Dinesh D'Souza - WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1213

Nov. 17, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

57:13

WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1213

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, I've got a bit of a beef to pick with Pam Bondi.
	It has to do with the number of indictments filed in the first year of the Biden administration compared to the very few filed under the Trump DOJ.
	I'm going to give you irrefutable proof that MAGA is not a cult.
	And author and clinical psychologist Chloe Carmichael joins me.
	We're going to talk about the psychological benefits of free speech.
	If you're watching on X or Rumble or YouTube, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe, hit the subscribe, the follow, the notifications button.
	I'd appreciate it.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	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.
	Guys, the Dragon's Prophecy continues to dominate at Amazon.
	It is one of the top sellers at Amazon.
	It's been number one for quite a while.
	It's highly recommended.
	The reviews are fantastic.
	This is, by the way, what the DVD looks like.
	You can buy these DVDs from Salem off of the movie website, which is thedragonsprophecyfilm.com.
	And that's also the place, by the way, to stream the movie.
	So it's streaming on Salem, it's streaming on Rumble, a couple of other places.
	Debbie and I have also mentioned, by the way, that the film is now on the Angel Studios platform, which means if you're an Angel subscriber, you can watch the film that way, or you can watch it by becoming an Angel subscriber.
	But the DVDs can also be bought straight from Amazon, and they make great stocking stuffers, great Christmas gifts.
	So do this is not too early to be planning for all that.
	Now, I want to cover a couple of topics, related topics in this opening segment.
	And I want to start by talking about indictments and prosecutions, because I'll be honest, I'm getting kind of a little annoyed and a little impatient.
	Why?
	Because let's look at where all of this was, you could say, one year or almost a year into the Biden administration.
	When the Biden administration came in in January of 2021, they moved into a massive indictment climate.
	Now, this was admittedly right after January 6th.
	But what I mean is they had not dozens, not hundreds, thousands of people working on cracking down on January 6th, not just the people who went in the Capitol.
	They had information on everybody who even was in D.C.
	They were following people around in planes, deploying marshals to follow people just because they were in D.C. on those two days, even if they never went into or even near the Capitol.
	So this is called casting a wide net.
	And pretty soon, from the large number of indictments filed in January 6th, the Biden administration decided we're very upset about the Dobbs decision.
	This is the decision overturning Roe versus Wade.
	Now we unleash on the pro-lifers.
	Our friend Beverlyn Deity Williams, other pro-lifers.
	We're talking about elderly women.
	We're talking about nuns.
	We're talking about people who basically all they're doing is standing outside these abortion clinics.
	They're often praying aloud.
	And so on.
	In some cases, yeah, they're trying to sort of stop these women from going in and having an abortion, really for their own good.
	Don't kill your baby.
	So this is free expression.
	This is basically moral urgency.
	And even if you think that this is disruptive, the truth of it is: what do you think, in fairness, someone should get for doing that?
	Well, answer: they should get a warning.
	They should get maybe overnight in jail.
	They should get a fine.
	Can you imagine sentencing people to two years, three years, five years in prison?
	These are taking them, ripping them away from their families for this.
	And yet, the Biden administration did all this.
	And they did it, I have to say, with a measure of glee.
	And they did it by recruiting not only a prosecutorial team, but relying on compliant jurors, often roping in sympathetic judges.
	They file these cases in hospitable jurisdictions like Washington, D.C. or the southern or eastern district of New York.
	They were on a roll.
	And from a certain sense, you have to give credit.
	I give blame, but whether you give credit or blame is a matter of a point of view to Mayor Garland.
	This guy was like a general who is leading his troops into a major battle.
	I want to contrast all this with sleepy, do nothing, do the minimum, do just enough so that Trump doesn't get really mad, Pam Bondi.
	Pam Bondi, I realize, was not the first choice, but she has been devoted to Trump.
	And this probably was her main credential for getting the DOJ job.
	But let's now go down Pam Bondi's list of indictments.
	And yeah, there have been a few, but only a few.
	So John Bolton, yes.
	Comey, yes.
	And Letitia James, yes.
	And well, that's pretty much it.
	Right off the top of our head, we can rattle off a long list of names: Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, all the members of the January 6th Committee, all the people, all the intelligence officers who were involved in the fake Hunter Biden cover-up, Brennan, and Clapper, and Hillary,
	and all the people on the Hillary political team who were involved in cooking up the Russia collusion hoax, and all the White House staffers that were knowledgeable about and participated in the hoax, including, by the way, Obama, who was, in a sense, the director of the hoax.
	He's the one who gave the hoax a sort of meaningful expression by mobilizing the arms of the U.S. government.
	And what about Antifa?
	We hear Antifa has been designated a terrorist organization.
	How many Antifa people have been rounded up?
	How many RICO cases have been filed?
