Dinesh D'Souza - PREPARE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1220

Nov. 26, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

34:44

PREPARE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1220

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.
	Guys, I should mention that tomorrow being Thanksgiving and then Friday being a holiday, no podcast Thursday or Friday.
	We'll be back in the saddle on Monday.
	Coming up today, I'm going to explore why the Trump administration would designate certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorist while leaving others out.
	And I'll consider a New York Times article that tries to make an illegal who stole another man's identity into a victim.
	If you're watching on YouTube, X or Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe.
	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.
	I want to talk about an important decision from the Trump administration that outlaws, quote, certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
	Now, this is a big development.
	In fact, Sebastian Gorkha texted me the announcement the moment it came out and said something like, history, meaning this is historic.
	And I think he's quite right about this, because in a way, since 9-11, the United States has been targeting some of these violent jihadi organizations, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and then abroad groups like Boko Haram and others.
	But leaving alone maybe the most dangerous and the most powerful organization of radical Islam in the world, and that is the Muslim Brotherhood.
	The Muslim Brotherhood is harder to target because it doesn't function quite in the same way as these other organizations.
	You won't find the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, renting the monkey bars in Afghanistan.
	The Muslim Brotherhood does not directly lob rockets into Israel the way Hezbollah does or launches an October 7 type attack like Hamas.
	The Muslim Brotherhood is a cluster.
	It's a global cluster.
	It's a network that has very common themes, but is also widely decentralized.
	And it exists pretty much in many, if not all, parts of the world.
	It exists all over Europe.
	It's got deep veins in the United States.
	It all goes back to the 1920s when an Egyptian school teacher named Hassan al-Bana decided that Islam was in a bad way because essentially Islam had succumbed to Westernization.
	And no wonder the Western powers were winning because they're better at westernization than the Muslims.
	And this westernization, according to Albana, had made Islam weak, but also alienated Islam from itself, alienated Islam from the way Islam has been since the seventh century.
	So the Muslim Brotherhood saw itself as reviving, you could call it original Islam.
	And it did so by and large by saying that we have to do two things.
	One is we have to defeat these dictatorial regimes, these pro-Western dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, who have become instruments of Westernization and secularization.
	So we need to establish Islamic control over our own societies.
	That's job one.
	And job two, we need to sort of take the old battle to the enemy, the West, but in a new way.
	So this is not going to be Islamic armies marching Saladin style or Muhammad the Conqueror style, as in the days of the Crusades, but rather, this is going to be essentially war by infiltration.
	The Muslim Brotherhood is going to infiltrate Western societies, sort of take them over from within, find allies in those societies that are blind to what the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda is.
	And so in no way is the Muslim Brotherhood rejecting terrorism?
	Not at all.
	They're quite willing to engage in it, but they recognize that there's a time and a place for everything.
	So in other words, there's a time for blowing up a building.
	There's a time for taking over a school board.
	There's a time for fielding candidates in an election.
	All of it is aimed toward the goal of bringing even the West under Islamic subjugation.
	Now, the Muslim Brotherhood has a green flag and it has a book, two swords, and there's some writing on it.
	And I see from my friend Dan Burmawi, whom I had on this podcast, by the way, an Egyptian convert to Christianity.
	Dan goes, this is the logo of the Muslim Brotherhood.
	Do you know what the word on it says?
	It is the word prepare, prepare.
	That's the title of today's episode of the podcast, Prepare.
	Prepare for what?
	Well, it's from the Quran.
	Basically, it is prepare for the battle between you and the enemies of Allah.
	And the enemies of Allah are basically the Jews and the Christians and the unbelievers.
	So the Muslim Brotherhood is a very ambitious and, I would say, a dangerous organization.
	By the way, Obama tried to put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt.
	This was part of the so-called Arab Spring.
	And Obama did what the Muslim Brotherhood wanted, which is yank out U.S. support for Mubarak, the dictator, the secular dictator, the dictator working with the West as an ally of America.
	Let's get rid of him.
	Let's bring in the Muslim Brotherhood.
	And Obama was successful in doing that, although subsequently there was an Egyptian military coup.
	And so the Muslim Brotherhood has been ejected from power.
