Dinesh D'Souza - DEI SLAYER Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1229

Dec. 11, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

58:20

DEI SLAYER Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1229

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Coming up, I'm going to reveal how my Dartmouth buddy Harmee Dylan, who is now at the Trump Justice Department, is remaking the enforcement of civil rights law.
	Very good news.
	Author Drew Thomas Allen joins me.
	We're going to talk about a new book on Charlie Kirk and what his lasting legacy will be.
	If you're watching on YouTube, X or Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
	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, I want to mention that time is running out to get your DVDs for the Dragon's Prophecy.
	Go to thedragonsprophecyfilm.com.
	You can get them from there.
	But, you know, interestingly, the DVD, which was on Amazon, had been kind of blocked on Amazon.
	Suddenly, for several days, you couldn't get it.
	But our friends at Salem tell me that it is back up on Amazon.
	It is also going to be available, maybe it is already, on Walmart.com.
	All good stuff, by the way.
	So you can get your DVDs also directly from Amazon and check to see if you can get them on Walmart if you prefer to get them that way.
	The film itself is available in streaming and will early next year also be available on Apple iTunes, Amazon Prime.
	So there's going to be other easy ways to see the film.
	And I will keep you informed.
	Now, I want to talk about, well, I'm going to focus on an important development at the DOJ involving civil rights.
	But I want to first make a comment here about something I just saw on social media.
	This was the world's number one women's player, Irina Sabalenka.
	And she was asked in an interview what she thinks about trans women, aka biological men, playing in women's tennis.
	Now, this is a very interesting question because I've noticed, I might have even commented to Debbie, I haven't actually seen the trans issue surface in tennis.
	And this is very telling because, you know, the number 85 ranked person in the world, male, could probably easily beat the number one, two, or three ranked female.
	And this is not my opinion.
	This has been said by people from John McEnroe to top female players.
	Serena Williams at one point said, oh, yeah, you can't compare the male game in tennis with the female game.
	To quote her, she said, these are like two different games, two different sports.
	But what I find interesting is that when this question was posed to Sabalenka, she hesitated.
	She paused.
	She was actually being interviewed jointly with Nick Kyrgyz, and she looked over at Nick as if to say, I wonder if I should go there.
	And then she goes there and she says, I don't think it's right.
	I don't think that a biological man can play in the women's division.
	They have too much strength.
	And just identifying as a woman, even taking hormones, doesn't really do it.
	So she stated the correct position.
	But the hesitation is telling, isn't it?
	Because what does it tell you?
	It tells you that the woke phenomenon is not completely dead.
	If it was completely dead, you'd be like, oh, are you kidding?
	That would be the opening.
	But the fact that it was like, uh, tells you that she was afraid.
	Think of it.
	Even the number one player on the women's side is intimidated by the accusation that she's transphobic.
	And she pushed through it.
	But the silence itself spoke volumes.
	Now, in the same connection, which is the connection of we're dealing here with issues of rights and civil rights, I want to talk about my old Dartmouth buddy, Harmeet Dill.
	And Harmeet and I didn't go to Dartmouth at the same time.
	She went several years later, but even though I graduated in 1983, I stayed on the board of the Dartmouth Review for several years.
	That's how I met Harmeet Dillon.
	We've been friends over many, well, quite a few decades now.
	And she is the assistant attorney general for civil rights, assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Justice.
	And her premise there has been equality of rights for all.
	So nobody gets more rights.
	Nobody gets fewer rights.
	We all get the same rights.
	And this is the colorblind principle, but it's the principle that applies even beyond ethnicity or race.
	Now, a bunch of her colleagues quit when she first came in because she established from now on, it's going to be equality of rights for all.
	There's no such thing as like good discrimination, bad discrimination.
	Discrimination against whites is okay.
	Discrimination against minorities is discrimination against whites is okay.
	Discrimination against minorities is horrible and needs to be prosecuted.
	No, her point is that discrimination is discrimination.
	And so a bunch of these people quit.
	And some of them, by the way, are now trying to come back.
	But Harmeet's point is, no, sorry, if you decided to exit, get off the bus, so to speak.
	Well, you're off the bus.
	The bus is actually going to go on without you.
	And now, through the civil rights division of the Justice Department, I see a new rule which basically knocks out this idea of disparate impact.
	Now, this needs to be explained a little bit because in the past, the liberals came up with a very ingenious way to intimidate companies and force them to agree to all these settlements where they pay giant fines, they agree to establish all these preferential and affirmative action policies.
	But to get them to do that, you have to make them guilty of discrimination.
	How do you do that?
	Well, the obvious way to do that is to find a white guy and a black guy that applied for a job.
	The black guy was better qualified, but the white guy got the job.
	But the government realized there are very few such cases.
	They can't actually prove discrimination that way.
	So the obvious way doesn't really work.
	So they came up with a non-obvious way, which is a very deceitful way, and that's called disparate impact.