	How many donors to Antifa have been indicted?
	I think you see where I'm going with all this.
	And unfortunately, as I lay it out, I begin to realize that I'm getting a little bit depressed here because we have seen so little action.
	And if you look at the Republican side and the MAGA side, this is at the top of our agenda.
	Because how are we going to make this stop if we don't hold these people accountable in the same manner?
	Let's go after them in the same manner that they went after us.
	I'm not even calling for escalation.
	I'm not even saying, oh, well, you know, they bombed Pearl Harbor.
	We've got to sort of drop two nuclear bombs on them.
	I'm basically saying that we should do to them, by and large, with the DOJ, exactly what they did to us.
	And our performance is measured by looking at what they did.
	And by that, I have to say that the Pam Bondi report card is, if not an F, then like a D minus.
	It's very, very bad.
	I'm sure that Trump is busy.
	And so he's got a full plate.
	But if he thinks about this and he really, really contemplates what they did, not only to others, but to him, to him, and then he realizes how little is being done on the other side, I think he would be fuming.
	So maybe Pam Bondi is not someone who's highly motivated.
	Maybe she is not, I don't know if it's an issue of competence.
	But maybe if only out of loyalty to Trump, she needs to move on all this.
	We keep hearing about investigations, but here we are coming toward the end of the first year of the administration.
	And in general, you know as well as I do, that's when you have the most momentum.
	And yet we have had, I would say, so far, insufficient results.
	All right.
	And I want to turn to some items that all revolve around a single topic, and that is the infighting, the divisions inside of MAGA.
	Now, I'll say, first of all, that there are some people who are like emotionally distressed about all this.
	They're like, I've got to get off of X. I've heard a few people really say, I can't really look at X.
	It's just so, it's become such a cesspool and so on.
	I don't know if this is a measure of my temperament, but I'm actually enjoying all this.
	I like it.
	I find it very entertaining, quite intellectually provocative, amusing, in some cases appalling.
	But let's just say that it keeps life really interesting.
	The X platform is buzzing in a way that it normally doesn't.
	I mean, can you imagine the X platform where the typical commentators are the following people like Mike Pence?
	You know, every day we get like a Mike Pence post.
	And so, you know, I agree.
	If you had Mike Pence, if you had Nikki Haley, if you had John McCain, you'd have a whole different type of mood on X.
	And Debbie's waiting for the side.
	She goes, that would be a lot better.
	And I'm like, and Debbie, this is actually a temperamental difference.
	Debbie is very much of a traditional Republican, so she doesn't like this kind of stuff.
	I am either wired or rewired in such a way that to me, the whole thing is.
	And the other part of the reason I see it this way is because the whole thing is sort of a comedy, right?
	Think about, for example, all these guys like, Dinesh, you know, I'll post something.
	And these days, I'm not even really posting very much on Israel.
	I made a movie that relates to Israel.
	So for about a month or so, I was intensely focused on that topic.
	Again, not because I'm obsessed with Israel, but because I'm obsessed with whatever topic I'm making a movie on.
	I was very obsessed with Hillary when I did Hillary's America.
	I was totally obsessed with Obama when I did Obama's America.
	And I was totally obsessed with election issues when I did 2000 Mules.
	So there's nothing abnormal about this.
	And anyone who knows me knows that this is, in fact, the way my films go.
	This is the way my career goes.
	But then you have these guys who are like, you know, $7,000.
	And I'm thinking to myself, this is not even wrong.
	This is like so downright stupid.
	So I kind of feel like it's not that I feel like I got to fight with this guy.
	I actually feel a little bit more like this.
	I feel like I'm the Duke of York and I'm like riding down the street.
	And some guy, you know, some guy, a street heckler is shouting, you know, something like, you know, something utterly idiotic.
	Now, am I tempted to like challenge him to a duel?
	No.
	I would challenge the Duke of Somerset to a duel because the guy would be making some sense and he'd be challenging me at some level that actually makes some sense.
	You know, you'd be like, well, you insulted my wife or you insulted my status or, you know, or, you know, but for some street guy shouting at me who has no comprehension of what he's even talking about, I don't even know what to say.
	I'm my natural reaction is amusement.
	And I think this is what makes these people in a way even angrier because they're like, this person is making fun of me.
	And so I do.
	And then they try to draw conclusions out of that.
	So, for example, they'll say something about like the poop festival in India, which frankly I've never heard of.
	I'm certainly not a regular attendee.
	But if I really wanted to go up to a poop festival, at least based on where I live now, I probably would go to one of the inner cities of America where poop festivals can be found.
	San Francisco, for example, is a local, we have our local poop festivals.
	So the point is, I'll make some joke, I'll make some quip, and then they'll try to come back.
	Well, Dinesh, you're an ethno-nationalist.
	And I'm like, I'm an ethno-nationalist.
