All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
56:34
THE BEGINNING OF HISTORY Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1228
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, is it the end of history?
No, I want to argue it's the beginning of history.
I'll examine how new forms of government are springing up in the 21st century that belie the famous proposition that history has come to an end.
And podcaster Dennis Michael Lynch joins me.
We're going to talk about the security risks and cultural breakdown produced by Islamic immigration.
Hey, if you're watching on YouTube, Exorumba, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
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 today about a broad theme that I'm calling the beginning of history.
Sometimes in the podcast, I begin with something in the news and I talk about a Supreme Court decision or a Trump policy or something going on with the Democrats.
But it's also helpful from time to time to take a bit of a step back and kind of look at our world in the big picture and try to understand what is going on.
I'm provoked to do this in part by some conversations I had with a group of young conservatives in Brazil.
I mentioned yesterday that I was there just for a few days in São Paulo, São Paulo, I think is the way they put it.
Very interesting place, by the way.
Very cosmopolitan, really good food.
In certain parts, a little dangerous, but that is to be expected because Brazil has these slums or favelas.
And in the favelas, there's just a lot of urban rot and corruption and also crime.
But my conversations with the Brazilians were very provocative.
They see the world a little differently from Brazil.
And they were talking about sort of alternative forms of government in the 21st century.
I'll come to that in a moment.
But the way I think about it is that in the kind of at the turn of the century, we had this idea called the end of history.
This was based upon Fukuyama's book called The End of History.
And the argument was kind of dazzling.
It is that history has come to an end.
This seems a little crazy because history can't come to an end.
Things continue to happen.
So history in that sense continues.
But that's not what Fukuyama meant by history.
What he meant is history understood as a clash between rival forms of government, or to put it more broadly, rival visions of the good society.
Where is history going?
The kind of directional aspect of history.
And Fukuyama's point is that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ideological debate between liberal democracy on the one side and let's just say Soviet totalitarianism on the other has been finished.
It's over.
Liberal democracy has won.
This is not to say that there may not be different forms of liberal democracy.
You could have the parliamentary system in Europe and the presidential system in America.
They are a sort of representative democracy.
We are a constitutional republic.
We have an ultimate law in the Constitution.
Great Britain doesn't have a constitution.
They have more of a common law.
But these are, you can say, variations on a theme.
There's no question that these Western societies, by and large, do have liberalism, liberalism here understood as liberties.
And they also do have democracy.
They have democracy in one form or another.
And it's representative democracy.
We elect leaders to represent us.
And Fukuyama's point is that you might have other dictatorships or autocracies that continue in the world, but they have become discredited.
In a way, there's only one model for Homo sapiens or man to aspire to, and that is liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is the best form of government, and it has won out over all the others.
Now, I think that what these Brazilians were kind of getting at is that liberal democracy is showing itself to have very serious problems.
And I'll identify two: the problem of entitlements and the problem of outside incursion.
And I'm thinking here specifically of radical Islam.
So let's say a word about each.
The problem of entitlements is that people have the ability under liberal democracy, at least under welfare state democracy.
This was not the case, by the way, in the time of the founding, but it is the case after FDR and the great society, that a majority of people can vote benefits to themselves and extract those benefits from the taxpayer.
You get used to the benefits, you become entitled, you want more, you keep pressing for more, these countries go into debt, they can't pay off their debt, congressmen and senators cannot afford to vote against the entitlements that lead to the debt.
And so the society essentially is on a path to bankruptcy through expanding entitlements.
And that is a sort of fate that we can see ahead of us.
And it's not unique to America.
It is common pretty much to all liberal democracies and all Western societies.
They're all heading in the same direction.
The other problem is what to do about radical Islam, which travels on the passport of liberalism, but at the same time does not appear to have a liberal end goal.
And so how do you say no to people and to groups that appeal to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the ability, the right to vote, when those groups are taking over school boards and they're taking over their running for Congress?
And again, their goal is to reach a critical mass of power in which liberal democracy itself can then be somehow subverted.
So liberal democracy suddenly appears not to have an easy solution to these two, and you could probably name other problems.
And when we look around the world, we begin to see other models popping up.
And I just jotted down five of them, which I'm just going to briefly highlight because none of these are liberal democracies in the usual sense.
And yet they have certain types of appeal to certain people around the world and probably also to some Americans.
There's the Singapore model, which I would call it is democratic.
They do have elections.
But on the other hand, it is somewhat illiberal.
And by illiberal, what I mean is that, no, you can't say whatever you want.
And you, quite frankly, can't do whatever you want.
And there are severe penalties for what Americans would consider fairly trivial offenses.
And there are extremely severe penalties, including the death penalty, for doing things like trafficking in drugs.