	So let's just say, for example, a company establishes a rule that says, for example, that if you want to be in construction, you have to be able to do A, B, C, and D. All the government does is they come in and show that when you administer this standard, A, B, C, and D, it has a disparate impact on a certain minority group, let's say blacks.
	And so when you administer this test or this standard, whites do better than blacks, and it's having a disparate impact on blacks.
	Therefore, the company now has the burden of proof in trying to show, they have to show why this rule is necessary for the job.
	And that's sometimes hard to do because, after all, when you establish rules, they're general in nature.
	You want to hire a firefighter, you say, okay, well, carry this large hose and run for 100 yards.
	Can you prove that that is a necessary way to be able to fight a fire?
	Probably not.
	Or you have to be able to do 50 push-ups.
	Can you prove that 50 push-ups are necessary to be a firefighter?
	Probably not.
	Or you have to have a certain amount of physical strength.
	You have to be able to lift something.
	Now, true, you're a firefighter.
	You have to carry people out of buildings.
	But can you prove that carrying 200 pounds is a necessary burden?
	So again, by this disparate impact rule, you keep saying, well, women can't carry 200 pounds.
	So this rule is having a disparate impact on women.
	Therefore, the government would use the disparate impact test to bully, to intimidate, to bludgeon these companies into giving up their tests, giving up their standards, just a wrecking ball in the American workplace.
	And so this is actually a completely fallacious way to try to prove discrimination because all good standards that measure real ability also have a disparate impact.
	You know, consider, for example, an Olympic race.
	Everybody starts on the same line, gun goes off, clock goes on, people who hit the finishing tape first get medals.
	Let's say you show, wait a minute, this is having a disparate impact on whites.
	This is having a disparate impact on Koreans.
	This makes absolutely no sense.
	Of course, the race has a disparate impact in the sense that some people win and other people lose.
	So the whole disparate impact test is bogus.
	And yet it's been a way of measuring discrimination for 50 years.
	So we've got to give big kudos here to Harmeet, big kudos to her colleagues at the Department of Justice.
	Why?
	Because they have essentially said disparate impact now goes out the window.
	As the DOJ is enforcing civil rights, if you want to prove discrimination, first of all, you don't get any special treatment if you're white or you're black.
	Discrimination is discrimination.
	You want to prove it under the civil rights laws, go ahead and do it.
	But you have to do it in the normal way.
	Show, for example, that there were eligible and qualified Hispanic applicants who applied, should have gotten the job, were turned away on account of their race.
	If you can't prove that, there's no discrimination.
	Same with men and women.
	You can't just point to a test and go, well, women can't do as well as men on this test.
	No, if the test is being applied evenly and the best people are getting the job, the disparate impact just doesn't enter the picture at all.
	It's not going to be considered.
	Here's Harmeed.
	A rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination rather than enforcing race or sex-based quotas or assumptions.
	Boom.
	Very good stuff.
	I mean, for me, it's kind of touching because this is stuff that we talked about 30 years ago, you know, when we were in our 20s and in some cases, even late teens, thinking about these kinds of issues.
	And to see it kind of come full circle, where some of our own gang is now inside the government implementing these ideas and having a major national impact.
	Well, it's just very gratifying to see.
	You know, incorporating a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my daily routine is kind of key for me.
	And I get it from these guys: Balance of Nature, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
	These are fruit and veggie supplements.
	They make it simple by giving me the fruits and veggies I need, and that I simply don't have the time or energy to eat.
	These harvested ingredients have 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 hey, 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.
	Get 50% off the whole health system for life with this limited time offer.
	Go to balanceofnature.com to claim this offer.
	New and existing customers can lock in the whole health system at $79.99 per order for life.
	Hey, if you cancel in the future, you will lose this price.
	Again, it's balanceofnature.com.
	Imagine exploring Israel where thousands of years of history are on display and embarking on a journey that changes the way you see the world.
	Hey, this is Dinesh D'Souza inviting you to join me and New York Times best-selling author, Jonathan Kahn, for the Dragon's Prophecy Tour, December 7th through December 16th, 2026.
	For 10 unforgettable days, you'll discover the best of Israel.
	You'll walk the stone streets of Jerusalem.
	You'll pray at the Western Wall, sail the Sea of Galilee, stand on the Mount of Olives, and visit ancient sites that confirm the biblical prophecies and the Jewish people's deep history in this land.
	Jonathan Kahn and I will be there.
	We will open the scriptures in the very places you've read about for years, connecting the archaeological record with biblical prophecy and what is happening in our world today.
	Come see for yourself what history, archaeology, and prophecy reveal in Israel.
	This is a once-in-a-lifetime trip, so join us.
	Call 800-247-1899.
	That's 800-247-1899 or visit inspirationtravel.com/slash Dinesh.
	That's inspirationtravel.com/slash Dinesh to get information about the Dragon's Prophecy Tour today.
	Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast Drew Thomas Allen.
	He is a writer.
	He is a political commentator.
	He is a publicist.
	And he is the host of the Drew Allen Show and the author of a new book that is now available, available on Amazon and elsewhere.
	It's called For Christ and Country: The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.