	What are you actually talking about?
	Well, yeah, all you care about is India.
	I'm like, well, I haven't been to India in like five years since my mom died.
	You know, I've lived a life in America since I was 17.
	I'm a stranger in India today.
	So I don't know whether to laugh at you, but what you're saying is just downright idiotic.
	And yet, these guys, they think that they're making a real point.
	Oh, Dinesh, mask off, mask off.
	I'm like, do you really think that for your sake, you who I've never heard of, I would for 40 years put on a mask?
	I mean, even under COVID, I couldn't even keep my mask on for like five minutes.
	So why would I wear a mask for 40 years and now kind of take it off to show you where you go, mask off?
	My point is, I'm living my life normally.
	I'm a normal person.
	And I've shown through my work that what I care about is America.
	All my books are about America.
	Whatever their titles, you know, some of them are explicit.
	What's so great about America?
	Some of them are not explicit.
	Trump card.
	But what's the topic of Trump card?
	America.
	What's the topic of my book, The Roots of Obama's Rage?
	America.
	What's the topic of my book, United States of Socialism?
	It's right there in the title.
	America.
	So I think I've assimilated as much as can be expected.
	No reasonable person can say, well, Dinesh is not assimilated.
	So there is one benefit, though, I want to highlight of all this so-called MAGA skirmishing or infighting, quite apart from the entertainment value of it, which I think is high.
	Debbie's a little worried.
	Well, what about the midterms, Dinesh, and stuff?
	And I go, listen, you know, we're kind of far away from the midterms right now.
	So if we're going to be administering some very healthy butt-kickings, this is a really good time to do it.
	Admittedly, we don't want to be doing this in like September or October of next year, but we've got a little bit of a breather.
	So if we're going to have a mudfight, if we're going to have some sort of skirmish, you know what?
	Let's get it over with.
	Let's get it straightened out.
	Let's kind of get on the, let's figure out what it is that we as a movement stand for.
	So it's all good.
	But you know, one thing that's also good, this is a kind of silver lining.
	I think even Debbie would have to agree.
	And the silver lining is this.
	I think we've proven decisively that MAGA is not a cult.
	Right?
	Why?
	Because cults don't have this kind of infighting.
	Whenever you've seen this level of infighting inside a cult, right, people would talk about like, ooh, you know, the Moonies are a cult.
	Yeah, but the Moonies never fight.
	You know, the Mormons are a cult.
	I don't think the Mormons are a cult, but if they were a cult, they never fight.
	They're awfully nice to each other.
	They seem to be kind of all marching on the same page.
	Cults are defined by conformity, by regularity, by a certain type of unity.
	Even if they're off the reservation, they're united in being off the reservation.
	But clear of MAGA is a bit of a free-for-all right now.
	There are some people even trying to pit America first against MAGA.
	That's perhaps a topic for another day.
	But the good news is, I mean, we know we're not a cult, but people say we're a cult.
	And I'm saying it's kind of hard to say that even now.
	You know, here you've got Marjorie Taylor Green going on CNN, going on The View, getting, you know, body slammed by Trump, claiming that her life is in danger.
	And then along comes Laura Loomer saying, your life is not in danger.
	And then Trump comes along and says, how can her life be in danger?
	Nobody even cares about her.
	So all of this back and forth.
	And yeah, it's a little crazy, I admit.
	But if you like living somewhat in the crazy lane like I do, you find that life just continues to be interesting and it's really fun to wake up in the morning.
	Hey, if you're 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.
	It's called title theft and your equity, the equity in your home, is the target.
	Here's how it works.
	Criminals forge your signature in a single document.
	They use a fake notary stamp.
	They 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 all your title records, urgent alerts to any changes, and if 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.
	That's hometitalock.com, promo code Dinesh.
	Thanksgiving holds so many memories.
	I'm sure it's the same for you.
	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.
	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, if you can manage that, provides an ultrasound machine that can save thousands of babies for years to come.
	You can help.
	Call 833-850-2229.
	The number again, 833-850-2229, or go to preborn.com/slash Dinesh.
	Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast a new guest.
	It's Dr. Chloe Carmichael.
	She's a clinical psychologist, fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, and also an author.
	And her earlier book, Nervous Energy, Harness the Power of Your Anxiety.
	Very intriguing.
	And the new book, which is called Can I Say That?
	And here's the subtitle, Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly.
	By the way, a couple of websites, drdrchloe, C-H-L-O-E.com and free speechtoday.com.
	Chloe, welcome.
	Thank you very much for joining me.
	I want to talk about free speech.
	That's our topic for today.
	But before we go there, I'm intrigued by this idea that one can harness one's nervous anxiety to positive ends.
	How do we do that?
	Yeah, so that was my first book, Nervous Energy, Harness the Power of Your Anxiety.