	Now, I see a bunch of people who find the Trump declaration and order to be very inadequate.
	Why?
	Because it designates, quote, certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
	And the certain chapters seem to mean chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood that are in certain countries, but not in other countries.
	And Qatar and Turkey appear to be excluded here.
	And of course, the fear on our side is that that's because Qatar has got massive influence in the United States.
	Just remember, Qatar gave Trump a plane.
	They've put billions of dollars into universities.
	They have put huge amounts of money into the worldwide media.
	And so Qatar has, in a way, insulated itself.
	And it's posing as, you know, we're trying to help the Trump administration.
	We're on the side of the United States.
	And yet, these people are very much working with the Muslim Brotherhood.
	And you could say they are also part of this worldwide effort that I've been describing.
	Now, the Muslim Brotherhood operates in many different capacities and many different levels.
	And one way to explain or maybe even defend what Trump is doing is he's saying, in effect, that certain things that the Muslim Brotherhood does are not outlawed under the principles of our society.
	So, for example, if you have a Muslim Brotherhood chapter and their main goal, let's just say, is to buy private land, establish Muslim schools, and let's say they want to run Islamic candidates for the school board.
	All of this could be problematic because it is part of this global project of domination, but it's not illegal.
	It'd be hard to say that some Muslim running for a school board is thereby automatically doing something that is a terrorist action.
	And on what basis would you just outlaw it?
	I can't really think of any.
	At least I can't think of any given our current system, which of course allows citizens to run for school board, allows citizens to run for Congress, and so on.
	So I think the Trump approach here, although it might be blind to the double dealing of the Qataris, this remains, I think, an unresolved question.
	The Qataris are obviously in the position to do certain favors.
	They were actually crucial in getting the Israeli hostages back.
	So Qatar plays this kind of middleman role.
	But I think overall, its influence in the United States is quite deleterious, quite nefarious.
	But I think what the Trump administration is saying is that when it comes to terrorism, and this is what we're talking about, we're talking about designating the Muslim Brotherhood not as, quote, harmful, not as something that requires surveillance or we need to keep an eye on it.
	It's designating the organizations as terrorists.
	And in order to be a terrorist, you have to sort of plan terrorist things.
	You have to do terrorist deeds.
	You can't be designated as a terrorist simply by virtue of being a Muslim.
	And so, I think what the Trump administration is saying is: we're going to set up a threshold and we're going to see which of the chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood meet this threshold.
	Of course, there's going to have to be a review.
	There's going to have to be a procedure and a process.
	But if these chapters meet that criterion, then yes, they do deserve that designation.
	So, we're not going to try to use a kind of one-size-fits-all on all the chapters.
	Some of the chapters may be doing things that, whether we agree with them or not, are from the point of view of terrorism benign.
	And other chapters may be crossing the line.
	So, I take this to be the underlying rationale.
	The Trump administration recognizes that there is real bad stuff going on within and in the name of the Muslim Brotherhood.
	At the same time, it's recognizing that not all the chapters are equally culpable.
	So, let's start by getting the really bad guys who meet that threshold that justifies our labeling them and treating them as terrorist organizations.
	Incorporating a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my daily routine is key for me.
	And I do it this way: Balance of Nature, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
	These fruit and veggie supplements make it simple.
	They give me the fruits and veggies I need, and that I simply just don't have the time or energy to eat.
	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 absolute confidence, I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies.
	And hey, if you don't like taking pills, no problem.
	Consider opening the fruit and veggie supplements, mix the powder into a smoothie, or sprinkle it over food.
	You're set.
	Join me in taking Balance of Nature every day.
	On Black Friday weekend only, go to balanceofnature.com, get a free variety snack pack, plus a free preferred customer membership with your first set of Balance of Nature supplements.
	Again, go to balanceofnature.com, claim this limited-time offer before it ends on Cyber Monday.
	There's a powerful new film coming from Angel Studios on the Wonder Project 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.
	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.
	Again, it's angel.com/slash Dinesh.
	I'm going to cover in this segment a couple of interesting items in the news.
	The first one has to do with a somewhat innocuous statement made by Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary.
	I'm going to quote him: You know, the best way to bring your inflation rate down?