	By the way, you can follow Drew on X at DrewThomas Allen, A-L-L-E-N.
	Drew, welcome.
	Thank you for coming on.
	I really appreciate it.
	Charlie Kirk's assassination, a massive cultural event, an event that I think at the beginning led a lot of us to think this is going to draw people into a spiritual revival.
	This is going to cause people to look inward.
	This is going to perhaps contribute to a mood of cultural and political reform in this country.
	And yet here we are in what appears to be now a very divided MAGA movement, a lot of acrimony between different sides, a lot of insinuations and more than insinuations, outright allegations that Charlie Kirk was not killed by this trans or trans-affiliated assassin,
	but rather there's some kind of a plot involving, I don't know, Egyptians, the French, the U.S. government, maybe Stafford's a turning point, USA.
	There is an element here in which the sublime has been now converted into the ridiculous.
	What do you, as someone writing a book on Charlie Kirk, make of this almost disintegration of potential or possibility?
	Yeah, well, let's use the word opportunity, and I'll use the word opportunity first to describe opportunists like Candice Owens.
	You know, I see all of her in the room.
	She's kind of the leader of this gang, it seems, because of her, you know, size and influence, apparently.
	But, you know, she took Charlie's assassination and turned it into a stage for her to perform.
	You know, we were trying to figure out how this could happen, and her and others were trying to figure out how they could, you know, stay in the headlines.
	And this was an opportunity to further Charlie Kirk's legacy in a way that he never could have even imagined in terms of speed.
	I will speak from personal experience, Dinesh.
	His death absolutely broke me down and rebuilt me as a better man.
	I'm a Christian.
	I'm not completely tepid.
	I wrote a book ahead of the previous presidential election that was aimed at re-electing Donald Trump.
	So I'm in this world and I talk.
	But Charlie Kirk was unique because he was fearless and he had conviction that most people never even attain.
	And Charlie became Charlie.
	Dinesh.
	You know, people that knew him, I've talked to people who knew him.
	Even four years ago, he was not this effective Charlie that we saw most recently because he had a hunger for knowledge, a hunger for truth.
	And so when he'd go and do these debates on hostile campuses or he'd go over to Oxford and go to hostile environments, he trained like an athlete for these things.
	And most people prefer the comfort of an echo chamber.
	Charlie Kirk didn't go in with a Candace Crowley to bail him out like she did Barack Obama in the debate with Mitt Romney.
	And that is what made him so unique.
	And he was absolutely exemplified love and the love that we're supposed to profess as Christians, which is love of other people by preaching the truth.
	And that was missing from me, okay?
	You know, I had a lot of those qualities.
	I mean, a lot of us have those qualities that Charlie exhibited, that the Founding Fathers exhibited, that great men and Americans exhibit.
	But, you know, I lost all my close friends, Dinesh, because even though I'm conservative, you know, I worked in Italy for two and a half years.
	I was an actor at one point.
	I went to an all-male Jesuit college prep school in Dallas.
	So I was incubating with these libs and they were always my friends and they knew where I stood on politics.
	But I saw in real time in my own life between 2016 and 2020 this vilification, this campaign of hatred that the Democrat Party in particular embraced.
	And, you know, they all, you know, chose to excommunicate me from their lives, calling me a Nazi.
	And so this continued to happen for the past decade.
	And ultimately, it's this rhetoric of the left, this hatred they've infused the country and their sycophantic followers with, that created the climate in which it was actually, I think, inevitable that Charlotte Kirk was murdered.
	So the threat we face, Dinesh, is a Democrat party that speaks like Anwar al-Awlaki on CNN that are propagandists for a different type of jihad, an ideology that is not dissimilar from radical Islam.
	And we know that it's getting people killed.
	We know it's producing violence.
	And this is what the opportunity was to address when Charlotte Kirk was assassinated.
	And it must be addressed.
	And so all that momentum, important momentum for the salvation of this country, frankly, which is going to come also from a spiritual revival.
	It's not going to come from politics.
	And Charlie understood that.
	You know, the rug was pulled out.
	And we've had people like Candace wasting time acting more like a spurned lover or, you know, some ex-girlfriend that had a psychotic break that's more like a stalker.
	You know, she's not searching for the truth.
	I mean, these people, the killers right in front of us, we know who he was, an indoctrinated leftist.
	Of course, that's who would want to kill Charlie Kirk.
	We saw it with Donald Trump assassination attempt, Rand Paul's broken ribs by his next door neighbor who is a Democrat, Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to shoot up a congressional baseball field.
	I mean, the examples are endless.
	A week after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, you know, what have the Democrats been saying about ICE, comparing them to Nazis as well?
	And then you have a copycat attempt of some guy in Dallas who tries to kill ICE agents.
	And I'm just sick of us not holding the media accountable.
	That's what should have happened after Charlie Kirk's assassination.
	And yet these people like Candace Owens are sitting there looking anywhere but at the actual person and the reason behind this happening.
	And it's unforgivable to me.
	You know, I just saw a point that was made by a friend Jack Pasobek, who's been on my show a number of times.