	And that book is about the healthy function of anxiety, which is to stimulate preparation behaviors.
	I feel like my own profession, clinical psychologists, they're often trying to medicalize and monetize a lot of just, you know, everyday human experiences.
	And so I wrote the nervous energy book as a way to explain to people that, again, there's a healthy function to anxiety.
	A person who didn't have anxiety wouldn't look both ways before they crossed the street.
	The trick is just to use the adrenaline, the extra energy we get with anxiety to make sure that we're actually targeting it appropriately and for our own benefit, like at the source of the anxiety, instead of just getting anxious about anxiety.
	I guess you're saying we're a little bit like a deer in a herd, where if you feel anxious, it's a survival strategy, right?
	So there might be a predator in the trees, and you might have to alert the herd, or you might have to take off and run.
	I think what you're saying is that anxiety gives us this kind of built-up higher level of maybe attentiveness, maybe a higher level of fear.
	But you're saying don't just take pills and get rid of it and channel it to what end?
	Are you saying channel it to creativity in work or channel it into how does it help you in things like relationships or work?
	Well, all of the above.
	So, yeah, I do feel like there's sometimes a one-size-fits-all approach to anxiety where people are like, oh, just, you know, take deep breaths and think of a beach or something, which doesn't actually do anything to help you, you know, with your issue.
	So, for example, if a person is having test anxiety, closing their eyes and thinking of a beach isn't necessarily going to help them.
	But if we think of the symptoms of anxiety, it's racing hearts, sweaty palm, busy thoughts.
	Those are actually an excess of energy.
	And the good news about an excess of energy is that we can use it, say, to make flashcards or list out what we think are going to be the questions or have a mock drill with a friend.
	And so, as you said, that could apply in professional situations, in personal relationships.
	You know, a person with social anxiety could list out five small talk topics that they could have at the mental fingertips when they're about to go into an event.
	The idea is just to use that energy and think: how could this constructively be used to help me with whatever's making me anxious instead of, oh no, this is anxiety.
	I should get rid of it.
	All right.
	We're going to pivot to free speech, Chloe.
	And I got to say, when I picked up your book, you know, this is a topic I've read a lot about and written some about in some of my earlier work.
	But I realize that I've been reading about it and thinking about it mainly from a couple of rather familiar angles.
	One is the philosophical angle.
	This would be Jon Stuart Mill, or the legal angle.
	And this would be things like, you know, when does free speech cross the line into, say, incitement?
	And what do case studies and case law show about it?
	Your angle is actually quite different.
	And what you do in your book is you highlight the psychological importance of free speech, both for us as individuals and also for our society.
	And then you lay out some actual practical ways in which we can deploy free speech to sort of live fuller and better lives.
	So let's go through that a little bit.
	Let's start by talking about like what is the psychological benefit of free speech and why is it psychologically harmful to us if our speech is in some way suppressed or censored either by, and you discuss both, some external force basically, you know, holding a gun to your head or saying you can't say this, but you also discuss the phenomenon of self-censorship because as you know, with digital censorship and so on, this is quickly internalized.
	You go, I better not say that or I'm going to be thrown off YouTube.
	So that's self-censorship.
	But you're saying that that is in some ways no less destructive psychologically.
	So Tell us about the psychological ramifications here.
	Yeah, so part one of the book talks about the psychological benefits of freedom of expression, as well as you mentioned, some of the harms of self-censorship or hard top-down censorship.
	So the benefits are cognitive, emotional, and social.
	So through speaking, we actually take maybe amorphous internal ideas and we put them into an examinable, rational system of language.
	So it's how we can begin to apply logic, like if-then statements, or rapidly exchange information, or even have a healthy distance between ourselves and our thoughts.
	Who among us hasn't said something aloud?
	And then, as we say it, we're like, oh, as I hear myself say that, maybe it doesn't quite make sense, right?
	So humans have unique regions of our brain that are uniquely devoted to the production and comprehension of language.
	The psycholinguist Steven Pinker has said that humans need to talk the way that spiders need to spin webs.
	So I think it's that innate to our functioning that when we start removing people's ability to speak, it's almost like cutting off a couple of their fingers, right?
	Like it's that innate of an ability that we need to have.
	And that's just the cognitive side.
	So on the emotional side, when we label our emotions, it's been shown to reduce amygdala activity, which is the part of the brain that gets active during fear.
	Also, when people feel truly hurt, there's been studies where if you're really listening to someone versus if you're just pretending to listen, their brain can detect it and actually responds differently.
	And our cortisol levels drop and we experience what's called neural coupling when we're having a true heart-to-heart with somebody.
	And it helps us to emotionally regulate when we do that.
	And all of that, of course, facilitates social bonding.
	And social bonding is a huge protective factor for mental health to the point where if I, as a clinical psychologist, do a comprehensive assessment, I'm required to include social support.