And yet Singapore is a very clean place, a very orderly place, for many people, a very attractive place, one of the financial centers of the world.
And so there's the Singapore model.
Then there is, I would call it the Arab model.
And I'm thinking of places here like Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar.
These are societies that are Islamic, but they're very different than, say, Iran.
This is not a theocracy or ruled by the mullahs per se.
People do have a lot of liberties in these societies.
Now, they can't go against the government.
If they did, they would be shut down.
And so these are not democracies.
They are autocracies, but they present themselves as benign autocracies.
You want to start a business?
It's very easy.
Just do it.
The tax rates tend to be pretty low.
They are also societies that are very clean because the autocrat decides, no, there's going to be no littering, and we're going to keep the parks and the subways and the streets spotless.
And there's also going to be very little crime.
I may have mentioned this before, but there's a social media video out there where a woman takes off her Rolex, puts it on the front dash of her car, and then leaves.
She goes, in fact, to a restaurant across the street, and she turns on her phone, and she says, let's look and see if anyone comes and takes the Rolex.
And no one does.
People actually walk by.
They see the watch, but they don't touch it.
Whether they do that out of civic sense or whether they do it out of fear, like, hey, I don't want my arm cut off for taking the Rolex, either way, the Rolex is untouched.
Then there's the Chinese model, which has delivered a lot for the Chinese people.
It is certainly not democracy.
It's the opposite of that.
But it does allow a measure of capitalist freedom.
There are billionaires, for example, in China.
And so you can make money in China.
And China has made a great deal of money.
But even that capitalism is shackled to the government.
The government, in the end, has the final say, so they have the right to take away the money from the billionaires if they decide to do it.
And then the two other models I want to mention are the sort of Hungarian-Polish model, which is democratic, but it's democratic with a very deliberate end goal of creating a Christian order, a Christian republic, a sort of Christian society, maybe not so different from the ones that existed in earlier centuries.
Those societies were probably not democratic in the sense that we understand today.
But what Hungary and Poland are trying to do is basically say, we don't have to explain to you why we are pro-Christian and anti-Muslim.
That's because that's who we are.
That's our identity.
We don't believe in the liberal nostrum that we have to sort of explain why the church bells are allowed to ring, but we're not going to allow the call to prayer.
We don't allow the call to prayer because we aren't Muslims around here.
So Muslims can live in our society, but they don't get to make the rules of the society.
And if they don't like it, they're welcome to leave.
And finally, there is the El Salvador model, which can also be called the Bukele model.
And Bukele, I think, is trying to do something very similar to Singapore.
Basically, Bukele is a Democrat.
He's elected with huge majorities, but he's not reluctant to use tremendous force to smash the back of crime, of gangs.
He's not afraid to have draconian penalties for those criminals.
And he's also creating a very entrepreneurial society in El Salvador.
He's embraced Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
People are actually able to pay in restaurants with Bitcoin.
So basically, Bukele is saying that I'm going to create right here in the Americas a small model society that maybe offers a better option.
I mean, think about these Western societies.
They're almost all dealing with issues of crime, particularly in their cities.
And so what does it say that a third world society like El Salvador is safer than, say, Minneapolis or safer than St. Louis or safer than London or Paris?
And so even though some of these models have not been applied across large-scale societies, they're applied in fairly miniature examples.
Singapore is a small example.
El Salvador is a small example.
I think what they'd suggest, what all of this suggests to me, is that we have not reached the end of history.
In fact, in some ways, history is only beginning, beginning again.
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.
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.
Microplastics, tiny bits of plastic are everywhere.
And our food, our water, even our air.
A new study shows 94% of our drinking water contains microplastics in there, and 88% of our meat and seafood.
Even if you eat clean, you're still taking in plastic and it's damaging your health from the inside out.
These particles pass through the gut barrier, they enter your bloodstream, they trigger a wave of oxidative stress, leading to inflammation, mutations, and even cancer.
BPA plastics disrupt hormones, damage DNA, and are now showing up even in the human brain.
But there is hope, and it starts in the gut.
Kimchi One from Brightcore Nutrition is packed with over 900 probiotic strains unique to kimchi and proven to break down BPA.
Right now, my viewers and listeners can get 25% off Kimchi1 with code Dinesh by going to mybrightcore.com/slash Dinesh.
Or even better, if you call, you get up to 50% off and free shipping.
So here's the number.
Write it down: 888-927-5980.
Again, it's 888-927-5980.
Hey, guys, I'd like to welcome to the podcast Dennis Michael Lynch.
He is the host of the Dennis Michael Lynch podcast, and he's got 2 million followers across social media.
He's also the founder of Team DML Inc., which is a digital media production and publishing company.