	And Jack goes, listen, you know, if you're claiming that there was some ring that did this and it wasn't, in fact, the guy that the FBI has investigated and is now arrested and charged, why do you think his parents turned him in?
	In other words, his parents thought it was him.
	That's why they brought him in.
	And we're not even looking here at the evidence of the gun, the DNA evidence, the footprint evidence, the video.
	It seems to me that there is an open question about whether or not he told other people about it, whether there were people on Discord or elsewhere who maybe knew in advance that something big was coming down the pike.
	All of this, I think, does remain to be investigated.
	But the idea that somehow this was done like by the Macrons or by a bunch of Egyptians who came off a plane or by the Mossad or by Erica Kirk, I mean, this is downright madness.
	Can you give, I mean, look, maybe Candace has lost her mind, or maybe she is just, as you say, hunting for attention and followers.
	How do you explain the fact that they're, how do you explain the followers?
	I mean, are we just dealing with the phenomenon of like zombies who go along and go, oh, I think she's got a great point.
	What do you think is going on here?
	A couple of things.
	I think this climate of everything's a conspiracy theory.
	I understand the basis of where it comes from because we've been dealing with a Democrat Party and certainly the Autopin administration of Joe Biden that covered up, hid truths from us.
	The whole COVID environment, I think, can't be discounted from this.
	We've been lied to so much.
	So conspiracy theories are nothing more than an effort by the layperson to understand and get facts about why something happened in the absence of evidence, not just in the absence of evidence, but in the absence of people who are committed to actually telling people the truth, people who are trying to actively cover something up.
	So therefore, you know, a lot of conspiracy theories have come true, right?
	I mean, with COVID, with the lab leak theory, gee, I don't know, we're funding, you know, COVID viruses, coronaviruses in a Wuhan lab that's being, you know, whatever, the whole story circumventing and going over here with Fauci and they're giving them the money.
	And then they tell us, oh, no, it was from bat soup down the street.
	Like, oh, you don't think COVID originated in the lab where they were doing coronavirus research on bats?
	So, I mean, this is the reason that we're here.
	And people are, some people's brains are broken because of it.
	So everything now is a conspiracy theory.
	But there's something else that's very much like a left-wing ideology that's driving this in a Candace Owens and other people.
	You know, like, let's just pick one example, Barack Hussein Obama, our first Muslim president, right?
	He was the Billy Graham of Islam.
	And every time you had, you know, so he operated from an assumption that, you know, Islam was a peaceful religion, right?
	And therefore, any jihadist attack, any, any, any, you know, act of terrorism and murder carried out in the name of radical Islam, well, it couldn't have anything to do with the ideology because Islam is a wonderful religion and a peaceful religion.
	And so here we have these conspiracy theorists operating from an assumption that it could not have been the kid who actually climbed up on the roof with a rifle and put a bullet in Charlie Kirk's neck in front of people at Utah Valley University.
	And so therefore, they are never, it's like, if you, if, if you love pit bulls, and I know this will make some, you know, pit bull dog, you know, fanatics and fans upset, but, you know, pit bulls are responsible for the majority of violence, you know, by dogs.
	So if your assumption is like, well, no, all pit bulls are peaceful, then you're going to get really defensive every time there's a pit bull attack that ends in the death of some kid.
	So this is the problem.
	So they're excluding, they're not going to, they're not going to believe any of the evidence that is presented to them.
	They have like built up a barricade in their minds for any evidence that would confirm Occam's razor, the most obvious, you know, truth that's presented.
	And so they have to look all these other places because they refuse to acknowledge, I guess, in a weird way that left-wing indoctrination could have led to this, particularly in the militant, most dangerous social experiment of the left, which is the transgenderism.
	You know, Drew, what I find strange about it is this.
	Let's say that the shooter was some kind of a MAGA guy, right?
	And let's say for whatever reason that this was a guy who had a beef with Charlie Cook.
	I can then understand that you'd have right-wingers who are like, are very reluctant to believe it.
	And so they want to cook up some other theory and know it was, you know, it was a deep state operation.
	But when you have a guy, the shooter, who is on the left, he's dating a trans individual, you've got all these texts flying back and forth.
	You've got the opportunity to bust what could be a violent trans ring.
	And by the way, I think you and I know that there are, regardless of this incident, pockets of these kinds of people.
	They go to military training.
	They plan for violent action.
	So, this is a kind of almost a gifted opportunity to the Trump administration to bust all this open.
	Is there an Antifa connection?
	Is this Tran Tifa, as some people like to call it?
	And what you're saying is, and this is what puzzles me: why would somebody on the right want to take our collective eye off the ball and direct us down these idiot rabbit holes where never is there a single new fact ever put forward.
	There's never any verifiable evidence.
	There's not even a good rival theory to explain who or what or why would they do this.
	There's just insinuation on top of insinuation.
	I mean, this looks to me to be not only performative and stupid and opportunistic, but highly destructive to an opportunity that's right before us to get something good accomplished here.
	Yeah.