	Move from a blue state to a red state.
	And he goes on to argue that the inflation rate in blue states is higher than those of red states.
	Now, this is a pretty benign observation.
	Of course, he's doing it in a wry way to rebut someone in the media who's trying to get him on the issue of prices.
	Because after all, what is inflation but the rising price level?
	So Besant is going, Hey, you're worried about high prices.
	Well, prices are lower in red states.
	Now, Nicholas Christoph, who is a columnist for the New York Times, does this rebuttal of Scott Besant.
	Quote: You know the best way to bring your life expectancy down?
	Move from a blue state to a red state.
	Red states have a life expectancy 2.2 years shorter than blue states.
	Now, this appears to be kind of a clever rebuttal or repast, but in fact, if you think about it, it's a logical fallacy.
	It makes absolutely no sense.
	Why?
	Because if you move from one state to another, let's say you move from a red state to a blue state, what effect does it have on your life expectancy?
	Zero.
	Right?
	If I'm a Texan and I move to, let's just say, Wisconsin, my life expectancy is going to be unchanged.
	But the prices that I pay for things, that's going to change.
	So I used to live in California, and California has very high prices across the board.
	Real estate in California costs, I would say, one and a half times what it costs in Texas.
	That's a huge difference.
	Gas costs usually $2, maybe $2.50 per gallon more in California than it does in Texas.
	And this applies kind of across the board.
	Utilities, water costs a lot more food.
	Typically, I'd go into a grocery store in California, fill up my cart, it's going to be like $150.
	In Texas, the exact same, buy the exact same stuff, fill up the cart the exact same way with the exact same items, and it's like $90.
	So again, there's a, what I'm getting at is that Scott Besant is right.
	There is a price difference.
	It's cheaper to live in Texas than California.
	And that's just a fact.
	The life expectancy thing is completely bogus because your life expectancy, by and large, obviously, if there's differences in pollution and so on, there can be marginal impacts on life expectancy.
	But by and large, your life expectancy is going to be the same whether you move from a red state to a blue state or the other way around.
	Now, I mentioned that Nicholas Kristoff is at the New York Times.
	Here's a New York Times article that's very telling.
	I'm going to read the headline: Two men, one identity, they both paid the price.
	What's the New York Times really getting at here?
	Well, what it's getting at is that you have a guy who is an illegal alien.
	And not only an illegal alien, this guy is actually also a criminal.
	This is a guy who has multiple anchor babies with U.S. citizenship, so he's collecting benefits from them.
	This is a guy who's had multiple DUI arrests.
	This is a guy who's been deported three times.
	This is a guy who's actually killed someone by running down a grandfather and little girl on a sidewalk and killed the grandfather.
	So this is the illegal alien.
	And what does he do?
	He steals the identity of another guy.
	And the title of the New York Times article is Two Men, One Identity, They Both Paid the Price.
	So the basic idea of the article is: we're going to be, this is a sad story about two victims.
	One guy is a victim because his identity got stolen.
	And as a result, this guy was like beside himself.
	Not only was he facing financial jeopardy and risk, but apparently the IRS was after him and was after him for things that he never did.
	His identity had been stolen.
	So this guy is clearly a victim.
	No doubt about that.
	Where's the other victim?
	Well, according to the New York Times, the other victim is the thief, is the illegal.
	Now, how can that guy possibly be a victim?
	Well, according to the Times, he's a victim because he's now facing years in prison because he's been arrested for stealing the other guy's identity.
	Now, this is just downright insane.
	This is kind of like saying a home invader, a person whose home is invaded, two victims.
	No, there are two victims.
	There's a victim and there's a perpetrator.
	The victim is the one who suffers unjustly because of what the perpetrator did.
	The perpetrator is not a victim because the perpetrator is getting his just desserts by being held accountable according to the law.
	Here is the progressive writer Jill Filipovic.
	This article is such a good and sad story.
	And I hope any decent person would find a way to sympathize with both these men.
	Now, I admit that the New York Times article, as you read it, is pretty artful.
	It doesn't disclose the full extent of the criminality of the illegal.
	It tries to humanize him to the point of making you feel, oh, wow, well, this is also a guy in a tough spot.
