AARP Announcer (15:07)

November is National Family Caregivers Month. One in four Americans is stepping up to help older loved ones with everything from meals to bills. Family caregivers spend thousands out of their own pockets each year and too many have to quit their jobs to keep providing care. Working families can't afford afford to wait. It's time to care for America's caregivers. Learn more@aarp.org careforcaregivers paid for by AARP.

Dinesh D'Souza (15:37)

And yet these guys, they think that they're making a real point. Oh, Dinesh, mask off. Mask off. I'm like, do you really think that for your sake, you, who I've never heard of, I would for 40 years put on a mask? I mean, even under Covid, I couldn't even keep my mask on for like five minutes. So why would I wear a mask for 40 years and now kind of take it off to show you where you go, mask off. My point is I'm living my life normally. I'm a normal person. And, and, and I've shown through my work that what I care about is America. All my books are about America, whatever their titles. You know, some of them are explicit. What's so great about America? Some of them are not explicit. Trump card. But what's the topic of trump card America? What's the topic of my book? The roots of Obama's rage, America. What's the topic of my book? United States of Socialism? It's right there in the title, America. So I think I've assimilated as much as can be expected. No reasonable person can say, well then I'm just not assimilated. So there is one benefit though, I want to highlight of all this so called MAGA skirmishing or infighting. Quite apart from the entertainment value of it, which I think is high, Debbie's a little worried, well, what about the midterms, Dinesh and stuff? And I go, listen, you know, we're kind of far away from the midterms right now, so if, if we're going to be administering some very healthy butt kickings, this is a really good time to do it. Admittedly, we won't don't want to be doing this in, like, September or October of next year, but we've got a little bit of a breather. So if we're going to have a mud fight, if we're going to have some sort of skirmish, you know what? Let's get it over with. Let's get it straightened out. Let's kind of get on the. Let's figure out what it is that we as a movement stand for. So it's all good. But, you know, one thing that's also good, this is a kind of silver lining. I think even Debbie would have to agree. And the silver lining is this. I think we've proven decisively that MAGA is not a cult. Right. Why? Because cults don't have this kind of infighting. When have you seen this level of infighting inside a cult? Right. People would talk about, like, you know, the Moonies are a cult. Yeah, but the Moonies never fight. You know, the Mormons are a cult. I don't think the Mormons are a cult. But if they were a cult, they never fight. They're awfully nice to each other. They seem to be kind of all marching on the same page. Cults are defined by conformity, by regularity, by certain type of unity. Even if they're off the reservation, they're united in being off the reservation. But clear, MAGA is a bit of a free for all right now. There are some people even trying to pit America first against maga. That's perhaps a topic for another day. But the good news is, I mean, we know we're not a cult, but people say we're a cult. And I'm saying it's kind of hard to say that even now. You know, here you've got Marjorie Taylor Greene going on cnn, going on the View, getting body slammed by Trump, claiming that her life is in danger. And then along comes Laura Loomer saying, your life is not in danger. And then Trump comes along and says, how can her life be in danger? Nobody even cares about her. So all of this back and forth and, yeah, it's a little crazy, I admit, but if you like living somewhat in the crazy lane like I do, you find that life just continues to be interesting. And it's really fun to wake up in the morning. Hey, if you're a homeowner in America, you need to listen to this. The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud on the rise. It's called title theft. And your equity, the equity in your home is the target. Here's how it works. Criminals forge your signature in a single document. They use a fake notary stamp, they file it with the county and just like that, on record, they own your home using your ownership. They can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property. And you won't know about it until foreclosure or collection notices show up in the mail. Now this is why I've partnered with Home Title Lock so you can protect your equity and find out today if you're already a victim. Use my promo code. It's dineshometitlelock.com you get a free title history report and a free trial of their million dollar triple lock protection. That's 247 monitoring of all your title records, urgent alerts to any changes and if fraud occurs, their US based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix it. Find out why I trust Home Title Lock. Protect yourself like I did. Don't be a victim. Protect your equity today. Go to hometitlelock.com promo code Dinesh that's hometitlelock.com promo Code Dinesh Thanksgiving holds so many memories. I'm sure it's the same for you. Right now there's a girl finding out she's pregnant and in the next couple of weeks she's going to make a decision. Whatever decision she makes will become her memory of this Thanksgiving season for the rest of her life. What will she be thankful for a year from now? Well, you. She'll be thankful that you introduced her to her baby by providing a free ultrasound. And she'll be thankful that she chose life. As she prepares for her baby's first Thanksgiving, take a stand for life by providing an ultrasound with preborn. When a young woman sees her baby on the ultrasound and hears her baby's heartbeat, she is twice as likely to choose life. Just $140 provides five ultrasounds that can save five babies. $280 saves 10 babies a gift of $15,000. If you can manage that, provides an ultrasound machine that can save thousands of babies for years to come. You can help. Call 833-850-2229. The number again, 833-850-2229 or go to preborn.com dinesh Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast a new guest. It's Dr. Chloe Carmichael. She's a clinical psychologist, fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and also an author and her earlier book Nervous Harness the power of your anxiety. Very intriguing. And the new book which is called Can I say that and here's the subtitle. Why free speech matters and how to use it fearlessly. By the way, a couple of websites. Dr. Dr. Chloe C-L-O-E.com and free speech. Chloe, welcome. Thank you very much for joining me. I want to talk about free speech. That's our topic for today. But before we go there, I'm intrigued by this idea that one can harness one's nervous anxiety to positive ends. How do we do that?