Dennis and I actually go kind of way back.
He just reminded me that I was on a show with him, I think, for Hillary's America.
And this would have been, boy, almost a decade ago.
By the way, you can follow Dennis on X at trust DML.
The website is dennismichaellynch.com.
Dennis, welcome.
Thanks for joining me.
It's been a long time, and so good to see you again.
Let's start by talking about this business of Qatar.
And I use those words carefully because it seems to me that a lot of business is going on in Qatar.
They have these financial conferences.
A lot of deals are made.
The Qataris, of course, are awash in oil money.
We know that they spend it lavishly all over the world to promote their interests.
So what do you make of this kind of pilgrimage of prominent Americans heading over to Qatar?
I mean, we've heard about Tucker going to Qatar and his business partner in Qatar.
I've heard that there were some right-wing social media influencers who were invited to Qatar.
I've seen a couple of them make what seem to be somewhat embarrassing videos where they're like, I'm having a great time in Qatar.
And I'm like, what's going on here?
What is your reading on this Qatari operation?
Well, you know, Dinesh, I'm somebody who lived 9-11, so I'm going to always have a bias.
I'm one of the people you saw with white soot all over his head.
So what I think has been happening in the years since you and I first met, going all the way back to Fox News, I remember Megan Kelly had me on her show to defend you when Obama was going against you, because at that time, you and I were the two filmmakers.
Of course, you're the more prominent.
But I have always been keeping my message the same throughout all these years, and that is that Islam, unlike any other, if you want to call it a religion or movement, they have one destination, and that is to take over the West.
That is what they want, and they are going to get to it no matter what it takes.
And so they have figured out a while back that the way to take over America is to take it over from within.
And I think what we're seeing, because I've been screaming about this for the last 20 years on Fox and Newsmax, it's now coming to fruition, pal.
What we're seeing is they have figured out how to get into America.
And the way you get into America is you show them the money, just like Jerry Maguire, show me the money.
And so we have the Qataris now spending, and it's not just them, Dinesh, it's the Saudis, it's the Kuwaitis, it's the whole entire Middle East with the exception of Israel.
If you carve that out, they are all coming in.
They're putting in billions and billions of dollars into our universities and colleges.
They're putting money any which way they can into the pockets of important influencers.
And maybe they're not paying Tucker Carlson, but they're treating him like a king.
And you and I know from being in the media, there's nothing nicer than when somebody's sprinkling about how great you are.
And when now, all of a sudden, Tucker Carlson's going to buy property in a place where Sharia law is what is dictated upon everybody?
To me, this is just another step in buying their way into the United States of America, giving the president the free plane, doing AI deals.
They are slowly but surely accomplishing what it is that the Muslim Brotherhood wrote many years ago in the early 1990s that the FBI caught.
It was all revealed in the Holy Land Foundation that the way to take over America is to take it over from within.
The schools, the businesses, the media, and of course the government.
Dennis, let me press back on you, partly just so we can clarify this issue.
It's not that I don't agree.
It's that I want to frame the other side of this, right?
And so I'm going to be Qatar for a moment.
And the Qataris are going to say, well, look, I thought you Americans wanted to have good Muslims instead of bad Muslims.
I thought that you Americans didn't like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
You don't like people flying into your buildings.
You like people who do business with you and have trade with you.
And that's why you've been trading with places like China for the last 40 or 50 years.
You don't agree with their political system, but you think that trade is a way for people who don't agree to find common ground.
And so if we give money to your universities, we're helping your students get an education.
We're helping fund important research that benefits America.
And if we get involved in AI, well, we're pushing AI forward.
And isn't that the future of humanity?
And we are, in a sense, doing our part.
Islam has been a kind of backward part of the world for a long time, but now we want to come to the forefront of it and be alongside you in this great revolution of AI and robotics.
So why are you making us the bad guy when we're trying to be the good guy?
So I would answer your question with a question before I could give you the answer.
So, Mr. Prime Minister, what's in it for you?
Well, I would answer what's in it for me is the same as is in it for you, which is to say, why do you make AI investments, if not, to ultimately move the technology forward, benefit your citizens, make a bunch of money?
We want to do the same thing.
These are investments.
We have all this oil money.
We're willing to put it to use to advance technology to the common benefit of humanity.
Of course, we get something out of it.
We're not claiming we're being global philanthropists here, but neither are you.
All right, I'll tell you what.
What about, I'm going to, I'm going to press you, Mr. Prime Minister, to really see if your interests are in the right space.
Because if we're really going to be partners, we have to sort of be on the same wavelength on everything, not just AI.
So what about for every mosque that I put up in America, you put up a church?
I want to invest in Qatar.
I want to start putting up churches.