	And look, the illegals have it so difficult.
	And so he had to do this, or at least he was driven to do it.
	And even if I don't, even if I believe that the person does deserve consequences, I should at least feel sorry for him.
	It kind of reminded me a little bit, and we have this experience, I think, when we watch films, is take a film like The Godfather, which is a brilliant portrait of the internal lives, the family connections, but also the kind of camaraderie, the loyalty, and some of the virtues of some grotesque criminals.
	I mean, you have to remember that these mafia families, the Corleonees and so on, don't hesitate to murder people who come in their way.
	And they do it almost casually.
	And I'm not just talking about The Godfather, talking about Goodfellas, I'm talking about Casino, I'm talking about a whole bunch of.
	But here's the point.
	The point is that in the world of art or movie making, they tell the story in such a way that you're like, oh man, this is really interesting.
	I can really identify with these gangsters.
	And to the degree that they get blown away or they're killed in the end, you actually do feel sorry for them.
	You were maybe even a little bit against your wishes rooting for them all along.
	And so here we see the way in which art and real life are different.
	Because in the domain of art, you can have these sorts of sympathies.
	But then when you step back and you do a little moral reflection, you realize these are real monsters.
	They actually deserve to be put away for life.
	They deserve the death penalty.
	And so sympathy, even if granted conditionally or granted for two hours while I'm in a black room watching it in my home theater or watching it in a theater, is one thing.
	But this is not how I would feel if I actually ran into the Corleonees in real life, particularly if I was on the receiving end.
	If I was, you know, if I had a store in Canal Street and they were shaking me down and extorting payments from me every month, I certainly wouldn't have this idea.
	You know, the mafia is really cool, man.
	You know, look at all their cool behavior.
	Look at all the cool stuff that they have.
	And they're really funny and they're really interesting.
	And no, I would basically see them for what they were and what they are.
	And the same is really true here.
	What you have is a grotesque crime being perpetrated.
	And by the way, the reason for the New York Times sympathy is solely because the guy is an illegal.
	Think about that.
	Because let's just say you just had a bunch of, let's say, just a bunch of white guys who were identity thieves, robbing other people's identities and like destroying their lives.
	Do you think there would be a sympathetic article in the New York Times, look, you've got these guys and they're, you know, they're stealing other people's identity and they're all victims too.
	No, they'd never do that.
	The reason they're doing that is that in this case, the burglar, if you will, the thief, is an illegal.
	And so you see the way here in which not only in the Democratic Party, the political establishment, but also in the media, you have this insidious effort ultimately to create a moral inversion and to take even bad deeds,
	in this case, outright crimes, and try to say that not only is the victim of these crimes the victim, but the perpetrator of the crimes is also a victim.
	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 Under Secretary 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.
	That's salemnow.com.
	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.
	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, I hope the answer is 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's 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 it.
	Provides an ultrasound machine that can save thousands of babies for years to come.
	Please help.
	Call 833-850-2229.
	That's 833-850-2229 or go to preborn.com/slash Dinesh, preborn.com slash Dinesh.
	Guys, we're seeing a very interesting debate.
	Maybe a battle is the right word, playing out in social media over issues of feminism and anti-feminism and patriarchy and all of it.
	And I've got the perfect guest to discuss all this.
	It's Dr. Carrie Gress.
	She's a media expert.
	She's author of the new book called Something Wicked, which deals with issues of feminism and, in fact, the relationship between feminism and the kind of, you may almost call it new church of the left.
	You can follow Carrie on X at carrie, C-A-R-R-I-E dot Gress, G-R-E-S-S, or the website is just carriegress.com.
	Carrie, thanks for joining me.
	I don't know if you've been witnessing, as I have, this kind of massive skirmish all over social media over men and women and relationships.
	And it doesn't seem to be couched so much in terms of jobs or the workplace, even though that comes into play.
	It seems to do with what are the things that men and women expect of each other, or what do each of them bring to the table.
	And if I can summarize the debate, I would summarize it this way.
	It seems that basically the women are feminists and the men are anti-feminists.
	And a lot of the acrimony seems to come out of that.
	Do you agree with this?