Dr. Chloe Carmichael (22:52)

Yeah, so that was my first book, Nervous harness the power of your anxiety. And that book is about the healthy function of anxiety, which is to stimulate preparation behaviors. I feel like my own profession, clinical psychologists, they're often trying to medicalize and monetize a lot of just everyday human experiences. And so I wrote the Nervous energy book as a way to explain to people that again, there's a healthy function to anxiety. A person who didn't have anxiety wouldn't look both ways before they crossed the street. The trick is just to use the adrenaline, the extra energy we get with anxiety to make sure that we're actually targeting it appropriately and for our own benefit, like at the source of the anxiety. Instead of just getting anxious about anxiety.

Dinesh D'Souza (23:41)

I guess you're saying we're a little bit like a deer in a herd where if you feel anxious, it's a survival strategy. Right. So there might be a predator in the trees and you might have to alert the herd or you might have to take off and run. I think what you're saying is that anxiety gives us this kind of built up higher level of maybe attentiveness, maybe higher level of fear. But you're saying don't just take pills and get rid of it and channel it to, to what end are you saying channel it to creativity and work or channel it into how does it help you in things like relationships or work?

Dr. Chloe Carmichael (24:26)

Well, all of the above. So yeah, I do feel like there's sometimes a one size fits all approach to anxiety where people are like, oh, just, you know, take deep breaths and think of a beach or something which doesn't actually do anything to help you, you know, with your issue. So, for example, if a person is having test anxiety, closing their eyes and thinking of a beach isn't necessarily going to help them. But if we think of the symptoms of anxiety, it's, you know, racing hearts, sweaty palm, busy thoughts. Those are actually an excess of energy. And the good news about an excess of energy is that we can use it, say, to, you know, make flashcards or list out what we think are going to be the questions or have a mock drill with a friend. And so, as you said, that could apply in professional situations, in personal relationships. You know, if a person with social anxiety could list out five small talk topics that they could have at the mental fingertips when they're about to go into an event, the idea is just to use that energy and think, how could this constructively be used to help me with whatever's making me anxious instead of, oh, no, this is anxiety, I should get rid of it.

AARP Announcer (25:38)

November is National Family Caregivers Month. One in four Americans is stepping up to help older loved ones with everything from meals to bills. Family caregivers spend thousands out of their own pockets each year, and too many have to quit their jobs to keep providing care. Working families can't afford to wait. It's time to care for America's caregivers. Learn more@aarp.org CareForCareGivers paid for by AARP.