	I mean, Candace Owens is no better than Jake Tapper, who went on the air recently and said that the person the FBI arrested in connection with the January 6th pipe bombing incident, that he was white.
	She's no better than these leftists.
	In fact, Candace Owens is far worse.
	What she's doing and has done for three months is far worse than anything Jimmy Kimmel even did when he went on his show in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk and told his audience and all six people that watched, whatever at the time, but when he told his audience that it was a MAGA supporter that did it.
	At least in that circumstance, there was some pushback, right?
	I mean, it was controversial because even the FCC chair, Brennan Carr, he didn't take any action.
	He didn't do anything, but he talked about how inappropriate it was.
	We didn't even get that with the Candace Owens stuff.
	And it's so odd.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I mean, I don't believe that online is real.
	Social media is not necessarily the real world either.
	But people have seemed to display a fear of calling her out.
	And this is a good lesson too.
	And I mean, you need to treat Candice Owens like she's a leftist.
	And frankly, I think she is a leftist at this point.
	I mean, she acts like one.
	The way she, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent.
	You know, she just makes an accusation and then it's up to you to prove your innocence.
	The way she plays victim every time and she's so vicious going after a widow, pretending, you know, that she would care about Charlie Kirk's death more than Erica Kirk, for example.
	But I just, I'm at a loss for words why someone would behave this way.
	I mean, you're handing the left a victory, essentially.
	I mean, here's what I just saw one of her top supporters or one of her big followers.
	He's like, I grieved more over my last paper cut than seemingly Erica grieved over Charlie's death.
	I mean, this is the kind of thing that you should not say.
	And yet there's quite a lot of it.
	And then if you even raise a question and go, why would you say something so abominable?
	You get a hornet's nest of like Candaceites, you know, blasting you and accusing you of not wanting to get the truth.
	Leave Candace alone.
	She's a fearless investigator.
	I mean, what has this woman ever investigated?
	What new fact has she brought into the world?
	Yeah, I mean, nothing.
	I mean, she'd be nowhere if it weren't for, I guess, Kanye West retweeting something of hers long ago, and then Charlie Kirk himself picking her up out of the river like Moses and, you know, lifting her up and giving her an opportunity.
	That's the thing.
	Charlie Kirk built people up.
	Candace Owens is determined to just tear the entire organization down.
	And one of the things I find just incredible, Dinesh, about these attacks on Erica Kirk is, you know, a lot of these people attacking Erica Kirk.
	I mean, many are, let's just say, traditional feminists, not even feminazis, that take it so far.
	But, you know, they talk about how women should be strong, right?
	Women should be able to do these jobs that men do or whatever else.
	And here you have an example of Erica Kirk, who is bucking up.
	She's going out there trying to continue her husband's legacy.
	She's showing absolute strength, strength that I would not possess in such an emotional catastrophe and tragic situation.
	And you've got these people attacking her for being a strong woman.
	It's mind-blowing to me.
	And it's like she can't win.
	And I mean, this is part of the cultural decay that obviously the left is largely responsible for.
	And it ties into what led to Kirk's assassination, too.
	It's just the way we behave, the lack of civil, you know, appropriate civil discourse anymore.
	You can't even have respect for someone who lost her husband.
	I mean, Dinesh, you know, you know what the genesis was for this book for me?
	It was, so I cried for a week, and I don't cry.
	I cried for a week after Charlie Kirk died, and I was trying to figure out, you know, why the heck is this having such an impact on me?
	And it was because it was so close to home.
	I was picking up.
	So I'm married.
	I've got two daughters.
	One is, you know, approaching three.
	The other one's almost one years old.
	Charlie had two kids, a three-year-old and a one-year-old.
	In his case, he had a daughter and a son.
	And I was picking up my, you know, two and a half-year-old daughter from preschool.
	And my wife had told me that that morning, hey, you know, I don't usually pick her up from school, but my wife said, you know, yesterday when I picked up Winona is my daughter's oldest daughter's name, you know, she was asking for dad dad, dad dad in the car, dad dad in the car.
	And I wasn't.
	And I was like, you know what?
	I'm going to go with you and we're going to pick her up today.
	I want to see that smile on her face when I show up.
	And I pulled into the parking lot with my wife 10 minutes, you know, before, you know, noon or something.
	I live in California.
	And that's when she gets picked up.
	And my phone lit up with a notification that Charlie Kirk had been shot.
	And my wife went to get our daughter.
	And I saw the video, you know, and anybody who saw that video knew instantly, like, there's no way.
	Oh, yeah.
	There's just no way you can survive it.
	Yeah.
	And so my daughter comes running to the car, just screaming so joyfully, you know, dad, that I was there.
	And it was this moment where what I had right there that was so pure and perfect was ripped away in that same moment from Charlie's kids and Charlie's family.
	And this was a human being, a Christian, a father, a doting husband, and just snuffed out like that.
	And I wanted to know why.
	And I wanted it to never happen again.
	And that's when I started to write the book.