I want the people of America to be able to go to your beautiful place.
I mean, what a beautiful city Doha is.
Let's have it this way.
Let's make it so this way my folks don't have to register with you and be careful about when and how and if they pray.
Let's do a one-to-one.
I'll give you a mosque, you give me a church, and you got to let all my people go and pray to Jesus Christ in the middle of the street.
You do that, then you show me that you want to be a real partner.
And I guarantee you, you know what they're going to do?
They're going to hang up the phone, Dinesh.
Yeah, no, they sure are.
But I'm going to continue the argument because I just want to think aloud here.
And my answer would be this.
It would be, all right, Mr. Trump.
By the way, you're Trump, and I'm the emir of Qatar.
I'd rather be President Lynch.
Well, there you go.
President Lynch.
Maybe not the most fortunate name for a president, but nevertheless, we'll go with it for now.
President Lynch.
Well, I would say that we in the Islamic world have a certain substantive idea of what kind of society we want.
We actually want Islamic societies.
And Islamic societies operate by Islamic rules.
This is the Islamic world.
And so we obviously, any people obviously has the right to create for themselves whatever kind of society they want.
We've chosen to have an Islamic society, which means that there are going to be some limitations on people building churches.
Not that there are no churches, but the churches have to be, you can say, subordinate to Islam.
All right.
Now, you in the West have decided not to do that.
You've decided to have separation of church and state.
You have all these court rulings that say you've got to be neutral between different religions.
That's not our choice.
We didn't make you do that.
You chose to do that yourself.
And so you have created a liberal society which operates according to certain freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of association.
Now, when we come to your countries and buy mosques, you know, we pay for them.
We buy the land.
There may be a church that's empty.
We buy that church.
We revitalize it and put 800 Muslims in it when before there were only 37 Catholics going every Sunday.
So you're complaining to me about a problem inside of your own society, which is that you have created these rules.
We are playing by your rules.
We agree.
When in Rome, do as the Romans.
So when you come to Qatar, you have to live by the Qatari rules.
We are living by the American rules, and you seem to be upset about it.
Well, the first thing I would say to you, Mr. Prime Minister, is that a lot of your people come over.
Hold on, I'm not the prime minister.
I'm the emir.
I'm sort of like a dictator.
Whatever I say goes.
The prime minister would be a big downgrade for me because I have the right to chop people's arms off.
I've got a lot of privileges that maybe you, President Lynch, would like to have in America, but you don't have them.
And that's your own fault.
That's because you signed up for this constitutional republic where you got to have due process and a whole bunch of nonsense that, frankly, we don't tolerate here in Qatar.
Yeah, and you know what?
It's funny you're saying that, Mr. Amir.
I mean, if you knew that the issues that I'm getting from the left because I want to bomb some drug boats, you're nailing it.
But, you know, let's get to the crux here.
When the problem I have with you coming over here and setting up shop is that I know ultimately that you do not come here because you have a love of America.
Now, I'm all for immigration and I'm all for people who want to come here because they see the opportunity that America provides everybody and anybody.
But I just don't see your people acting in good faith, to be quite honest.
In fact, every time you send somebody here, either they are stealing from me, they're lying to me, they're marrying their brother in order to get in here.
And then, of course, when I'm not looking, they're practicing Sharia law, and then they're in the streets saying how there is that they're going to take over America.
And so, you know, when I'm not crazy about the Russians, I'm not crazy about the Italians.
I'm an Irish guy, but I've never had a Jew, I've never had an Irishman, I've never had somebody from Sweden come over, and the first thing they say to me is that they're going to take over my country from within.
So, to be honest with you, I do not trust you folks.
I don't need your money.
I happen to be a very, very well-off country, even though I'm borrowing too much.
I'm going to change that around.
Here's the thing: if you really want to show me who you are and what you believe in, and you won't let me open up churches, that's still something I'm going to put a side eye to.
But here's the big problem: what about we start off with right now?
Just sign the book here, just sign it.
Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.
Let's start with that.
You willing to do that?
Well, I think I'm going to pull out of the conversation for a moment here because I think there you sort of have the Qataris.
Well, let me put it differently.
If I were to truly answer your question, I would have to go full Takia on you.
That's right.
I would have to somewhat disguise my true motives because I think we both know the answer to that question.
And look, I think that the issue we're wrestling with here, and the reason I'm pressing you, frankly, is not to defend the Islamic position, it's actually to expose some of the vulnerabilities of the American position here.
Because let's just pick it up from where we left off.
You know, is it possible, is it even practical, let's say for America, to create an immigration policy in which we were to say no Muslims?
I mean, that would be a tricky thing to do.
The whole objective of the 1965 Immigration Act was to remove some of the ethnic and racial elements in immigration that were there from the 20s.