Dinesh D'Souza (26:08)

All right, we're gonna pivot to free speech, Chloe. And I gotta say, when I picked up your book, you know, this is a topic I've read a lot about and written some about in some of my earlier work, but I realized that I've been reading about it and thinking about it mainly from a couple of rather familiar angles. One is the philosophical angle. This would be John Stuart Mill or the legal angle. And this would be things like, you know, when does free speech cross the line into, say, incitement? And what do you. What did the. What the case studies and case law show about it? Your angle is actually quite different. And what you do in your book is you highlight the psychological importance of free speech, both for us as individuals and also for our society. And then you, you lay out some actual practical ways in which we can deploy free speech to sort of live fuller and better lives. So let's go through that a little bit. Let's start by talking about, like, what is the psychological benefit of free speech and why is it psychologically harmful to us if our speech is in some way suppressed or censored either by. And you discuss both some external force basically, you know, holding a gun to your head or saying, you can't say this. But you also discuss the phenomenon of self censorship, because, as you know, with digital censorship and so on, this is quickly internalized. You go, I better not say that. I'm going to be thrown off YouTube. So that's self censorship. But you're saying that that is in some ways no less destructive psychologically. So tell us, tell us about the psychological ramifications here.

Dr. Chloe Carmichael (27:59)

Yeah. So part one of the book talks about the psychological benefits of freedom of expression, as, as you mentioned, some of the harms of self censorship or hard top down censorship. So the benefits are cognitive, emotional and social. So through speaking we take maybe amorphous internal ideas and we put them into an examinable rational system of language. So it's how we can begin to apply logic. Like if then statements or rapidly exchange information or even have a healthy distance between ourselves and our thoughts. Who among us hasn't said something aloud? And then as we say it we're like, oh, as I hear myself say that maybe it doesn't quite make sense, right? So humans have unique regions of our brain that are uniquely devoted to the production and comprehension of language. The psycholinguist Steven Pinker has said that humans need to talk the way that spiders need to speak been webs. I think it's that innate to our functioning that when we start removing people's ability to speak, it's almost like cutting off a couple of their fingers, right? Like it's that innate of an ability that we need to have. And that's just the cognitive side. So on the emotional side, when we label our emotions, it's been shown to reduce amygdala activity, which is the part of the brain that gets active during fear. Also when people feel truly heard, there's been studies like where if you're really listening to someone versus if you're just pretending to listen, their brain can detect it and actually responds differently and our cortisol levels drop and we experience what's called neural coupling when we're having a true heart to heart with somebody and it helps us to emotionally regulate when we do that. And all of that of course facilitates social bonding. And social bonding is a huge protective factor for mental health. To the point where if I as a clinical psychologist do a comprehensive assessment, I'm required to include social support. And you know, if we're not being real with people or they're not being real with us, of course the quality of our social support is going to be completely degraded. So those would be the benefits and then the harms with self censorship. In some ways it's more insidious than top down censorship because when we censor ourselves, we can almost start to believe our own behavior. It's called cognitive dissonance where we adapt our thoughts to accommodate our behavior. So if I start saying things that I don't believe are true or not, speaking up at times when my values might normally guide me to do so cognitive dissonance can guide me to start misunderstanding my own behavior. That's when we get into suppression and repression and denial when people lose touch with themselves. And interestingly, it's when people are in those suppression, repression, denial, they're more likely to act out with passive aggression and violence. So I think that the speech police are probably very well intentioned, or at least maybe I'll give them that credit. But they're ironically, by interrupting intergroup dialogue between groups that may have conflict, I think they're actually setting the table for political violence.

AARP Announcer (31:30)

November is National Family Caregivers Month. One in four Americans is stepping up to help older loved ones with everything from meals to bills. Family caregivers spend thousands out of their own pockets each year and too many have to quit their jobs to keep providing care. Working families can't afford to wait. It's time to care for America's caregivers. Learn more@aarp.org careforcaregivers paid for by AARP.

Dinesh D'Souza (32:00)