	And then I got to deal with Candace Owens and other people out there that don't seem to have any ounce of humanity in them whatsoever to look at that issue and what happened and what happened to the Kirk family.
	And instead, they want to go down this rabbit hole of conspiracies.
	And for her to hijack this like it hurt her more than it hurt anybody else.
	And this is the justification for her going down and doing this and undermining his entire legacy.
	Despicable.
	Yeah, I have to agree.
	Guys, I've been talking to Drew Thomas Allen, author and commentator.
	Follow him on X at Drew Thomas Allen.
	The book for Christ and Country, The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk available now.
	So check it out.
	Drew, thank you very much for joining me.
	God bless you, Dinesh.
	It's still going on, guys.
	It's MyPillow's big three-in-one sale with a limited edition product back in stock special and a close-out deal you won't find anywhere else.
	MyPillow 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 are 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.
	Guys, I saw an interesting story involving RFK and vaccines in the news.
	And so I'm going to bring on my next guest, Ellie Hirsch.
	She's a certified nutrition expert and health and wellness advocate.
	And we're going to talk about health and how you can look out for yours.
	Ellie, welcome.
	Thank you for joining me.
	There's this really bizarre story where in a Midwestern school, they were vaccinating kids without parental consent.
	And RFK goes, no more of this.
	We need some measures to prevent it from happening again.
	What is your assessment of this incident?
	And I mean, schools shouldn't be able to do this kind of stuff without parental consent, should they?
	The word wrong is not even strong enough, really.
	It's just stickable.
	And as a parent myself, if that was the case, I would be livid.
	I mean, we send our kids to school for education, socialization, not for vaccination.
	And, you know, parents, they're the primary caregivers and they're the ones who need to make, they're the best position to evaluate what aligns with their child's medical needs, not the schools.
	And I think what we have to remember is that vaccination is a medical intervention.
	And a lot of people believe such decisions should require consent rather than coercion.
	And we have seen so much damage that these vaccines can do.
	And I hope that this child, and I don't know anything about him or her, but I hope this child hasn't had any adverse effects now or won't have any in the future.
	But man, that is really scary.
	I mean, I think what you're saying is that, I mean, the school will probably say, hey, well, you know, this is for the benefit of the kid.
	This is for the benefit of the other kids.
	Vaccines are a good thing to take.
	I think what you're saying is that for all vaccines, there are risks.
	And the real question is, shouldn't the parents be the one to make the decision about whether to undertake those risks?
	And this is not an authority that has somehow been given over to the school, right?
	So can you outline what a couple of those risks are?
	Yeah, sure.
	Yeah.
	I mean, no one should ever stick a needle in your child's arm without asking your permission.
	But even if they have it, it's just not what you do at a school.
	And the damage is, you know, the evidence shows there's been so many things that have gone wrong with people.
	And one of the most commonly discussed are the cardiac events that occur shortly after the actual vaccination.
	It's not a secret that there have been people dropping dead of a heart attack or having strokes shortly after receiving the COVID vaccine.
	And, you know, I really want to focus on another type of damage, which is really the damage done to our gut microbiomes.
	And we are learning more and more about the gut microbiome and how it affects all of the areas of the body.
	And, you know, the microbiome, it's a vast community of tiny living things that live on and inside your body, on your skin, on your gut.
	It is crucial for your health, right?
	For successful health.
	And what happens is when the microbiome is disrupted, the balance, you know, the good versus the bad microbes, it just has a higher incidence of DNA damage, oxidative stress, cellular mutation, and it significantly increases your risk of cancer.
	You said cancer.
	In other words, you're talking about the fact that if your gut is sort of pardon my colloquial, like out of whack, you're saying that it can have all kinds of bad effects, including potentially exposing you to the risk of cancer.
	Is there some medical basis for that?
	Yeah, I mean, I'm glad you asked.
	And actually, I was reading a recent study that measured the potential of lactic acid bacteria that's found in kimchi to prevent cancer.
	And I'm really excited about this study.
	Kimchi, and I've been on here talking about it in the past, is just such an amazing superfood.
	And, you know, just to simplify what the study says, it's really, you know, the probiotics in kimchi, especially W. Siberia and L. plantarum, what they do is they help block cancer-promoting enzymes.
	They fight harmful bacteria, support gut health, boost your immune system, reduces inflammation, lowers cholesterol, and all those things put together may prevent cancer.
	So it's really important.
	And, you know, I've said it before: kimchi contains over 900 strains of beneficial bacteria, more than any other fermented food.
	That's why we call it the king of fermented foods.
	And it's also the best way to support your gut microbiome and therefore your immune system, because we know that 70% of your immune system is housed in your gut.
	And not only that, but it's been shown to improve brain health, reduce risk of obesity, improve cardiovascular health, which is another study that just came out as well.
	I mean, you, Ellie, are a representative with Bright Core Nutrition.
	And I think it's what's kind of cool about this is that neither of us are Koreans, so we probably don't eat the Korean diet every day.
	And even if there's a Korean restaurant near our houses, we're probably not going to be going there five days a week or seven days a week to eat.