	And, you know, if we're not being real with people or they're not being real with us, of course, the quality of our social support is going to be completely degraded.
	So those would be the benefits.
	And then the harms with self-censorship, in some ways, it's more insidious than top-down censorship.
	Because when we censor ourselves, we can almost start to believe our own behavior.
	It's called cognitive dissonance, where we adapt our thoughts to accommodate our behavior.
	So if I start saying things that I don't believe are true or not speaking up at times when my values might normally guide me to do so, cognitive dissonance can guide me to start misunderstanding my own behavior.
	That's when we get into suppression and repression and denial when people lose touch with themselves.
	And interestingly, it's when people are in those suppression, repression, denial, they're more likely to act out with passive aggression and violence.
	So I think that the speech police are probably very well intentioned, or at least maybe I'll give them that credit.
	But they're ironically, by interrupting intergroup dialogue between groups that may have conflict, I think they're actually setting the table for political violence.
	Let's talk for a moment about the sort of distinction between censorship as it has come traditionally from the right as versus from the left, because it seems to me like while there has been right-wing censorship and left-wing censorship over time, their goals and perhaps even their motives are somewhat different.
	I mean, the right does not censor you because generally, I don't think of misinformation.
	If I think of right-wing regimes that have censored people traditionally, it's going to be something like certain topics should be off-limits in the public square.
	Maybe the right-wing believes that they should be in the private domain.
	Let's just say explicit discussion of sexuality is a perfect example, or even something like censorship of pornography.
	The idea would be this does not belong in the public square.
	Maybe it doesn't belong in society at all, but if it is in society, it needs to be kept in a brown paper wrapper or something like that.
	From the left, the arguments are, by and large, I think, along the lines of we need to suppress misinformation, which presumes that there's going to be some, I guess, adjudicator of what is misinformation.
	And the second thing is this belief that as human beings, we all seem to be have a capacity to hate and particularly to single out these minority groups or other groups for particular hateful speech.
	This hateful speech can be a prelude to violence, and so it needs to be suppressed for that reason.
	So, even granted, all the things that you said about the psychological benefits of speech, how would you address the sort of hypothetical kind of left-winger and right-winger, both of whom are saying, well, but you know, this you're right, but there needs to be some limits in order to protect either these inappropriate or these harmful or these erroneous forms of speech from migrating out into the public square.
	Yes, Dinesh, there's so many layers to what you said there.
	So, thank you for that.
	But just so to try to answer that quickly, one of the key differences between left and right, period, is leftists have a more collectivist personality organization, and people on the right tend to have more of an individualist personality organization.
	You know, so to your point, people on the left might be just with that collectivism more prone to say, well, this is what I think, and so therefore, you know, this is what everybody must think.
	Whereas somebody on the right might say, Hey, look, this is what I think, you do you, but you know, maybe we'll have what we call the time, place, and manner restriction, you know, which is perfectly legal in the Supreme Court, saying, you know, again, as you said, explicit sexuality discussions, you can have them all you want, but you know, just not in front of children or something like that.
	That would be a time, place, and manner restriction.
	And, you know, you're getting also a little bit at motivation.
	You know, well, we're trying to control misinformation or we're trying to cut down on bullying or whatever.
	And you might be interested to know that one of the forms that a need for power, the trait need for power can be expressed is actually through excessive nurturance.
	So it's like, say, a mother that's like, have another bite of soup, dear, you know, and she's nurturing you, but she's also, you know, forcing you, right, to eat something or to do something that you don't want to do.
	So a lot of these, you know, kind of nanny state initiatives, they can feel like they're supposed to be nurturing, but they might really be about dominance.
	And, you know, there is a chapter in the book, as you know, called Common Objections to Free Speech.
	And, you know, one of them is misinformation.
	Well, what about misinformation?
	And, you know, actually, I unpack in the book some examples.
	Galileo was jailed for the rest of his life for saying that the earth orbits the sun.
	Or, you know, of course, during COVID, we were told that it was great to mask your kids all day long and get the vaccine and you won't be able to spread the virus.
	So we know that experts can be wrong.
	It would be unfair to experts to expect them to never be wrong.
	And so therefore, if we want to have a good quality of information, of course, we need to have open debate.
	There's a whole section in the book.
	I know we don't have time to get into it, but it's about groupthink.
	And one of the ingredients of groupthink, according to Irving Yannis, a psychologist who coined the term, is that we have what's called self-appointed mind guards.
	And those would be, of course, the expert class that's going to tell you that, no, the earth does not orbit the sun, or that would have physicians testifying to Congress that women could smoke cigarettes as long as they, you know, during pregnancy, as long as they use a filter, you know, or whatever.
	And of course, we have to be able to debate those.
	And, you know, one last thing that you mentioned that I'll touch on is the issue of hate.