Let'S talk for a moment about the sort of distinction between censorship as it has come traditionally from the right as versus from the left. Because it seems to me like while there has been right wing censorship and left wing censorship over time, their goals and perhaps even their motives are somewhat different. I mean, the right does not censor you because generally I don't think of misinformation. If I think of right wing regimes that have censored people traditionally, it's going to be something like certain topics should be off limits in the public square. Maybe the right wing believes that they should be in the private domain. Let's just say explicit discussion of sexuality is a perfect example or even something like censorship of pornography. The idea would be this does not belong in the public square. Maybe it doesn't belong in society at all, but if it is in society, it needs to be kept in a brown paper wrapper or something like that. From the left, the arguments are by and large, I think, along the lines of we need to suppress misinformation, which presumes that there's going to be some, I guess, adjudicator of what is misinformation. And the second thing is this belief that as human beings we all seem to be have a capacity to hate and particularly to single out these minority groups or other groups for particular hateful speech. This hateful speech can be a prelude to violence and so it needs to be suppressed for that reason. So even granted all the things that you said about the psychological benefits of speech, how would you address the sort of hypothetical kind of left winger and right winger, both of whom are saying, well, but you know this, you're right, but there needs to be some limits in order to protect either these inappropriate or these harmful or these erroneous forms of speech from migrating out into the public square.

Dr. Chloe Carmichael (33:59)

Yes, Dinesh, there's so many layers to what you said there, so thank you for that. But just so to try to answer that quickly, one of the key differences between left and right, period, is leftists have a more collectivist personality organization, and people on the right tend to have more of an individualist personality organization. You know, so. So to your point, people on the left might be just, with that collectivism, more prone to say, well, this is what I think. And so therefore, you know, this is what everybody must think. Whereas somebody on the right might say, hey, look, this is what I think you do you. But, you know, maybe we'll have what we call the time, place and manner restrict, you know, which is perfectly legal in the Supreme Court saying, you know, again, as you said, explicit sexuality discussions. You can have them all you want, but you know, just not in front of children or something like that. That would be a time, place and manner restriction. And, you know, you're getting also a little bit at motivation, you know, well, we're trying to control misinformation or we're trying to cut down on bullying or whatever. And you might be interested to know that one of the forms that a need for power, the trait need for power can be expressed is actually through excessive nurturance. So it's like, say a mother that's like, have another bite of soup, dear. You know, and she's nurturing you, but she's also, you know, forcing you, right, to eat something or to do something that you don't want to do. So a lot of these, you know, kind of nanny state initiatives, they can feel like they're supposed to be nurturing, but they might really be about dominance. And there is a chapter in the book, as you know, called Common Objections to Free Speech. And one of them is misinformation. Well, what about misinformation? And actually, I unpack in the book some examples. Galileo was jailed for the rest of his life for saying that the Earth orbits the sun. Or of course, during COVID we were told that it was great to mask your kids all day long and get the vaccine and you won't be able to stay spread the virus. Right? So we know that experts can be wrong. It would be unfair to experts to expect them to Never be wrong. And so therefore, if we want to have a good quality of information, of course we need to have, you know, open debate. There's a whole section in the book. I know we don't have time to get into it, but it's about groupthink. And one of the, you know, ingredients of groupthink, according to Irving Yanis, a psychologist who coined the term, is that we have what's called self appointed mind guards. And those would be of course, the expert class that's going to tell you that no, the earth does not orbit the sun, or that would have physicians testifying to Congress that women could smoke cigarettes as long as they during pregnancy, as long as they use a filter or whatever. And of course we have to be able to debate those. And one last thing that you mentioned that I'll touch on is the issue of hate when, when we have a lack of dialogue again, it's so ironic. We actually have more hate, I think, or certainly more violence. So I explain in the book something called the five Ds. And people who identify as politically left by self report will do all of the five Ds over political differences more. And the five Ds are to disinvite a speaker to distance in real life or drop contact in real life, to decline to date across the aisle or to defriend on Facebook. They'll do all of those things, what I call dialogue intolerance. And then they're also statistically two to eight times more likely, according to YouGov polls, by their own self report to endorse political violence. And I think that there's a connection there because if I'm working with a violent offender, the first thing I want to do is to increase his emotional and dialogue ability when he's upset. Mothers of toddlers, we teach our kids to use their words. And so even if the left may mean well through what they think is a nurturing behavior by this dialogue intolerance, I think they're actually setting the stage for a lot more hatred because they're removing one of our key tools for managing differences, which is dialogue.