	And what Brightcore has done is sort of make life simple for everybody by taking this kind of Korean superfood, namely kimchi, and basically packaging it in a capsule, right?
	Where you can easily just pop it in, you're done, you get all the benefits of it.
	Talk a little bit about how Bright Corps makes kimchi available to people for easy consumption.
	Well, like you said, you know, we don't live in Korea and, you know, we all know about the glass skin and the Koreans live six years longer than Americans.
	It's because kimchi is so powerful.
	I mean, it's reducing blood glucose, triglycerides, blood pressure, obesity.
	The list goes on and on.
	And so, at Brightcore, what we wanted to do is, you know, because of the importance of daily consumption, create a convenient capsule with no hassle, no mess, no odor, because not everyone loves kimchi.
	I love it, but you know, it's hard.
	People just don't, it's just not something, it's not a staple in our diet that we eat every day.
	And so, we've created this capsule.
	It's 100% made in the USA.
	It's not in GMO, it's all natural, and it's virtually sodium-free because if you eat it out of the jar, there is a lot of sodium, which, as we know, leads to other health problems.
	But the success stories is they are so amazing when it comes to kimchi one.
	And, you know, when we talk to our customers and I talk to my clients, it's improved digestion and regularity.
	It's increased energy, less fog, right?
	Brain fog, metabolism, the stronger and thicker hair and skin, less wrinkles.
	You know, I've said it before, I'm going to be 50 next year.
	And I have to tell you, I mean, this stuff really, really works.
	It strengthens your immune system.
	So everyone's just feeling and looking better.
	They're not getting as sick as they used to.
	And it's just pretty amazing to hear them.
	Ellie, as we close out, let's talk about some good deals from my viewers and listeners.
	What is Bright Core offering them so that, well, I mean, the kimchi speaks for itself, but just to motivate them to do it right now, kind of a spur to action, what can you offer them?
	Sure.
	Well, you can get 25% off with your order of kimchi one today using code Dinesh.
	So you go to mybrightcore.com/slash Dinesh, and you can also call, which I recommend.
	And that number is 888-927-5980.
	And the reason we want you to call, you get 50% off your order, not just 25%, plus free shipping.
	And we'd like to talk to our customers.
	And that's how we really understand the product works so well.
	We want to hear their success stories.
	And we want to take the health journey with them.
	And we want to make sure the product is right for our customers.
	So I would definitely recommend calling.
	Again, you just get that personalized health value again, up to 50% off your order plus free shipping.
	And if you're the first 100 callers, you get a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2.
	So that number again is 888-927-5980.
	And we can't wait to talk to you.
	And Ellie Hirsch, thank you very much for joining us.
	Thanks for having me.
	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 plan to talk today about the mind and the brain.
	We are in the chapter on neuroscience in my book, Life After Death: The Evidence.
	And we are going to try to answer, to refute, to challenge the materialist notion, the notion of reductive materialism, that the mind can be reduced to the brain.
	Here is a saying from a Dutch physiologist a long time ago: the brain secretes thoughts as the kidney secretes urine.
	What's he saying?
	He's basically saying is that the mind and the brain, by and large, are material productions and function no differently than other material objects in the body.
	Now, we know that the mind and the brain are connected in certain ways.
	You can monitor, for example, through PET scans, through MRI.
	You can see brain activity in real time.
	And this brain activity is, in fact, correlated with mental functions.
	There are parts of the brain.
	There's the language part of the brain.
	There is the hippocampus, which deals with memory.
	There's the amygdala, which deals with emotions.
	So it is, in fact, the case that certain functions of the brain can be identified and linked with the mind.
	Not only that, but in recent decades, there's been some amazing research on phantom limbs.
	So phantom limbs are cases where your limb, your arm, your leg is amputated, but you experience pain in the phantom limb.
	Wow.
	How can you experience pain in something that is not even there?
	The truth of it is that the mind intuits the presence of the limb, even though the limb has, in a sense, gone away, and the phantom limb, the missing limb, can nevertheless generate experiences.
	Now, the fact that we can experience pain in phantom limbs seems to convey to scientists that, again, the mind is simply, in this case, generating a sort of illusion.
	In other words, that the brain produces the mind in the same way that, let's say, your stomach produces digestion.
	Now, this notion, again, that brains and minds are connected, although I'm giving you some kind of cutting-edge examples of it, this is really old.
	There's nothing really new here.
	Going back to the first century BC, the Greek philosopher Lucretius says, hey, when we get older, our body ages, our mind, our brain, if you will, the physical brain gets weaker, and so does the mind.
	So the two go together.
	The brain and the mind are both weakening, you could say, simultaneously.
	Memory starts dissolving the same way that the physical brain is deteriorating.
	Everybody knows that disease and injury can impair mental functioning.
	The physician Hippocrates recognized that when your brain deteriorates, you can lose your sanity.
	So sanity, of course, is a function of the mind.
	Someone who's insane has lost their mind.
	And the physical debilitation of the brain is related to that.