	And when we have a lack of dialogue, again, it's so ironic.
	We actually have more hate, I think, or certainly more violence.
	So I explain in the book something called the five D's.
	And people who identify as politically left by self-report will do all of the five D's over political differences more.
	And the five D's are to disinvite a speaker, to distance in real life or drop contact in real life, to decline to date across the aisle, or to defriend on Facebook.
	They'll do all of those things.
	They'll what I call dialogue intolerance.
	And then they're also statistically two to eight times more likely, according to you, GovBull's polls by their own self-report, to endorse political violence.
	And I think that there's a connection there because if I'm working with a violent offender, the first thing I want to do is to increase his emotional and dialogue ability when he's upset.
	Mothers of toddlers, we teach our kids to use their words.
	And so even if the left may mean well through what they think is a nurturing behavior by this dialogue intolerance, I think they're actually setting the stage for a lot more hatred because they're removing one of our key tools for managing differences, which is dialogue.
	Let's close out, Chloe, by looking at an actual case.
	If I think about the old Jack Dorsey Twitter, it was heavily censored and censored so badly that lots of reasonable people lost their platforms.
	The president himself lost his platform.
	Everybody sort of agreed that's terrible.
	That's absurd.
	That makes absolutely no sense.
	How can you even have open debate, which is important in a democratic society?
	Now, if I look at X Today, it has liberated a lot of very healthy debate.
	All these people are back.
	I don't actually object to anyone having a platform, but I will notice that there actually is a lot of kind of open derision, abuse, false allegations.
	They'll call for deporting Jews to their home country, even though these are people who live like in Peoria, Illinois.
	American Jews, there's no place to deport them to.
	They'll call Asian Indians by ethnic slurs.
	The N-word is back on X.
	So there's a kind of a cesspool element to all this.
	And I think what you're saying is, and you let me know if this is right, that guess what?
	This may be a little uncomfortable to hear and see.
	We're certainly not accustomed to hearing and seeing it, at least not in the public domain like this.
	But you're saying it's better than letting these ugly ideas and thoughts fester where they might have even uglier expressions, possibly even involving violence, if they were not, if they didn't have this kind of outlet.
	Can you talk about just about how you think we should think about what's going on in X right now?
	Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
	So, you know, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
	And, you know, even say members of the KKK or jihadi recruiters I share in the book, they leave those ideologies, not because somebody said, shut up, you're not allowed to say that, or we'll cut out your tongue, but because somebody sits down and has dialogue with them.
	Somebody like Daryl Davis or Jesse Morton, you know, our champions in that area.
	And so it's really a more speech, not less situation.
	But I also explain in the book that, you know, being in favor of free speech doesn't mean that we have no filter.
	There's a whole section on healthy self-restraint.
	And it also doesn't mean that we have to lend our ears to anybody.
	You know, you can configure your Twitter feed to mute certain words or certain accounts or whatever.
	It doesn't mean having no boundaries.
	But ironically, I think it's people who have good boundaries, who know who they are, they know how to moderate themselves and consider their media diet that they don't feel the need to, in some kind of a psychotic way, stamp out the rights of other people to speak.
	In the Weimar period of Germany, before Hitler, you know, really came to power, there were a lot of laws against negative speech about Jews.
	But that didn't stop Hitler.
	In fact, some scholars suggest it almost gave him kind of a forbidden fruit phenomena because he was underground and people couldn't really debate and expose him the way that they can now.
	So yeah, people can get on Twitter and say stupid things and just look stupid.
	I loved your debate with Nick Fuentes, by the way.
	I saw that recently.
	That was great.
	Good stuff.
	Well, guys, this is an excellent book.
	I'm about halfway through it, I'll be honest, but I'm enjoying it.
	And it is a very fresh angle on an otherwise heavily trodden subject.
	Guys, we're talking to Dr. Chloe Carmichael.
	And here's the book, Can I Say That?
	That's the title, Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly.
	Chloe, thank you very much for joining me.
	Thank you so much, Dinesh.
	FreeSpeechToday.com.
	Incorporating a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my daily routine is key for me.
	And I get it from this, Balance of Nature.
	It's fruits and veggies and the capsule.
	These are fruit and veggie supplements.
	Balance of Nature makes it simple by giving me the fruits and veggies that I need and that I don't have the time or the energy maybe to eat.
	Now, these harvested ingredients are freeze-dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum-cold process to better preserve nutritional value.
	I can say with total confidence, I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies.
	And by the way, if you don't like taking pills, consider opening the fruit and veggie supplements, mix the powder into a smoothie, sprinkle it over food.
	You're good to go.
	Join me in taking Balance of Nature every day.
	Go to balanceofnature.com, get a free fiber and spice supplement.
	This is the fiber and spice, very good stuff, plus 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer by using discount code America.
	Again, it's balanceofnature.com.