So, you know, I can understand in America, if we were to say, all right, we want to move to a skills-based immigration as opposed to, let's say, family unification, right?
That would be an improvement, in my opinion.
But the idea of explicitly saying, hey, listen, we don't even treat Islam as a religion.
We're going to treat it as some sort of an ideology.
We're going to classify it as dangerous or terrorist.
We're not going to let any Muslims in here.
I mean, do you see that as some place that America can go consistent with the Constitution?
Or do you think that there are obstacles to that?
No, well, listen, Dinesh, there's obstacles in getting a stop sign on the corner these days, right?
Because you're going to invade the turtles that live there.
But I mean, look, let me ask you a question.
I don't know this about you.
And are you native-born?
Well, no, I was born in Bombay.
I came to America at the age of 17 and I became a citizen in 91.
Okay, so I'm glad I know that.
Okay, so with that being said, you know, I have you and I have never dined together, but we're of the same ilk in terms of the way we think and what we've done.
And I find you as being an extremely patriotic American.
In fact, probably one of the best ones that if somebody said to me, Hey, round me up and I want people of all different colors, I'd say, All right, give me Ben Carson, give me Dinesh D'Souza.
I mean, so I have a lot of respect for you.
Okay.
With that said, at this point in time, from what I've learned in my 20 years of immigration, is that our vetting process is hideous.
And we continue to put the United States of America at great risk, not only just from a national security standpoint, but also from a cultural standpoint.
See, you come over here, Dinesh, and when I look at you, I look at me.
My skin complexion is lighter than yours, but I don't look at it that way.
When I consulted for Ben Carson in 2016, he said to me, Dennis, I want you to come.
I want you to consult for me and teach me everything I need to know about immigration.
And I said, Well, I'm going to be voting for Trump.
He says, I don't care.
I still see Nion Fox.
I want you to come over.
I went there because I thought he would make a great vice president.
At the end of the day, I'm on the same team.
All right.
You are that same sort of person.
I mean, the things that you have risked and the price that you have had to pay for the way that you've tried to defend America against things like Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I mean, I could line up 50 white guys and they don't, and they're not as patriotic as you.
So for me, this is no longer about, hey, I don't want brown people.
I don't want Muslim people.
I want to be able to vet who's coming into my country.
We got lucky with Dinesh D'Souza, but we didn't get so lucky with Ilan Omar.
And so what I know about the immigration process is that the process of putting through 12 million visas and having to go through all these background checks, we don't have the people, Dinesh.
And then on top of that, we are just saying, come on over because you're a third world.
Come on over because you're this.
No, it needs to be a basis of value.
You offer value to this country.
I'm not going to wind up inviting you in anymore because you have the right mother and father based on the chain migration rules.
So what's happened is our laws about immigration need to be changed and updated once again.
And that's not unfair of me to say.
It doesn't make me a racist or anything else that nature.
If I had a company that made black and white televisions, what would you come and say to me?
Say, Dennis, you got to change it, man.
We're now in flat screen.
And that's all that it is, I think, that most Americans are saying.
I would, through proclamation, which the president himself just tweeted not so long ago, I would say, let's end all legal immigration into the country for a period of time until we can redo our vetting system.
And if it makes you feel any better, Dinesh D'Souza, if it makes you feel any better, Ilon Omar, we can start banning the Irish coming over, my own.
Let's, I'm not talking about color.
I want to stop it for everybody because I can't see who's coming into my country and it is becoming detrimental on many different aspects from a national security standpoint, from a financial standpoint, and quite honestly, from a cultural standpoint.
Look, I mean, the principle you're talking about, I agree with 100%.
And I would even go further to say that I don't even think it is a bureaucratic problem.
It's not that we don't have enough personnel.
It is that the project that you're describing is not even being attempted.
In other words, it's not even like they're trying.
It's one thing if they were like, listen, we're going to try to find immigrants who love America, who assimilate, who are coming here because this is a great club and they want to be members.
And if they were bureaucratically failing to achieve that goal, but they are not even trying to go there.
Now, in some ways, I think Trump's way of thinking about this appears to be, you know, and it's very Trumpy.
And it's like, hey, listen, you got $500,000 to bring with you in your pocket.
Well, okay, we're going to let you in here.
But I think what you're saying is that that's not enough.
Yes, you can bring the money, but you also need to bring a set of cultural values and expectations.
You really need to want to play by our rules instead of trying to get us to play by your rules.
Is that your bottom line?
Yeah, you know, the thing, look, I voted for Trump three times.
I have an incredible amount of admiration for the fight that that man has in him.
And I truly believe he loves America just as anybody else does.
However, he has a bias towards the financial systems, right?