	And can you tell us a little bit of what you think the nub of the issue is here?
	Yeah, no, I think that's a really great insight.
	I've been working on this issue.
	I've been writing on it for more than 10 years.
	And in the last two years in particular, it feels like it's really come to a head.
	And I think part of the issue is that men are finally finding their voice on this issue.
	I think up until recently, men have felt like, oh, it's a, you know, we just want to support women, we'll do whatever.
	And that was just kind of the way things went.
	And I think simultaneously, women are beginning to realize that, you know, there's some pushback here, that they're doing a lot of things that are not helping themselves.
	They're not helping men, their families, or even the country for that matter, when you look at what's going on with our voting situation.
	And of course, the birth earth is another major issue.
	But women have been in this very privileged place for a long time.
	And so it's hard to sort of start looking at that and realizing there's some vulnerability here and that kind of these front row seats that women have had might be taken away from us and might also require us to rethink the things that most of us have held dear and sacred for, you know, really all of our lives, because the indoctrination is so deep.
	Um, so yeah, I think your your summary of it uh, couches it properly because men have have gone more conservative and and women are not moving the needle very much.
	Um, at this stage of the game now, is that because the the kind of feminization Of our education system at the elementary, but also at the college levels, has caused women?
	in a sense, to expect men to be more feminine, which is to say more like them, more relational, and so on.
	Whereas men who are typically the targets of this kind of attack or propaganda, if we can call it that, are revolting in the opposite direction and basically saying we flatly refuse.
	And in fact, we are going to kind of turn our fire on women.
	I mean, I don't think it's very healthy what's going on.
	And yet, as you say, it might be a necessary reaction to the ideological battering ram that has been going on now for several decades.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I think this has been going on for a long time.
	And for, it seems like since it started, women have had the capacity to really tear into men, and men haven't said anything.
	You know, it's actually kind of remarkable that you haven't had the rise of people like Andrew Tates until recently.
	And I think Andrew Tate is kind of the mirror image of the radical feminist.
	He's just coming at it from a different and more extreme angle as a man.
	So I think that's what's going on.
	It's like watching a bad divorce, where the women are siding with the women and the men are siding with the men.
	And that's not really a way to navigate it or to heal it.
	So I think this is the bigger issue: we need to look at the ideology behind it.
	We also need to look specifically at the way in which women have been indoctrinated.
	And, you know, most women, if you talk to them privately, will say, well, maybe there's something wrong with this, or maybe we can think of this in a different way, but we've never been shown a different way.
	You know, anyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with the feminist agenda is really labeled as a doormat or someone who doesn't have a capacity to think.
	And so I think that's what's driving it so much is that women haven't had real models of what authentic femininity can actually look like.
	And so I think that's incumbent upon us as conservatives to really start presenting a different view of what womanhood looks like than the predominant view that seems to be everywhere and the only way in which we can think.
	So that's really what's driving it is women have been told and our emotions have been formed.
	In fact, this is one of the things I talk about in the book extensively is just the way women have been pushed to be, instead of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, women have been really focused on exercising the vices of rage, contempt, and envy.
	So those are the things that have been stirred up in us a lot.
	And that's what's creating a significant amount of the acrimony.
	And a lot of this is on purpose because the fact that women who are angry are a lot more politically expedient than women who are not angry.
	So if you look at something like the women's march, you know, this isn't populated with very reasonable, calm, rational women.
	It's, you know, clearly something meant to even stir up anger further.
	So all of those things are at play, but I think finding a way to model authentic femininity is a really important thing that we need to do on the right.
	I mean, it seems to me, just thinking back over the last several decades, watching this feminist debate play out, that even the conservative men, and maybe this is for reasons of chivalry, I'm not really sure, were pushed back into a kind of endorsement of the feminist ethic.
	I mean, I think, for example, I'm not thinking of people who are all that political.
	I'm thinking about the guy who says things like, happy wife, happy life.
	Or I'm thinking about the guy who says, my wife is always right.
	Now, my wife is actually here and she's nodding vigorously, but you know what I mean?
	What I mean is that men have been sort of reluctant to get into it, particularly with these angry feminist types, and so they tend to bow out of the debate and sort of talk about something else.

▲