	Galen discovered centuries ago that when you make certain types of lesions or cuts in the brains of animals, it produces things like blindness, paralysis, and a reduced sense of consciousness.
	And we also know that physical things affect the mind in other ways.
	You eat a really big meal and then your mind is a bit drowsy.
	You begin to, you can't concentrate as well.
	You drink a bunch of glasses of wine and you don't lose your mind, but your mind becomes a lot less clear.
	So we can safely assume that, you know, if you take out a man's brain, he's not going to be able to think.
	I grant that.
	But I still think that the relationship between the mind and the brain is not clearly established.
	Even after all these centuries of scientific, what is the relationship between the mind and the brain?
	Even though mind states are dependent on brain states, it doesn't follow that the two are the same, or even that one causes the other.
	Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean.
	If you want to listen to Mozart, you might need the app on your phone, right?
	So the Apple music plays Mozart for you.
	And so without the phone, you don't get the Mozart.
	You need the phone.
	But would anybody claim that somehow the phone is the same as the music?
	Or the phone is causing the music?
	No, you can get the music many other ways.
	The music is actually separate from the phone.
	The phone is merely the sort of vehicle, the pipe, to generate the sound.
	Of course, if you break the phone, the music won't come out of it.
	But on the other hand, you can go to an opera and hear the same music without the phone.
	So think of a computer that has software and hardware.
	Of course, the software is dependent on the hardware.
	Smash the computer and you knock the software in it is not going to work.
	Set the computer on fire and you're not going to be able to use it.
	The software becomes dysfunctional.
	But who would claim that the hardware, quote, causes the software?
	It doesn't.
	The hardware and the software are actually two different things.
	That software can be deployed other than in a computer.
	It can be deployed, for example, in a phone, on a tablet.
	And so, again, the hardware is merely the kind of physical frame that contains the software.
	So the point I'm getting at is that there is a possibility that our thoughts and our mind are merely located in the brain.
	The brain is like the receiver of the mind, but it's not the same as the mind.
	Now, this is a really tough issue for modern neuroscience.
	And there have been two ways of trying to associate the mind with the brain.
	And I'm going to argue that both of them fall short.
	I will just mention the two ways and then discuss the first one.
	The second one, I'm going to leave for Monday.
	So the first one is that the mind and the brain are the same.
	The mind is the brain.
	And therefore, a mental state, let's say being really sad or having a particular idea, is nothing more than the brain state that is connected to that mental state.
	So for example, let's just say I'm doing an equation.
	The neurons in my brain are like in a certain configuration.
	They're mapped out in a certain way.
	That way, that configuration is in fact the thought that I'm having with regard to the equation.
	There's no difference between the two.
	The one is the same as the other.
	This is a little bit of a hard idea to grasp, but think about it sort of this way: light is not caused by electromagnetic waves.
	Light actually is an electromagnetic wave.
	The morning star and the evening star appear to be different, but as it turns out, in fact, for many centuries, they were thought to be different, but now we know they are different names for the same star.
	So the morning star is Venus.
	The evening star is Venus.
	And similarly, the mind is the brain.
	The brain is the mind.
	There is no difference between the two.
	Now, as we'll see when I pick all this up, this is in fact, this doesn't really work.
	But this is what a lot of neuroscientists are forced to believe because they don't know how to otherwise understand the relationship between the mind and the brain.
	The second way, the second theory to account for this relationship is called functionalism.
	And functionalism basically says that you can understand a thing by looking not at what it is, but at how it functions.
	So, like, what's a mousetrap?
	Well, the mousetrap doesn't have to be a box.
	It doesn't necessarily have to have one of those snapshot things.
	It doesn't necessarily have to have a window.
	A mousetrap is just pretty much whatever catches mice.
	That's called a mousetrap.
	We know a mousetrap by its function.
	So by this theory, the mind is kind of what it makes you do.
	So, for example, if you are in a particular state of mind, you can understand that not by the abstraction.
	What is that state of mind?
	But what does it actually make you act?
	Let's say, for example, that you are depressed.
	The question is: what do you do?
	Do you sit quiet in a room and look at the ceiling?
	Do you take pills?
	You go jump off a cliff?
	Well, those actions, you can see what's going on here.
	By and large, you have a scientific community that is fumbling around by trying to take a mental state which cannot be explained and reduce it to something physical.
	Reduce it either to the physical neurons in your brain or reduce it to the actions it makes you do.
	Like, how do I know that someone, let's just say, is in love?
	Well, I don't know.
	But what I do is I say things like, oh, well, did that guy go out and say, I love you?
	Did that guy go out and buy a ring?
	Did that guy dance up and down and seem really happy with the world?
	Well, then I know that that person is in love because they've done the actions, the functions that come out of that.
	So these are two, I'm going to argue, really clumsy ways that modern neuroscience tries to take something immaterial and reduce it to the material.
	And what I'll do next time, this will be Monday, is go through these two theories.
	Number one, the theory of identity, the mind is the brain, and the second one, which is that the mind is what it causes you to do, the functional theory.
	And I'm going to show why neither of them really work.
	Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.

▲