You got to give me more in tariffs.
You need to give me more.
I'm going to charge you $5 million for a green card, whatever it may be.
Not everything's about money.
You know, I mean, you make your films because you're passionate about filmmaking and about the topics that you're filming and what you used to write about, right?
You still write, but before you made films, you were a writer.
And the money followed that.
It wasn't, I'm going to write books because I'm going to make millions of dollars.
It was, I'm a smart guy.
I have things to say.
I'm going to write it down.
And if I'm really good, my craft is going to pay for itself.
I think where Trump is making the mistake is he's putting the money in front of everything.
I'll give you a prime example of this, Dinesh.
There's no better example than I'm going to give you right now.
If I were truly President Lynch, the first thing I would do right now to open up affordability and to open up jobs and to end this nonsense of having the ICE agents running around like Keystone cops, showing one guy that they caught and making it like an accomplishment when we got 40 million people in here illegally, I would put in mandatory e-verify.
It is mandatory for government.
It is mandatory for government contractors, but for everybody else in the country, it's voluntary.
So if you put in mandatory A-Verify in and we were to cut the dragon off at the head, many of these people would self-deport because they'd have no more money trained.
The president won't do that.
He won't even tweet about it.
And the only time I've ever seen anybody ever ask him about it, Dinesh, was Steve Hilton on a Fox News hit going back a couple of years ago.
And he said, this is what Trump said, his own honesty sometimes bites him in the ass.
He said, I tried using E-Verify when we built the hotel here in Washington, D.C., and we had to go through like 26 people before we could find an employee.
I mean, he sold it for me.
He sold it.
And if he would have put that into place, it would be a problem solver like nothing else.
But he won't because he knows as a contractor, it's a pain in the ass to have to go through that whole process.
Same thing as being a guy who has wineries and golf clubs, who these people are hiring, his donor class, they all want the cheap labor.
And he's hearing from people: if you get rid of these people, the economy is going to bottom out.
No, if you keep these people, we're going to lose our country.
Because here's my big thing: we have a military filled of 20 and 25-year-old, mostly guys.
And at some point, they're going to look at the United States of America and say, What's in it for me?
You want me to lay my life down for this country?
And yet I can't even buy a two-bedroom, one-bath house.
Are you kidding me?
You're giving all of our money.
You're giving all of our time over to the Qataris and over the Saudis.
You're treating an al-Qaeda freaking leader with a $10 million bounty on his head.
You're giving him a state dinner.
And I'm sitting here saying I can't pay the bills.
And so I think if Trump stopped worrying about tomorrow's GDP and started worrying about tomorrow's American citizen, it would be totally 100% different.
And then when you take somebody like Tucker Coulson and I see somebody who has made so much money and so much success because of what America offers him, and now he's sitting here and he's crapping on it by going over and justifying and making it sound like the Qataris are Mother Teresa.
I mean, it's just insane.
I mean, I'm buying a property because I think this place is beautiful.
They freaking treat women like they're goats.
If you're gay, you're going to get thrown off a building.
If you touch something that isn't yours, they're going to chop off your hand.
I hear Tucker saying the other day, well, you know, if you've got a Lamborghini and you leave the keys in the ignition and it doesn't get stolen, that's not so bad with that stupid laugh.
Yeah, because if you touch it, they're going to murder you.
And so this guy is normalizing it in the same way that Trump normalized an al-Qaeda freaking piece of garbage, then the Saudi prince, and then Mamdanny, they're normalizing this.
And this is why our youth, this is why you're going up against the Nick Fuentes and they've been sold this bag of goods.
And so I look at this and I blame, I blame Tucker Coulson.
I blame Candace Owens.
I blame all these people who are just switching things around and making it sound like Islam is our best friend.
It is our worst enemy.
I mean, I think the very good thing you're doing here, Dennis, is that you are very passionately articulating an America first agenda that is done without going the Tucker-Candice route.
In other words, I think the way that Tucker and Candace like to see the world, it's them on the one side and like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin on the other.
And it's pretty easy to say, well, those guys are Israel first.
Those guys don't care about America.
I do.
And what you're saying is, no, I really do.
And a true America-first agenda would be genuinely America-first and wouldn't cozy up to Sharia and wouldn't cozy up to Qatar, recognizing that these people are highly duplicitous.
I mean, Israel may have its problems, but getting into bed with these guys to, you know, as an alternative is worse.
Wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, I mean, look, you're going to get me started.
If I get too wild, you got to slow me down, put your hands up like this.
Look, I am not anti-Israel.
I'm not pro-Israel.
I'm pro-America.
I got veterans, mothers, and children sleeping in the streets.
You know, I made a film.
I'm not looking to pitch.
