smithereens by the physics of his own day, not just our day, but his own day.
	So when we pick this up tomorrow, well, Monday, we're going to dive into this a little bit more and we're going to see how the discoveries of modern science make possible all kinds of wonderful and fantastical, and I would say even miraculous things that bear a kind of startling resemblance to the Christian, but in some cases, even to the non-Christian, picture of life after death.
	Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.

▲