	Don't forget the discount code America.
	You get a free fiber and spice supplement.
	You also get 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer.
	MyPillow's right in the middle of their big three-in-one sale.
	They've got a limited edition product, a back-in-stock special and a close-out deal you won't find anywhere else.
	MyPillow bed sheets, just $29.88.
	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, 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, you get the best offers ever.
	Quantities are limited, so order now.
	It's mypillow.com and the promo code is D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
	I'm now in a chapter of Life After Death, The Evidence, and the chapter is called The Physics of Immortality.
	Kind of an interesting title, isn't it?
	The Physics of Immortality.
	And I want to remind you of what we are trying to refute here.
	We're trying to refute the idea put out originally by Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher, almost a century ago, a little more than a century ago, but also echoed by many of his acolytes and other skeptics and atheists since then.
	The idea is that life after death is like impossible.
	It's inconceivable.
	And it's inconceivable because we kind of know what matter is like.
	We know that matter is destructible.
	Maybe in the ultimate sense, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
	But of course, the matter that makes up our bodies is in fact destroyed as a body.
	It returns to the ground.
	And therefore, the idea of some sort of reconstituted body that lives on with different types of qualities, this seems like preposterous.
	So we are trying to answer this objection.
	And we're trying to answer it relying not on the Bible, but relying on the findings of modern science itself.
	And in this chapter, we're focusing on physics and cosmology.
	Cosmology is a sort of the science of the heavens, if you will.
	Now, I want to begin by talking about a scientific revolution that has created modern science, modern science understood in contrast to classical science.
	What is classical science?
	The science of the 16th and 17th centuries, the science associated with people like Galileo and Kepler and Newton.
	Modern science really begins at the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century, and the key figure is Einstein.
	And it's important to know that modern science represents a complete, not repudiation, reformulation of the laws of classical physics.
	And when I say reformulation of the laws, I'm talking about the laws that affect space and time and energy and matter.
	And as we will see in a moment, also light.
	Now, we need to talk really about Einstein's theories of relativity, which is special and general relativity.
	They're both connected.
	Special relativity is kind of like a special case, and general relativity is the broadening of that same principle.
	And the other big idea is quantum mechanics.
	I want to say at the outset that these laws, these laws of modern physics, are unexpected.
	They're surprising.
	They're counterintuitive.
	And the physicists who discovered these laws spent countless hours.
	I remember at one point reading an account by Werner Heisenberg, the great German physicist.
	He was like, we would take these nighttime or early morning walks, we scientists working on the atom, and we would ask ourselves, can really nature be this way?
	Is it possible that this is the way things are?
	It took them, in a way, a certain degree of getting used to this idea.
	In a sense, what they were saying is their experiments are showing us one thing, and our experience is showing us something else.
	So who's right?
	Which is right?
	And ultimately, they learned that their experience is wrong and that the data, the results of these experiments, is correct.
	It didn't matter how often you did them again and again.
	The experiment is right.
	It's kind of like for centuries you've been seeing a stick in water and it looks bent.
	And you're like, it's bent.
	Hey, take a look.
	The stick looks bent in water.
	Everybody else who sees the stick has the same impression of it.
	But then at some point, you begin to realize that when you take the stick out of the water, the stick is not bent.
	And so the stick isn't really bending in the water.
	That is a kind of optical illusion created by light and also created by water.
	And so your experience is wrong.
	The stick is not in fact bent.
	And that is what the modern scientists eventually concluded.
	One of them, the figure who I would say is perhaps the second most important scientist after Einstein, his name is Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist.
	And he would sometimes tell his students, because they would say, they'd listen to him.
	Bohr is probably the single most important figure, along with Heisenberg and a few others, the founders of quantum mechanics, or the discoverers really of quantum mechanics.
	And the students would go, that's crazy.
	And Bohr would say, well, the problem with your idea is not that it's crazy, but it's like not crazy enough.
	In other words, reality is stranger than fiction.
	Truth is stranger than fiction.
	It's sometimes even more bizarre than something that you can imagine.
	Even if we had to come up with it in our imaginations, we wouldn't come up with something that's like this strange.
	So the point is that the world, when you begin to see it clearly enough, offers possibilities that were never thought of before.
	Now, we're going to cover this ground in a sense in a very abbreviated way.
	And my way of doing it is not trying to sort of get to the bottom of all these concepts, but build on a sort of a key insight in each one of them.
	The insight easy enough to comprehend.
	And the insight will really make my point.
	And what is my point?
	My point is ultimately that matter and energy, these things that you think of one way through experience, and you derive certain conclusions from them, like, hey, what this means is that other worlds aren't possible.
	Hey, what this means is that the body can't really survive after death.
	And what this means is that no other types of matter reconstituted bodies, all of this is nonsense.
	And I'm going to try to show that not only is it not nonsense, but these possibilities have been shown to be real and have been shown to be real not just in some, quote, other world.
	They're real in the world that you live in now.
	So this is what makes all of this, I think, intellectually very fresh and very exciting.
	So we begin really here, and it's probably all we'll do today, is talk a little bit about the key insight of Einstein's special relativity.
	And this is a good way to think about it.
	As you know, light travels at an incredibly fast speed.
	And there are these devices called light meters, which have the ability.
	A light meter is a kind of something like a thermometer, but it measures not the temperature of your body, but it measures the speed of light.
	So let's say that you are traveling in a spaceship, and you are running alongside a light beam.
	You're going in the same direction, but you are going at half the speed of light.
	So we don't have any spaceships that can go that fast.
	So this is why this is what scientists would call a thought experiment.
	We can give the answer of what would we expect to find if we are traveling alongside light and measuring the speed of light.
	Now, one way to think about this is to think about a train.
	Let's say you have a train, you're in a train that's going 60 miles an hour, but you are going parallel to a train on the next track over that is going 120 miles an hour.
	So notice that this kind of mirrors our spaceship experiment because we have two trains.
	One is going at half the speed of the other.
	So think of the fast train as representing light.
	It's going 120 miles an hour.
	I'm in a train on the next track, but it's going at only 60 miles an hour.
	Now, if I'm able to measure the speed of the other train, what number am I going to get?
	Well, I'm going to get 60 miles an hour.
	Why?
	Because that train is going at 120.
	I'm going at 60.
	So that train is going 60 faster than me.
	So my measuring stick is going to show that that train is going to go, is going at 60 miles an hour relative to me.
	Now, obviously, if I'm standing on the track, I'm not moving.
	The other train is going at 120 miles an hour, and I measure the speed, it's going to show 120.
	So quite obviously, the guy on the track, Dinesh on the track, measures 120 for that train, but Dinesh in a train going alongside that train at half its speed measures 60.
	I get a different measurement.
	This, by the way, is not new.
	This is known since ancient times.
	It certainly was known by Galileo.
	In some ways, it's called the Galilean principle of relativity, which is to say that I measure a speed relative to how fast I myself am traveling.
	But now we turn to, we come back to our thought experiment concerning light.
	Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second.
	Generally in science, it's just called speed C.
	But let's focus on the actual number for a minute.
	Light is going at 186,000 miles a second.
	I'm in my spaceship, and I'm going at half that speed, which is 93,000 miles per second.
	And now with my light meter, I'm measuring the speed of light.
	What do I get?
	Well, common sense would tell you I would get 93,000 miles per second.
	Why?
	Because light is going at twice my speed.
	I'm going at 93.
	The light is going past me, and so I should be able to measure it at 93,000 miles per second.
	This is what experience would lead us to conclude.
	And this is what the earlier example of the train would lead us to conclude.
	But Einstein says that our experience is wrong.
	And that, in fact, we can test it by using an actual light meter.
	Obviously, we can't go that fast, but we can still use the light meter to measure things.
	And Einstein says that if we look at the laws of Maxwell, which are laws from the 19th century, and we apply those laws, we will realize that traveling alongside a speed of light at half the speed of light, when I measure the speed of light, I'm going to get speed C. I'm going to get 186,000 miles per second.
	Now, what if I were just standing on a train track and I have the same light meter and the light goes right by me and I measure the speed of light?
	What should I get?
	According to Einstein, I get the exact same answer.
	I get 186,000 miles per second.
	So now we have a remarkable situation whose implications I will draw out tomorrow.
	Two Dineshes, one Dinesh standing on in a fixed spot, let's say on a train platform, the other Dinesh in a spaceship traveling alongside a light beam.
	The spaceship is going at half the speed of light.
	Both Dineshes are measuring the speed of light and they get the same answer.
	This makes no experiential sense because this is the exact equivalent of the train example where Dinesh is on a track, Dinesh is in a train going half the speed of the other train, and yet Dinesh is getting the same answer for the speed of that train, even though in one case Dinesh is stationary and in the other case he's moving.
	So how is this even possible?
	According to Einstein, it is only possible if our ideas of space and time, as they have been experienced by human beings since the beginning of time, what you can call the common sense view of space and time, has to be wrong.
	It has to be wrong.
	It has to be wrong, and space and time have actually got to be different than what we experience them to be.
	Again, you're going to sit back if you don't know all this and go, this is crazy.
	And my answer to you is: it's not crazy enough, because wait till I tell you what this actually means.
	It goes beyond simply the idea that space and time are not what you think they are.
	It goes on to show, it tells you things not just about clocks, but about time.
	It tells you things not just about trains and spaceships, but about space itself that require reformulation.
	So common sense, you could say, is now, and we're only at the beginning of this part, it's being turned sort of right on its head.
	Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.

▲