I made a film called United States Attence going back years ago, and it was on Amazon Prime.
And it was one of the biggest films there on Amazon Prime for a while.
So I understand who's in the streets.
And there is this misconception that it's all alcoholics and crack users.
No, what happens is they become crack users and alcoholics because they go down that slide.
And what happens is they're, you know, it's episodic.
Something happens.
Somebody gets sick.
Something else in their life happens.
And all of a sudden they're living in a friend's house.
Then it's living in the car.
Then it's a tent, and then it's in the sidewalk.
So when I see my country ailing the way it is, my feeling is just like when you get on a plane, Dinesh, what happens?
The air masks come down.
You put it on your face first and then the person next to you.
Because if you're not healthy, you can't help the person next to you, even if it's your kid, right?
So what happens now?
We're sitting here worrying everything about anti-Israel, pro-Israel, anti-this, anti-that.
What about just being pro-America?
And when everybody's on the path to the American dream, we could reach our hands out around the world and help everybody that we possibly can.
Now, in terms of Israel, I'm always going to look at Israel a little bit differently than I do Qatar, let's say, because Israel in the back of my, I know in my mind, I've lived 9-11.
I know what things are like when you're worried about you're going to get bombed every day.
Israel is basically sleeping with one eye open 24-7, 365.
They're circled by around people who want to take them out.
Their doctrine is to take them out.
Some of these countries totally BS, like, oh, yeah, no, we don't have a problem with Israel.
No, that's Takia.
And then the other ones just don't hold it back, like Iran.
We want you dead.
So my feeling is Iran, they're a bad actor.
All the other ones are mostly bad actors.
They want Israel gone.
I feel for Israel, but I'm not going to put Israel's interest in front of my own.
That's it.
It doesn't mean I have to be pro or anti-anybody.
And like you said, Tucker and all these other people are making America first dictated and measured whether or not you are anti- or pro-Israel.
And I can't believe it on my Facebook page, how many people are commenting.
I mean, if I say something like, why is Tucker Carlson a Qatar?
You know what I get back?
You got to get it back 10 times what I do.
Oh, what did you do with the $7,000 that the Israelis paid you with?
What?
Are you really kidding me?
You don't have to pay me money to tell the truth, pal.
And that's what we're up against.
And I blame people like Tucker Carlson for doing this.
Fascinating stuff.
Guys, I've been talking to Dennis Michael Lynch, host of the Dennis Michael Lynch podcast, the website dennismichaellynch.com.
Dennis, we hadn't planned to go down the Tucker route, but you took us there.
I didn't plan to play the emir of Qatar, but you got me there.
And thanks very much for joining me.
Dinesh, I hope to have you on my podcast.
Thanks a lot for having me.
It's still going on.
My pillows, three-in-one sale.
They got a limited edition product.
They're back in stock special and a close-out deal.
You won't find anywhere else.
My pillow bed sheets, just $29.88.
Any color, any style, any size, even kings.
Regular price, $119.98, now 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 and $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.
Again, it's mypillow.com and the promo code is D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
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 the dragonsprophecyfilm.com.
I'm beginning today a new chapter in Life After Death, The Evidence.
This is a chapter that covers the brain, the mind and the brain, and the academic field that we're going to learn something about is called neuroscience or brain science.
The question to be explored here is the immortality of the soul because no conception of life after death is possible without the idea that we have immortal souls and those souls endure after death.
There can be some argument or disagreement about whether there's something else that endures after death, the soul plus a different kind of body or just a soul by itself.
But there's no question that if the soul doesn't live on, then we don't either.
Now, This brings us to the key question of how do you account for the soul within a framework of reductive materialism.
Reductive materialism is simply the idea that we are material substances through and through, and that we can be reduced to those material objects, which is to say, nerves and arteries and valves and heart and physical brain and neurons and cells, and that's kind of all there is.
Now, we're dealing here with a formidable ideology, reductive materialism, that is also embraced by a lot of scientists.
And it's embraced by scientists partly for the reason that it's easy to study a neuron.
Well, not easy, but you can do it.
You can study an arm or a leg.
But there are other things about human beings that are very difficult to study.
Let's take something as simple as pain.
How does a neuroscientist or a surgeon study pain?
They don't know if you're in pain or not.
If you go to the doctor and say, guess what?
I am either in pain or I'm not in pain.
You tell me which one it is.
They can't.
It doesn't matter how many examinations they do.
They are not able to answer that question any more than they can answer a question where you approach, let's just say, a psychiatrist and say, okay, I am thinking of one of, I'm thinking of a number between one and a hundred.
You tell me what it is.
He can't do it.
And again, it doesn't matter if he did a PET scan or brain scan.
They don't know.