Dinesh D'Souza (38:26)

Now let's close out, Chloe, by looking at an actual case. If I think about the old Jack Dorsey Twitter, it was heavily censored and censored so badly that lots of reasonable people lost their platforms. The president himself lost his platform. Everybody sort of agreed. That's terrible. That's absurd. That makes absolutely no sense. How can you even have open debate which is important in a democratic society? Now if I look at X today, it has liberated a lot of very healthy debate. All these people are back. I don't actually object to anyone having a platform, but I will notice that there actually is a lot of kind of open derision, abuse, false allegations. You know, they'll call for deporting Jews to their home country, even though these are people who live like in, you know, Peoria, Illinois, American Jews, who there's no place to deport them to. You know, they'll call Asian Indians by ethnic slurs. They'll. The N word is back on X. So there's a kind of a cesspool element to all this. And I think what you're saying is, and you let me know if this is right, that guess what, this may be a little uncomfortable to hear and see. We're certainly not accustomed to hearing and seeing it, at least not in the public domain like this. But you're saying it's better than letting these ugly ideas and thoughts fester where they might have even uglier expressions, possibly even involving violence, if they didn't have this kind of outlet. Can you talk about just about how you think we should think about what's going on in X right now?

Dr. Chloe Carmichael (40:29)

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. So, you know, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And you know, even say members of the KKK or jihadi recruiters, I share in the book, they leave those ideologies not because somebody said, shut up, you're not allowed to say that or we'll cut out your tongue, but because somebody sits down and has dialog. Somebody like Daryl Davis or Jesse Morton are champions in that area. And so it's really a more speech, not less situation. But I also explain in the book that being in favor of free speech doesn't mean that we have no filter. There's a whole section on healthy self restraint. And it also doesn't mean that we have to lend our ears to anybody. You can configure your Twitter feed to mute certain words or certain accounts or whatever. It doesn't mean having no boundaries. But ironically, I think it's people who have good boundaries who know who they are. They know how to moderate themselves and consider their media diet that they don't feel the need to, in some kind of a psychotic way, stamp out the rights of other people to speak. In the Weimar period of Germany, before Hitler really came to power, there were a lot of laws against negative speech about Jews. But that didn't stop stop Hitler. In fact, you know, some scholars suggest that almost gave him kind of a forbidden fruit phenomena because he was underground and, you know, people couldn't really, you know, debate and expose him the way that they can now. So yeah, people can get on Twitter and say stupid things and just look stupid. I loved your debate with with Nick Fuentes, by the way. I saw that recently. That was great.

Dinesh D'Souza (42:06)

Good stuff. Well, guys, this is an excellent book. I'm about halfway through it, I'll be honest, but I'm enjoying it and it is a very fresh angle on an otherwise heavily trodden subject. Guys, we're talking to Dr. Chloe Carmichael. And here's the book. Can I say that that's the title, why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly. Chloe, thank you very much for joining me.

Dr. Chloe Carmichael (42:30)

Thank you so much, dinesh. Free speech today.com.

Dinesh D'Souza (42:35)

Incorporating a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my daily routine. Routine is key for me and I get it from this Balance of Nature. It's fruits and veggies in a capsule. These are fruit and veggie supplements. Balance of Nature makes it simple by giving me the fruits and veggies that I need and that I don't have the time or the energy maybe to eat. Now these harvested ingredients are freeze dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum cold process to better preserve nutritional value. I can say with total confidence I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies. And by the way, if you don't like taking pills, consider opening the fruit and veggie supplements. Mix the powder into a smoothie, sprinkle it over food, you're good to go. Join me in taking Balance of Nature every day. Go to balanceofnature.com get a free fiber and spice supplement. This is the Fiber and Spice very good stuff. Plus 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer by using Discount Code America. Again, it's balanceofnature.com don't forget the discount Code America. You get a free fiber and spice supplement. You also get 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer. MyPillow's right in the middle of their big three in one sale. They've got a limited edition product back in stock. Special and a closeout 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. And now only $29.88. But move fast because once they're gone, they're gone for good. My towels. They're Back in stock, get a six piece my towel 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 1798 kings, only 1998. 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. Go to mypillow.com use promo code DINESH. You get the best offers ever. Quantities are limited, so order now. It's MyPillow.com and the promo code is D I N E S H Dinesh. I'm now in a chapter of Life After Death, the evidence. And the chapter is called the Physics of Immortality. Kind of a interesting title, isn't it? The Physics of Immortality. And I want to remind you of what we are trying to refute here. We're trying to refute the idea put out originally by Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher, almost a century ago, a little more than a century ago, but also echoed by many of his acolytes and other skeptics and atheists since then. The idea is that life after death is, like, impossible. It's inconceivable. And it's inconceivable because we kind of know what matter is like. We know that matter is destructible, maybe in the ultimate sense, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But of course, the matter that makes up our bodies, in fact, destroyed as a body, it returns to the ground and therefore the idea of some sort of reconstituted body that lives on with different types of qualities, this seems like preposterous. So we are trying to answer this objection. And we're trying to answer it relying not on the Bible, but relying on the findings of modern science itself. And in this chapter, we're focusing on physics and cosmology. Cosmology is a sort of the science of the heavens, if you will. Now, I want to begin by talking about a scientific revolution that has created modern science, modern science understood in contrast to classical science. What is classical science? The science of the 16th and 17th centuries, the science associated with people like Galileo and Kepler and Newton. Modern science really begins at the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century, and the key figure is Einstein. And it's important to know that modern science represents a complete, not repudiation, reformulation of the laws of classical physics. And when I say reformulation of the laws, I'm talking about the laws that affect space and time and energy and matter, and, as we will see in a moment, also light. Now we need to talk really about Einstein's theories of relativity, which is special and general relativity. They're both connected. Special relativity is kind of like a special case, and general relativity is the broadening of that same principle. And the other big idea is quantum mechanics. I want to say at the outset that these laws, these laws of modern physics are unexpected. They're surprising, they're counterintuitive. And the physicists who discovered these laws spent countless hours. I remember at one point reading an account by Werner Heisenberg, the great German physicist. He was like, we would take these nighttime or early morning walks, we scientists working on the atom, and we would ask ourselves, can really nature be this way? Is it possible that this is the way things are? It took them in a way, a certain. A certain degree of getting used to this idea. In a sense, what they were saying is their experiments are showing us one thing, and our experience is showing us something else. So who's right? Which is right? And ultimately, they learned that their experience is wrong and that the data, the results of these experiments is correct. It didn't matter how often you did them again and again, the experiment is right. It's kind of like for centuries, you've been seeing a stick in water, and it looks bent, and you're like, it's bent. Hey, take a look. The stick looks bent in water. Everybody else who sees the stick has the same impression of it. But then at some point, you begin to realize that when you take the stick out of the water, the stick is not bent. And so the stick isn't really bending in the water. That is a kind of optical illusion created by light and also created by water. And so your experience is wrong. The stick is not, in fact, bent. And that is what the modern scientists eventually concluded. One of them, the figure who I would say is perhaps the second most important scientist after Einstein, his name is Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist. And he would sometimes tell his students, because they would say, they'd listen to him. He, Bohr, is probably the single most important figure, along with Heisenberg and a few others, the founders of quantum mechanics, or the discoverers, really, of quantum mechanics. And the students would go, that's crazy. And Bohr would say, well, the problem with your idea is not that it's crazy, but it's, like, not crazy enough. In other words, Reality is stranger than fiction. Truth is stranger than fiction. It's sometimes even more bizarre than something that you can imagine. Even if we had to come up with it in our imaginations, we wouldn't come up with something that's like this strange. So the point is that the world, when you begin to see it clearly enough, offers possibilities that were never thought of before. Now we're going to cover this ground in a sense, in a very abbreviated way. And my way of doing it is not trying to sort of get to the bottom of all these concepts, but build on a sort of a key insight in each one of them. The insight easy enough to comprehend. And the insight will really make my point. And what is my point? My point is ultimately that matter and energy, these things that you think of one way through experience, and you derive certain conclusions from them, like, hey, what this means is that other worlds aren't possible. Hey, what this means is that the body can't really survive after death. And what this means is that no other types of matter, reconstituted bodies. All of this is nonsense. And I'm going to try to show that not only is it not nonsense, but these possibilities have been shown to be real and have been shown to be real not just in some, quote, other world. They're real in the world that you live in now. So this is what makes all of this, I think, intellectually, very fresh and very exciting. So we begin really here, and it's probably all we'll do today is talk a little bit about the key insight of Einstein's special relativity. And this is a good way to think about it. As you know, light travels at an incredibly fast speed. And there are these devices called light meters, which have the ability. A light meter is a kind of something like a thermometer, but it measures not the temperature of your body, but it measures the speed of light. So let's say that you are traveling in a spaceship and you are running alongside a light beam. You're going in the same direction, but you are going at half the speed of light. So we don't have any spaceships that can go that fast. So this is why. This is what scientists would call a thought experiment. We can give the answer of what would be expected to find if we are traveling alongside light and measuring the speed of light. Now, one way to think about this is to think about a train. Let's say you have a train. You're in a train that's going 60 miles an hour, but you are going parallel to a train on the Next track over that is going 120 miles an hour. So notice that this kind of mirrors our spaceship experiment because we have two trains. One is going at half the speed of the other. So think of the fast train as representing light. It's going 120 miles an hour. I'm in a train on the next track, but it's going at only 60 miles an hour. Now, if I'm able to measure the speed of the other train, what number am I going to get? Well, I'm going to get 60 miles an hour. Why? Because that train is going at 120. I'm going at 60. So that train is going 60 faster than me. So my measuring stick is going to show that that train is going at 60 miles an hour relative to me. Now, obviously, if I'm standing on the track, I'm not moving. The other train is going at 120 miles an hour, and I measure the speed, it's going to show 120. So quite obviously, the guy on the track, Dinesh, on The track, measures 120 for that train. But Dinesh in a train going alongside that train at half its speed measures 60. I get a different measurement. This, by the way, is not new. This is known since ancient times. It certainly was known by Galileo. In some ways, it's called the Galilean principle of relativity, which is to say that I measure a speed relative to how fast I myself am traveling. But now we turn to. We come back to our thought experiment concerning light. Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. Generally in science, it's just called speed C. But let's focus on the actual number for a minute. Light is going at 186,000 miles a second. I'm in my spaceship and I'm going at half that speed, which is 93,000 miles per second. And now with my light meter, I'm measuring the speed of light. What do I get? Well, common sense would tell you I would get 93,000 miles per second. Why? Because light is going at twice my speed. I'm going at 93. The light is going past me, and so I should be able to measure it at 93,000 miles per second. This is what experience would lead us to conclude, and this is what the earlier example of the train would lead us to conclude. But Einstein says that our experience is wrong and that, in fact, we can test it by using an actual light meter. Obviously, we can't go that fast, but we can still use the light meter to measure things. And Einstein says that if we look at the laws of Maxwell, which are laws from the 19th century, and we apply those laws, we will realize that traveling alongside the speed of light at half the speed of light, when I measure the speed of light, I'm going to get speed C. I'm going to get 186,000 miles per second. Now, what if I were just standing on a train track and I have the same light meter, and the light goes right by me and I measure the speed of light, what should I get? According to Einstein, I get the exact same answer. I get 186,000 miles per second. So now we have a remarkable situation whose implications I will draw out tomorrow. Two Dineshes. One Dinesh standing on in a fixed spot, let's say on a train platform. The other Dinesh in a spaceship traveling alongside a speed of. Alongside a light beam. The spaceship is going at half the speed of light. Both Dinesh are measuring the speed of light, and they get the same answer. This makes no experiential sense because this is the exact equivalent of the train example where Dinesh is on a track, Dinesh is in a train going half the speed of the other train. And yet Dinesh is getting the same answer for the speed of that train, even though in one case Dinesh is stationary and in the other case he's moving. So how is this even possible? According to Einstein, it is only possible if our ideas of space and time as they have been experienced by human beings since the beginning of time, what you can call the common sense view of space and time, has to be wrong. It has to be wrong. It has to be wrong. And space and time have actually got to be different than what we experience them to be. Again, you're going to sit back if you don't know all this and go, this is crazy. And my answer to you is it's not crazy enough. Because wait till I tell you what this actually means. It goes beyond simply the idea that space and time are not what you think they are. It goes on to show it tells you things not just about clocks, but about time. It tells you things not just about trains and spaceships, but about space itself that require reformulation. So common sense, you could say, is now, and we're only at the beginning of this part, it's being turned sort of right on its head.

Dinesh D'Souza (58:08)

Subscribe to the Dinesh d' Souza podcast on Apple, Google and Spotify, or watch on Rumble, YouTube and SalemNow.com.