So we have this immaterial part of ourselves that is accessible, seemingly, only to us.
So here's another way to put it.
As human beings, we have two types of experience: outer experience and inner experience.
So what is outer experience?
Well, our outer experience includes things like trains and lakes and pebbles and staplers.
And but we also have this thing called inner experience, which is thoughts and ideas and feelings and decisions and the will and awareness.
And this inner experience is exclusive to us.
And because if we keep it to ourselves, if we say nothing about it, it would be invisible to others.
Let's just say that there was a robot monitoring you or me.
They would be able to monitor our outer experience.
Well, Ganesh got up in the morning and he ate breakfast and he went here and he went there, but the inner experience would be concealed, would be hidden.
Now, this view that human beings are made up of two kinds of stuff, physical stuff and mental stuff, or let's put it differently, material stuff and immaterial stuff, this is called dualism.
Dualism referring to the number two.
There are two kinds of substances, the material and the immaterial.
And the great champion of dualism was the philosopher René Descartes.
And Descartes' dualism, the idea that we are, on the one hand, bodies, but also minds, this is something that also conforms to common sense.
I think people in the world from the beginning of time have generally believed that we have physical dimensions to ourselves and then we also have a non-physical or immaterial dimension.
I think people have believed something like this long before Descartes, and as I say, all over the world, people who have no familiarity with Descartes at all.
So, this is where the idea of dualism gets its kind of commonsensical plausibility.
But dualism, in this way, has a problem, a difficult problem to solve, and at least a problem that is especially vivid when you think of it in terms of what science is and what science does.
And here's the problem very simply: How does a mind act upon a body?
Or to put it somewhat differently, how does an immaterial thing act upon a material thing?
We know it does.
I can, for example, my will is immaterial, my mind is immaterial, but I say I'm going to go get an ice cream, and then I go do it.
So, clearly, my mind is acting on my body.
But how?
And what I mean by how is this: in the physical world, objects can only be moved by other objects.
Mind cannot move matter.
Here's a thought experiment.
I'm standing next to, let's just say, a billiard table, and there are all these balls on the table.
And I say, I'm going to use my mind and my will to move a ball.
Can I do it?
No.
I can't do it.
It doesn't matter if I go, you know, ball, come on, you can do it.
Let's move.
Let's move.
Let's go.
The ball is going to just sit there.
The only way to move that ball is to hit it with a stick or with another ball.
So in the world of science, physical objects are required to move other physical objects.
And yet we know from our own life that minds, in fact, can direct bodies.
I can say, for example, right now, I can say, I want to lift up my arm and scratch my head.
And for me, thinking about it can then cause me to do it.
I make up my mind and then I act.
So a lot of scientists, because they can't explain how a mind can act upon a body, have sort of given up on the idea of dualism altogether.
And what they say is, we don't have a mind.
At least, we don't have a mind separate from the body.
All we are is bodies.
That's who we are.
And our mind is some sort of an epiphenomenon is a kind of commonly used expression.
Well, not commonly used by Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street, but commonly used to try to explain how a body or how a brain, how neurons generate thoughts.
And the answer is thoughts are kind of this epiphenomenon.
They kind of spring out of this physical object, and they are actually part of the object itself.
They cannot be identified separate from the object.
They're kind of the attribute or quality of the object.
Now, this materialism poses a real problem for life after death, because if all we are is physical bodies or physical objects, there's no question that those objects break down, they disintegrate, they get ultimately cremated or put into the ground where they dust thou art and dust to dust thou shall return.
And so, where's the question of life after death?
And that's all we are.
What is there to live on?
From the materialist point of view, there is nothing left to continue on.
Everything has been, you can say, brought to a close.
Now, The question of whether or not minds can be reduced to bodies, or to put it differently, minds can be reduced to brains.
This is the question I want to kind of zoom in on.
And I want to expose a fallacy that is very common, really, in the field of neuroscience.
It is the fallacy of thinking that because two things are regularly correlated, therefore they are the same thing.
In other words, it is the fallacy of thinking that because two things go together, the one is the same as the other.
And I want to show why that is clearly not the case.
So when I pick this up tomorrow, we're going to focus on minds and brains.
We're going to focus on things like MRIs and PET scans.
And we're going to examine whether it is the case that because every time your mind is working, you can see something happening in your brain.
There are particular areas of your mind, for example, let's say certain feelings or thoughts or emotions or cognitive reasoning that correlate with the physical substrate, with the physical underlying physical substance of the brain.
I obviously agree that there is this correlation.
I also agree that when you are having certain types, let's just say using language, we can identify the language part of the brain.
But that doesn't mean that language is the same thing as the operation of those neurons.
That's the question we're going to zoom into next time.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection