The full transcript

Jews have magic Jew blood, yes or no?

Have what?

Magic Jew blood, so they're preferred by God?

How much should Taiwan pay us for preventing an invasion by China?

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-856

They should pay for whatever the naval cost is of doing that.

Right. This is why you're not president, because do you agree that the people who live in Israel are Jews?

Yes. Mystery solved.

Okay. And, all right. I'm saying that the secularism in Israel is a result of a rebellion against Judaism, not a manifestation of it.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-435

Stupidest thing that I ever heard.

Israel was—

can it be a secular Jewish state, Dinesh?

Israel was—

can it be a secular Jewish state, Dinesh?

Israel—

can it be a secular Jewish state?

Yes, it is. Thank you.

Okay, but I'll refute it.

I can't wait.

Okay.

With that, we're going to jump into the main event for the entire conference. Are Christians morally obligated to support the Jews and Israel? I am excited for this one. Introducing first, Dinesh D'Souza is a bestselling author, award-winning filmmaker, and veteran conservative intellectual who has shaped American political debate for decades. Please join me in welcoming Dinesh D'Souza.

Hello.

And on our right, a man who needs no introduction, Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible, is one of online debate's most experienced and formidable figures, known for his aggressive cross-examination and quick improvisation.

Andrew Wilson.

So, and then just so it's no surprise, what we're going to do is right after their opening statements, which will be at the podium for 5 minutes each. We are going to move the podium and then bring the close— tables closer together so that the speakers are closer together for that open dialogue session. With that, we're going to start the debate. Dinesh will be going first. I have the timer set for you, Dinesh, and I will start it on your first word. Thank you for being with us.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I feel like I'm going to be in the lion's den today. And there might be a few of you who support Israel, some of you on the fence. Most of you are probably going to be a little hostile. And so my presence here should be taken as a Well, I'll try to make it as painless as possible, but it's going to be a little bit of an intellectual suppository for you. I want to clarify some terms in the debate to make it clear what we're going to be debating about, and then I want to try to focus the argument in its most kind of primitive or fundamental way, so we don't get drawn into sort of side issues. We're talking as Christians, so I'm assuming that the premise of debate is that we are Christians, we're Catholics, we're Protestants, we're in the mainstream of the Christian tradition. My own work in apologetics has taken the C.S. Lewis kind of mere Christianity approach. I'll be using generally that in this debate. By way of background, I come from a very old Catholic family in India. It goes back about 400 years. My grandfather's brother was the Cardinal of Pakistan. So, I'm deeply rooted in the Catholic tradition, the Catholic intellectual tradition. I've studied it. I've written a lot about it. And I've debated it against generally leading atheists, people like Christopher Hitchens and others. Now, Israel is not my topic. And by that I mean in a career spanning 35 years. I haven't written about it. I've barely mentioned it. I'm not known as a Zionist. I don't identify with Zionism, which was a secular socialist movement of the 19th century. I have no particular stake in Israel as a country. I'm America first all the way. And so keep those things in mind as we have this debate. If you're looking for me to sort of channel Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin. That's really not going to be happening here. I'm not a professional Israel advocate in any sense of the term. I discovered Israel really 2 or 3 years ago when I visited for the first time. And I found it interesting in 2 ways. The first one was simply that we live at a time when cities have become really homogenized. These days, you know, there's no point going to Zurich and Copenhagen. It's all kind of one thing. Israel's not like that. In Israel, you're very conscious that you're in the land of the Bible. That is a very important feeling for Christians. You get the sense that this is your spiritual homeland. And by spiritual homeland, what I mean is that our faith is not some kind of abstraction that is delivered in the sky. It could have been. God could have put the 10 Commandments, he could have, you know, put it on the moon. But he didn't do that. Our Bible, our history, our Christianity is historical. It's rooted in real people, and real events, and real places. It took place somewhere in the world. And that somewhere happens to be Israel. That's worth remembering and worth noting. I also discovered in the course of now 4 visits to Israel, the thing that really interests me, and that is biblical archaeology. And biblical archaeology has the definitive effect of authenticating and corroborating the people and events in the Bible. We can go into it a little bit later. I will give you the most shocking examples of this. But it is a massive refutation of the skepticism and atheism of the 19th century, which basically said that the Bible was written hundreds of years later, And most of it was kind of made up. Biblical archaeology shows us that the Bible is talking about real people and true events. You can debate the miracles. You can debate the theology. But that these things are real, these people are real, the events are real, has been authenticated down to the most excruciating detail. That's very important, because it also happens to establish the presence of the Jews in their ancestral homeland. And in a way, to me, the fundamental question that we're discussing today, when I say morally obligated, what I really mean is, what's the right thing to do? Now, saying what's the right thing to do doesn't solve the problem of should we give money to Israel, or how much money should we give to Israel. No. Supporting Israel here basically means having a certain recognition of a kind of spiritual and historical kinship or line of continuity.

Yes.

established, by the way, in the Bible. And don't think of the Old Testament as Jewish. The New Testament is just as Jewish as the Old. Both are describing Jewish communities. And Christianity came right out of that. In fact, the first Christians were Jews. They were Jews who followed the Messiah. I think historically we could say with great accuracy they were the very first Judeo-Christians.

Yeah.

The apostles were Judeo-Christians. And now, to me, the core of this question is whose land is it?

30 seconds.

30 seconds? I was just getting— I was just getting warm. This is my introduction, guys. All right. Let me just put it this way. There are 3 ways to get a country. First, You were there first. That's the ancestral claim. Number 2, you got the country by some kind of negotiation or treaty. Or number 3, you got the land because you captured it. Every single country on the map in the world now has gotten its claim based on one of these 3 ways. The argument I'm going to make is that Israel succeeds on all 3 ways. It checks all the boxes. Even America doesn't. The American Indians were here first. We might have conquered them, taken the land from them. So we got it by conquest. They got it by original inhabitancy. And there's a little bit of an argument over here. But I'm going to argue that the Jews were there. It's their land. Number 2, they got it by treaty. It was given to them by the United Nations. They accepted it. The Palestinians rejected it. And 3, they got it by— not just by conquest. They fought 3 defensive wars.

3 wars.

against massive coalitions of Islamic forces that are into essentially global colonization. The Muslims are the real colonizers. And so whichever box you choose, Israel succeeds. And therefore, supporting Israel isn't just sort of the biblical thing to do, it's the right thing to do. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

And I've got the timer ready for you, Andrew, on your first word. Oh, that's right. If you're able to—

gotta set the mood. First of all, big round of applause for Dinesh real quick. Great opening. But that's not gonna save him. I want for everybody to remember that the topic of this debate is if Christians have a moral obligation to support Jews in Israel. He didn't give us one. It is obvious to me that since the answer is clearly no, that Dinesh likely gave no reason, which means I predicted he wouldn't give us one. I will begin by expressing to you, the audience, that when discussing normative claims, or in this case, moral claims, you need to demonstrate why the moral obligation is there. Dinesh's view comes down to a whole bunch of really stupid propositions that actually make no sense. Note, I'm not calling Dinesh stupid. He's far from it. But even intelligent people can believe stupid propositions, and often do. Logical proposition 1: Christians need to support a Jewish state of Israel because their ethics and Christian ethics overlap. This is something which Dinesh has said multiple times. The reason this is a stupid proposition is because the modern state of Israel is a secular state. The state supports abortion, and most of the public supports it. They have pregnancy termination boards which grant 99% of applications abortions up to 24 weeks and beyond. They support gay marriage, and while not marrying gays themselves, as there is no civil marriage authority, they recognize all out-of-country gay marriages as valid and all gay cohabitation as identical social and financial rights. Let that sink in. They are extremely pro-transgender, and their public healthcare system provides generously for trans surgery and voice mod training. According— sorry about that. One second here. According to their own polling, the Israeli Institute for Gender and LGBTQ Studies has supported 75% or more for homosexual acceptance advocacy and gender care, which includes 90% from secular Jews and even over 50% from the religious Orthodox Jews. Now, I can keep going. Women in the military, IVF programs, national healthcare, prostitution, pornography. These are libtards, essentially, who live in Israel that Dinesh wants us to support. A whole nation of them. Christian ethics here in the USA determines that we resist these things in our own nations. Why would we support other nations which codify these things as law? any more than we would Sharia law. I don't want millions upon millions or billions of my dollars to be used to support a system which allows for these forms of degeneracy when we are busy combating them in our own backyard. Why would Christians support that? Now, Dinesh can argue the USA is plagued with similar problems, and that's true, and Christians here oppose our own governmental national apparatus and strongly attempt to legislate against these forms of policy. We do the opposite of funding it, except through force of tax. Proposition 2: Dinesh believes that Christians have a stake in Israel because it's the holiest of holies, and the holiest Christian sites are there. I grant this is true, but that doesn't give us much reason to keep the population there Jewish. If Christians in the West truly want access to the holy sites, then why not just demand Israel, who is our protectorate, take a certain amount of Christians per year? I think 100,000 or more should do the trick. The USA has no cap on Jews immigrating here. Why not just demand they allow Christian immigration with no cap there, or we cut off all military funding and support, and that's that? Then we get the holy sites. He argues that Israelis guard these things better than Muslims. I can see that's true, but I'm certain millions of Christian immigrants could protect them just fine. Not sure why there needs to be a Jewish state to do this. or why we have a moral obligation to keep it Jewish at all. Proposition 3, Dinesh often cites the biblical principle of those who bless Israel will be blessed. That's Genesis 12:3. Does the modern state of Israel seem very blessed to you? If you took every Jew in Israel and put them in Germany in the year 2026, they would be safer than they are in Israel. How's that for irony? Is God blessing their abortions or homosexuality and prostitution advocacy, the rejection of the Messiah? Doesn't seem like it to me. If that's what a God-blessed nation looks like, then I would be very wary of the blessings of that God because He sure seems like He isn't very fond of them at the moment. Proposition 4: Do Christians have an obligation to support religious Jews naming a Messiah, considering that that Messiah figure will certainly be false and Antichrist? This is obviously no. Don't know about Dinesh over here, but the proposition of naming false messiah and Christians supporting that by funding the religious, more conservative section of Jewish population claiming it's moral seems insane to me. Proposition 5: Are secular Jews blessed? Or non-religious Jews blessed by the same Genesis package, Dinesh? Or passage? In other words, if I bless atheist Jews and all their liberal policies, will I in turn be blessed with magic Jew blood? Do I need to fight and die on their behalf for this blessing? Is it just a mind state, like I just kind of cheer them on? Does it require action on my part? What are my actual obligations here as a Christian? What's the normative framework to receive said blessing for my support of atheist Jews? I say the opposite. As a Christian, it's my duty to resist and oppose the radical atheist and secular Jewish agenda of Israel. Until they conform to my ethical model, I would like and would do in all cases. I would demand this of every nation: pull all financial and military support and deal with them only as a limited capacity as they could be dealt with. I am not in the business of funding abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, female empowerment. Christians must resist these propositions and demand if Israel wants our aid, they need to conform to the standards and normative ethics of the very Christians they endlessly demand help from. To clarify a few terms, when you're making a normative claim, Dinesh, when you're making an ought claim, you need to tell us why Christians ought to support this nation. So far, you have not done that.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for those openings. So for the open dialogue, I have the timer set. This will be 80 minutes, and we're gonna move the speakers just a little closer. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Excellent work. And then Sean, if you can give us a thumbs up on whether or not that's where we need them.

Yes.

Maybe if you could bring it just a little closer, maybe with the V shape, if you can just squeeze a little bit so it's a tighter V, a more acute angle. Thank you. There you go. Let's see, Sean, is that better?

No.

So you want them straight across? Okay, I'm not sure what that means. I'm sorry. Thanks for your patience. All right. With that, I've got the timer set for 80 minutes for open dialogue. And of course, as usual, let this be as organic as you guys would like it to be. I'll just jump in if it gets really crazy. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Do you want me to go first just to get us going?

It's your claim.

Okay. Would you agree that the New Testament not only follows the Old, but incorporates the Old? In other words, to put it differently, that Christianity is the only religion that takes the scriptures of another religion and incorporates it wholesale into its own Bible.

True or false?

That's false.

+5 R-1.1 · Strawman: attributing to Wilson a wish to remove the Old Testament · Dinesh D'Souza

That's false. So you would prefer to see the Old Testament removed from the Bible?

No. Now, it's on a— I have a different worldview than you do. I see these things as a continuity, whereas you see them as a multitude of covenants. Is that correct?

No, I didn't say that. I simply— I started out with the physical Bible. When I look at my Bible, it's about 800 pages long. Okay, about 2/3 of it is the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is in the Christian Bible.

That's correct.

Right? The Christians didn't say it's an historical document that we should read in conjunction with our scriptures. It is Included in the Christian Scriptures. I asked you true or false, and you truly said false, which to me is deeply heretical because it implies that you're saying that the Old Testament does not belong in the Bible.

Yeah, that's not what I'm saying.

What are you saying?

To clarify, I'm just saying that I would agree that these things are on a continuity, right? And maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but now that we have that clarified, I think that these are on a continuity.

Okay.

Covenantal.

All right, so they're in a continuity. Would you agree that the Old Testament is no less inspired than the New? In other words, it is just as sacred, it's sacred scripture, no less than the New, and on the same footing as the New. You agree?

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-044

Sure.

Okay. And you agree that the foundations of Christianity are anchored in the Old Testament, by which I mean that Christianity would be inconceivable without Genesis, the account of creation, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments.

Yeah, it would be totally incoherent.

The prophets, you agree?

Yeah, it would be totally, totally incoherent.

You agree that not only is that Jewish scriptures, but it is no less the Christian scriptures?

Yes, that's correct.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-060

Okay. And do you agree further that when the Pilgrims and then later the American founders in America saw themselves as building a civilization anchored on Athens and Jerusalem, when they spoke about Jerusalem, they were referring to Christianity, the Old Testament and the New.

True or false?

I would say that that's true.

That is true. And therefore, America itself, our own country, is based on these 2 foundations, including the foundation of Jerusalem. If somehow the foundation of Jerusalem historically, morally, ethically were to be kicked out, we would be essentially cutting off our own feet. True or false?

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-065

Well, just can I ask a clarifying question? So when you say if Jerusalem is kicked out from under our feet, what are you referencing?

I'm referring to the continuous tradition, as you described it, that begins with not just Genesis and Noah and Adam, but then continues with Abraham.

Yeah, you need to have the Old Testament for there to be continuity. Yes.

Right. And so Jerusalem refers to The whole biblical narrative that begins about 2000 BC with Abraham and continues to the Acts of the Apostles, which is about 70, 60 or 70 AD, that whole story is Jerusalem.

Okay.

And I'm saying that that is a core foundation of our civilization. And—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption: 'So what?' cut-ins · Andrew Wilson

So what?

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-060

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-067

Well, what it means is that as a country, we recognize that we have moral, philosophical, and historical continuities with certain countries. And I would mention 2. Great Britain.

So overlapping ethics.

Great Britain, because a lot of the ideas, not only were a lot of the founders coming from Great Britain, but we have had a special relationship with Great Britain that's now extended for many, many years. And it's based on the idea that we've got something in common common with these people, even more so than with, say, the Germans or the Norwegians. And therefore, if there's an international crisis, the United States will team up right away with Great Britain as its European sort of— what do you call it— protectorate, and then try to get Great Britain to win over the other European countries. In other words, this special relationship—

So what?

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-060

Okay.

Where do we get to the moral obligation here, Dinesh? Great. We've established, hey, we have a specially specialist, the most special relationship ever with England because our ancestors come from England and France.

Right.

And we don't— I'll just happen to note, I'll happen to note very quickly, the top white demographic inside the United States is German, not English. Just want to point that out.

Fair enough.

Very, very far removed from what it was initially at our foundation. Where do we ever get to the moral obligation?

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-067

Okay. So first of all, let me address your German point, because there is a key difference between immigrants and settlers. The British built the country. The Germans came to a good country that the British built. So a settler is the guy who makes the country, makes the system. The immigrant is the guy who moves because he believes it's a really good club that he wants to join. So it doesn't matter how many immigrants have come later. The building of America was done by the settlers. Now here's my point. With countries as with people, we have a certain If you're a conservative, you have a certain respect for your own patrimony. It's yours. It's your lineage.

Blood and soil.

It's kind of like saying—

Wait, are you making a blood and soil argument? I thought you rejected blood and soil.

I'm not making— I'm making an historical, immoral, and intellectual argument.

Wait, didn't you write a book where you rejected the entirety of blood and soil? And that's the argument you're making here? Blood and soil.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-089

I'm simply saying—

Do we have a super special relationship with other white people because they're white, Dinesh?

No, because— no, because those white people in other parts of the world had nothing to do with America.

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-090

Then what the hell are you talking about, dude?

I'm talking about the fact that the British did. I'm talking about the fact that the Bible is situated in that country and no other. It's not as if—

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-090

So what?

So as Christians, this is something that should be important to us. It's evidently not important to you.

Okay, look, look, let's break a couple things down. Absolutely, it's important.

Great.

Can we get to the moral law part?

Okay. All right. So now let's turn to the people who live in Israel. Do you agree that the people who live in Israel are Jews? Yes.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-044

Mystery solved.

Okay. And do you also agree that they are directly in the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? In other words, they come in a sort of historical, religious, and ancestral line from the old Jews. In other words, what I'm saying is—

You mean that particular tribe? coming off the 12 tribes, they can be traced back.

I'm simply saying that there's a line of continuity in the same way that there's a line of continuity—

I agree. Do you agree that that's the case with Palestinians as well? They come from the same?

No.

No.

Let's take, for example, Gaza.

Even though their ancestral DNA points this out.

No, it doesn't. Let's look at Gaza, for example, which is the heart of our debate. Gaza.

It's certainly not the heart of our debate.

Well, I mean the Palestinian debate. The Palestinian debate right now is not about the West Bank, it's about Gaza. That's where the—

okay.

Yeah.

So the point I'm trying to make is that historically, the people who lived in Gaza are not Palestinians. It is a fakery of the name through history that we call them Palestinians. The people who lived in Gaza were the Philistines. The Philistines were Europeans. They came from Greece. They came from Cyprus. This is archaeologically definitively established.

Are they close? Are they more closely related than like Ashkenazi Jews are? to the historic people of Israel?

The Philistines have vanished off the pages of history.

That's not the question that I asked you.

What is your question?

Michael, the question that I asked you is, would it be the case that the modern Palestinian people would have more ancestry in common with the Jews who currently live in Israel than an Ashkenazi Jew would?

This is a bit— this is a little bit debatable because some of the people who are from that region—

It's a little bit debatable?

No, well, here's what I'm saying. If— okay, you're, you're making it sound like it is 100% of a genetic argument.

Can you answer the question I asked you without obfuscation? Is it the case or not that Ashkenazi Jews generally have less shared ancestry than Palestinians do with the current Jewish population of Israel? And I think that in fact the case— no, they, they don't have as much shared ancestry as the Palestinians do who currently live inside of Gaza with the Jews who currently live in Israel. Isn't it true Ashkenazis don't have as much ancestry?

Yeah, but Judaism— hold on, hold on. Judaism is a combination. You're acting as if Judaism is purely a function of genetics. Judaism is a function of genetics plus history plus religious devotion. So that's what makes us—

You were making that argument because you say— you were making it an argument based on continuity.

If Jews are thrown out—

But if you say the continuity gets broken the second it is that we have Ashkenazi Jews who still have the right of return to Israel, Though it is the case that they are now outside of that continuity, Dinesh. Now outside of that people group, Dinesh.

Yeah, and let's look at why they're outside. The Jews are forcibly ejected from their homeland. They scatter all over the world. Unsurprisingly, they settle in London, they settle in Europe, they settle in Africa, they settle in Asia. But they never relinquished their claim to the land. If they had said, all right, we're out of here, You could then say, all right, other people can wander in, can claim it's theirs. The Jews never gave it up. They were thrown out. Of course, when they settled elsewhere—

And what did you do?

Hold on. There was some intermarriage. There was some imports to Judaism by people who converted in. Some people converted out. But the Jewish community as a tribe and as a community remained solidly intact through the centuries. I mean, just read—

Wait, this is— hang on. You're making continuity argument, then breaking continuity. You're making a blood and soil argument, then breaking the idea of blood and soil. You mentioned in the beginning the right of conquest, which is your third criteria. Then you say the Jews got thrown out of Israel, which means somebody else had conquest. That's how they got the land, right?

That's right.

So that's a legitimate way to get the land, right?

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: accepting Israel's conquest/treaty history · Andrew Wilson

That's right. And it was legitimate to take it back by the Crusades. So using the conquest ethic, I agree, the Ottomans captured the land and ruled it for a long time. The Ottomans lost World War II, and so by the same ethic of conquest, they were displaced and it became part of the British Mandate. And then the UN basically proposed a partition for the— now the point is this—

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-031

Oh, hang on, I'm willing to agree to these facts.

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-136

Yeah, with any—

I'm not sure how we get to the ought though. Where do we get to, when do we get to the ought?

Well, when we say we get to the ought, as Christians, we're trying to do what's right. We're trying to support the people who are on the right side of the issue. And you seem to be saying—

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-025

Hang on, hang on. When you say Christians, they have to support what's right.

Yeah.

How do Christians know what's right?

Well, okay. Well, in looking at what's right, we look at historical arguments, moral arguments.

Christian ethics.

Spiritual continuity, shared moral principles. We also look at the fact that America is a force for good or on the good side in the world. and therefore there are bad guys trying to do us in, and their allies are going to be people that we oppose.

Yeah, okay, so I agree with you in a secular sense that those can be reasons.

Right, but secular reasons.

But you're a Christian. We're talking about whether or not Christians have a moral ought.

Well, Christians are also—

What is the specific moral ought a Christian has based on Christian ethics, our paradigm, our worldview, not the secular lens, Not the secular view, the Christian view. Why do we have to support a Jewish state that could name Antichrist?

Why? Because first of all, you can't make up your mind if it's a Jewish state or a secular state. You alternate both based on convenience.

Ethnically Jewish.

In fact, you alternate within the same sentence.

Hang on, ethnic— don't equivocate. This is pure equivocation. Do you agree with me that there's ethnic Jews and then there are religious Jews?

I agree with that.

Then don't equivocate and say you can't figure out if it's a Jewish state or a secular state, because Dinesh, it can be Be a secular Jewish state, can't it?

Israel was a secular—

Can it be a secular Jewish state, Dinesh?

Israel was—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption: cutting off D'Souza to press the yes/no · Andrew Wilson

Can it be a secular Jewish state, Dinesh?

Israel—

Can it be a secular Jewish state?

Yes, it is.

Thank you. Okay, but I'm not— I've never denied it's a secular Jewish state.

You just got done lecturing me about how I called it a Jewish state, then a secular state.

Right, because I think on the one hand, I think you're trying to appeal to anti-Jewish sentiment. And for that— Oh no, anti-Semites. For that, you need the Jewish label. If Israel was truly a secular state, a lot of your antagonism would be diminished. I noticed, for example, you don't have the same hostility to Great Britain, right? Why not? They're a secular state, but they don't have the Jewish label, so you don't get excited. What I'm getting at here—

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: imputing an anti-Jewish motive to Wilson · Dinesh D'Souza

Hang on, hang on.

You're saying I'm saying that—

Are you saying— can you explain to me just real quick?

Yeah.

Does England, by chance— is there a possibility that they're going to name Antichrist in my lifetime, Dinesh?

What do you mean by name Antichrist? What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about naming the Antichrist, but if Jews get together inside of Israel and they name a Messiah, is that going to be Jesus Christ?

Israel is not going to get together and name a Messiah. What are you talking about?

You're saying—

First of all, you just said one minute ago they're a secular state. Now you go, what if a secular state names a messiah?

Okay. Does that make any sense to you? Inside of Israel, do you agree with me that you have the Temple Institute and you have many Jewish organizations that are indeed willing and support the naming of a new messiah?

There are messianic communities, apocalyptic Jewish messianic communities that believe that the rebuilding of the temple is a prelude to the end times. So what?

And no, that's not what I asked you. I asked you if it is the case that if these right-wing elements inside of Israel— this would be more the right that is doing this than the left-wing elements which are there, which are more secular— if they get together and they do name an Antichrist— or I'm sorry, a Messiah— would that Messiah necessarily be Antichrist? Not the Antichrist, but antithetical to Christ because it's a false Messiah?

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-036

Absolutely.

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-176

Okay, great. Then we have established that right now By the way, do you know how big this movement is in Israel? Do you— could you point, for instance, to England and say 30% of the population wants to name a new Messiah? No. And by the way, I just want to point something else out.

Hold on.

When you talk about this, you say antisemitism. It's the opposite. I'm telling you right now, Jews are safer outside of Israel than inside of Israel, and you know that that's true. Can you explain to me how it's antisemitic for me to point out using logic, what's obvious to everybody.

Okay, now explain what you mean. What do you mean when you say Jews are safer outside of Israel? How are they safer?

Yeah, right now in— well, at least in every Western nation, there's not a single Western nation that I can look at that— where Jews live and have lived for the last 40 years where they're not safer inside of those nations than they are right now inside of the state of Israel.

You mean because there's a war going on?

Well, not just because there's a war going on, but because there's been a continuation of attacks of terror. In other words, From my view, and while I think this is irrelevant to the debate, I'll bite on it. From my view, it seems to me that Israel has not fulfilled its promise of safety for the Jewish people. It has not done so. And right now, you have more Jews who live outside of Israel than inside of Israel, and they're a lot safer than the Jews who live inside of Israel.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-185

Right.

They are not fulfilling the promise of protecting their people group at all. In fact, they're relying on us to do it for them.

Well, it's a pretty astounding claim when Jews not only have, but to this day are moving to Israel from all parts of the world, willing to endure the risks and dangers that they face in Israel. And here you are from the kind of comfort of Dallas lecturing Israel on whether it's doing an adequate job protecting the Jews who are voluntarily choosing to come there. There are American Jews who have moved to Israel. What does that have to do with anything? There is more danger for them. The reason that there's more danger?

Yes, yes, there is more danger for them.

Yeah, and the reason for that is that Israel is surrounded by Islamic fanatics.

No shit!

Yes. Right, okay.

So in this really dangerous country surrounded by Islamic fanatics, are they less safe or more safe there than in Western nations, Dinesh?

And are you—

answer the question I asked like I've been answering yours. Dinesh, is it the case that these people who are in this desert completely surrounded by Islamic lunatics, less safe there than they are in Western nations? Yes or no?

Yeah, they are. They are more safe in Western nations with fewer Islamic fanatics.

Why do I have to beat these things out of you? Because when you just agree with me—

Because, because, because you are pursuing a tactic of pretending like you're making a point. when there is actually no point to be made. Point to your own point. If a country based on a common identity in their own ancestral homeland is— it's like saying, I have a ranch. I'm surrounded by outlaws who want to burn down my ranch, rape my wife, kill my kids. And you go, well, why don't you then give up your homeland, give up your ranch? You're obviously safer if you move somewhere else. And I'm like, no, this actually is my homeland. I have every right be here, and all I want is the right to fight back against these monsters who also hate you and declare you, America, to be their Great Satan. I'm their Little Satan, and you're pretending like you're doing us a massive favor.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-230

You're giving me— or inscribing all sorts of positions to me that I haven't given, which is hilarious. For one thing, let's use your ranch example.

Okay.

You're absolutely 100,000% correct. I have outlaws. They're all around my little ranch. Right? It's my ranch. I got the deed. I'm fighting for that shit. Do I have a right to go over to my neighbor and demand that he help?

No. No?

No.

Wait, what?

Hold on, hold on. Huh?

Hold on. Wait, what? Did you say no?

I said, I said, I said by itself, no. If your ranch—

By itself, no.

Yeah.

If your ranch was encircled and your neighbor's ranch was not imperiled at all, and if your neighbor had nothing to do with it, then you're right. You would be appealing on the basis of like mercy or common heritage. You would be in Churchill's position.

Uh-huh.

Because the Nazis had not attacked America. America faced no immediate danger from Hitler. And Churchill basically was reduced to begging. But the United States entered in on the Allied side. Why? Because we have historical, moral, philosophical, even spiritual continuities with Europe. And we came to the aid of Europe for that reason. More or less, the answer I was just giving you.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-230

Now the Japanese attacked us and blew up our entire Pacific fleet and drug us into a massive war. Did we just forget like a whole big part of this?

I think you've got your dates all garbled. The Germans invaded Poland in 1939, right? The United States, yes, did get into the war in 1947. But the point I'm trying to make—

Wait, wait, what?

What? I'm saying that the American ranch was not threatened.

No, no, no, what did you say before that?

Okay, well, let me put it this way.

No, what did you say before that?

The United States— Hold on, hold on, hold on. The United States could have fought against Japan and left the Nazis alone.

Oh, I thought before I was getting my dates all mixed up. No, you weren't. Then you're like, oh, wait a second.

No, I'm saying the United States had no reason to fight in the European theater when the attack came from Japan.

Except that Germany declared war on us?

Germany did declare war on the United States, but—

Wow, we had no reason to go to war except for philosophical reasons.

Right, exactly. And so here you have the Iranian parliament burning the American flag. Here you have Hamas and Hezbollah declaring that we are their enemy, no less than Israel. We are the infidels from the point of view of Islam. But according to you, our ranch is not threatened. I think it is. I think our ranch and their ranch are both in the sights of the bad guys who have a massive global movement By the way, they're not content to fight over there.

Hang on, hang on. Let me concede a couple of points here. Now we're getting somewhere. That's kind of nice. Yeah. So the first thing is, is that never conflate my ideas here with the idea that I don't think that Islam is one of the worst, most horrific ideologies known to man, because it is. I argue against it often and all the time. But you see, I'm a true America Firster, Dinesh.

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground: Islam is evil and Israel has the right to self-defense · Andrew Wilson

Yeah.

Neither, neither, neither of these ideologies needs to overlap Christian ideal or ideology at all. When you talk about how this country, this 10 million people are surrounded by enemies, right? Great. I understand. I completely agree. They have the right to defend themselves. Great. I completely agree. Why do we have to go in and defend them, though? You say, well, we have a shared common enemy. I can even grant that that's true. Why is it then that we need to leave that state in Jewish hands if we have to defend it? Why? Why do we have an ought to do that? Why can't we demand Christian immigration to Israel? Why is it that we can't demand as their protectorate that we have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Christians move into that area so we can protect our own holy sites, Dinesh? Why not?

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-036

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-231

Well, number one, $3.8 billion doesn't buy you a whole country. Second of all, we make all kinds of alliances with countries where we don't basically tell them what they should do to their LGBTQ people. We have alliances with Korea, with Japan, with India, with Great Britain. Great Britain is just as LGBTQ as Israel. Our alliance with Israel is based upon mutual defense. It's not based upon supporting gay rights or the Pride Parade in Tel Aviv. No one's saying that we should support that as Christians. We oppose it equally. What I am saying is that as—

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-036

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground: Christians oppose LGBTQ policy equally · Dinesh D'Souza

So then where does the ought come in? I still don't understand where the moral obligation or ought actually comes in here. I've been listening, I've been waiting for it. You have not yet given me a, you're a Christian and you're a Jew who lives in Israel, and so therefore you have some obligation morally to support you. What is it?

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-025

I'm saying that in the ensemble of countries where good guys are fighting against bad guys— and let's start with your point You agree that Islam is a truly pernicious and evil force, no less here than over there, correct?

I believe that both ideologies, both Judaism and Islam, both lead to massive problems because they're both heresies.

Both of these heresies, from my— But heresies, even heresies are not equal in the sense that— hold on.

That's true.

The Jews aren't trying to make us Jews. Jews are not in the conversion business. That's true.

You're right. Jews don't evangelize.

Islam is not only trying to dominate us spiritually or religiously, but Islam is the religion of comprehensive law. It covers the whole orbit of life. It tells you how you should sleep and whether you can— whether you are allowed to fart when you have sex.

Whether you can own a dog.

Islam is a manual of instructions of life. Now, here's the point. And this is, I think, something that's a little hard for us to accept. But it makes a lot of sense. The Israelis know how to fight Islam and radical Islam in a way that we don't. We are— our record in fighting radical Islam is abysmal.

So is theirs.

Their record in fighting radical Islam is outstanding.

It is, isn't it?

And in fact, for all the things that—

So they wouldn't need our help with that then, would they? They wouldn't need the help of this nation that's just terrible at fighting these crazy Islamists. They're so good at it, right?

Do they need our help? Is your whole— okay, let me put it this way.

Do they need our help?

Our debate has nothing to do with giving money to Israel or arms to Israel. Let me ask you this.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-249

Well, then what are we supporting?

Well, when—

We're just cheering?

Yay!

Well, no.

What are we doing?

Okay, so when you say that somebody is morally— if I were to say to you, you know what? You've got a kid who lives in a really bad neighborhood. A lot of bad guys out to kill your kid. You're morally obligated to support your kid.

Uh-huh.

It doesn't follow that you have to buy your kid a house, buy him a gun. You might practice tough love on the kid. You might tell the kid, you better cut this shit out. You might have all kinds of instructions that the kid will oppose.

Sure.

You will also accept that your interests and the kid's interests will sometimes diverge. So I'm admitting all of this with regard to Israel. I'm simply saying that the obligation to support is generic. It doesn't specify give them $3.8 billion. Let me ask you this.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-252

Well, hang on, hang on. I want to use this analogy real quick because let's go back to your analogy. I think it's fine.

Okay.

You say, hey, there's like a mom and her son or, you know, a dad and the son and they're in a rough neighborhood.

And you're saying the son is a heretic. He doesn't go to church.

You say, you say, hey, there's a moral obligation for you to, like, get your son out of this neighborhood. And then you give a bunch of qualifiers. And Nash says, you know, that means, you know, maybe you tell him to stop doing this, or maybe you take this action, or maybe you take that action, or you do, you know, blah, blah, blah. But the whole point of this is to say that there's a moral obligation there where they must, ought to do something in order to prevent this from happening to their son. Right?

Right.

Okay, great. What's that with Israel?

So our interests and Israel's interests diverge on many points. Israel would like right now for the United States to go all the way, pulverize Lebanon, have regime change in Iran. Trump is saying no. This is a recognition where we are saying our interest is the same as yours insofar as pulverizing Iran and breaking its military back. Once we have done that and stopped the nuclear possibilities, we're ready to quit. We're ready to go home. If you wanna continue, you can. If these humans—

This is just gibberish, dude. Where do we get the moral ought? Where do we— you still haven't given me a— you have a moral obligation like that mom does to move the kid out of that rough neighborhood with all of those bad guys. Wouldn't I just use that analogy and say, okay, great, then we have an obligation to move 10 million Jews among the Western nations get him out of the neighborhood of the bad guys?

And that would be your solution?

No, I'm saying if I'm using your analogy for the obligation, wouldn't you say that the mom should move the kid out of the neighborhood?

The analogy was intended to clarify the meaning of what does it mean to have a moral obligation to support. No analogy travels on all fours. So if I say, okay, I'm gonna get my kid out of the bad neighborhood, it may be that I decide Okay, the kid can stay there, but I need to help with providing security. Or I need to make sure that, that I go visit every week to make sure that the apartment isn't being wrecked.

Where does the moral obligation here come in for the United States?

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-025

Its sovereignty.

And Christians, the Christians inside of it specifically. That's what we're talking about. The Christians. Where does their obligation come in to help the Jews in Israel do fucking anything? What do we— why? Where's the obligation for that? Where?

What? Do you agree that the Iranian regime and the forces of Islam in the region are evil?

Sure.

Okay.

I believe that their ideology is evil.

Their ideology is evil. And would you agree that Israel, in fighting to change, clean up, remake, transform the Middle East, and produces— Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.

I gotta clarify one thing. Yeah, just the terms. When you say evil, for me, evil, the doing of evil, would be moving away from participating in the energies of God and Jesus Christ. That's how I would differentiate what evil is from good. Good would be participating in those energies. So when you say the ideology of Islam, you don't believe Arabs are evil, right? No. You believe Islam, the ideology, is evil, right?

Right.

Okay, well, Jews, from my perspective, that ideology is also evil.

Right, but I think you're— we're talking about evil in 2 completely different senses. There is a sense in which evil— heresy is evil, right? Because it departs from the theological straight path. In fact, orthodoxy means a straight path. Heresy means a deviation.

Sure.

We're talking about evil in a more natural law sense, by which I mean—

I don't believe in natural law.

You don't believe in natural law?

No.

Okay, do you believe in deontic matters?

I'm not a natural law proponent because I'm not a Catholic.

Sure, if you think The 10 Commandments are fine. Do you believe that if— do you believe— well, I mean, do you believe that to take a 5-year-old kid and forcibly transition that kid is evil?

Of course.

Okay, now is that the same as the kind of evil that you were describing when you were talking about Christian heresy? I mean, in other words, Judaism is a heresy and that's one type of evil, I grant. I'm saying there's another type of evil. Murder is evil.

Yeah, I just want to make sure I got it right. So you're— when you're making the differentiation, you're saying this is evil and this is evil and this is a lesser evil than this one?

I'm saying that this is a force for good in combating this evil.

Yeah, but you're still saying both are evil. Well, if you're saying both are evils, you want us to support the lesser evil.

Well, I certainly do believe that there are many cases of supporting the lesser evil.

But then aren't you admitting Jewish ideology is evil?

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-237

Well, I'm admitting that Jewish theology is a heresy, or at least—

And that is evil.

It's evil in its rejection of Christianity. I agree with that. Theologically, of course. But that's—

So you're just saying support evil to stop evil? Support evil and to stop evil. Perfect.

So the man who insisted that Israel is a secular state makes a convenient switcheroo and is now making Israel a theological state, which is out of sync with Christianity. Go one way or the other. You're trapped on your own.

Actually, perfect. I love this trap.

Okay.

Is secular ethics evil?

Yes.

Oh, yes! Oh, shit! You got me!

Wow. We have had secular ethics in the world for about 500 years at least.

Right.

And we have secular ethics that dominate this country right now. Would you say that the United States right now is evil?

I would say that the secularists who are in charge of it are fucking evil.

Okay, okay. But, but—

Evil fucking bastards.

But notice, but notice that when it comes to Israel, you foist the evil on the nation.

Oh no.

When it comes to America, you're pro-American, you're Fourth of July, you're 250th anniversary, you're America, rah, rah, rah. But there are these bad secular people in the country. You're against them, but you're not anti-American, are you?

Perfect. Let's use this exact same analogy.

Okay.

We'll use the exact same analogy back the other way. Right here in the United States, there's tons and tons and tons of Christians. They're not evil, right? We don't consider them evil. They're not evil. Trinitarian Christians are not evil. You don't believe it? I don't believe it. Great. That's not an evil ideology. The secularists in charge of the United States are evil bastards with an evil ideology. You agree? Let's move it over to Israel. Same analogy. If you have a Jewish state, the secular Jews, evil ideology. The Jewish theology, which also exists there, evil ideology. So both of these that we're combating are evil ideologies. You want us to support both of those evil ideologies to take out another evil ideology when right here We have an evil ideology we're combating in our own nation in order to support the ideology which isn't evil— Christianity. Perfect.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-237

Now, now, now, it is a fact of the world, and it is a fact of the Bible, that many figures, nations, evil in themselves, are nevertheless a On the side of good, or B, the chosen instruments of God. God will frequently use not only flawed but downright evil people. God talks in the Bible about the fact that the Assyrians, monsters, pagans, are, quote, the rod of my justice.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-299

Yes.

God is using the Assyrians.

Yes, I agree.

Yeah.

So why is he going to use the most wicked people?

This is also true of individuals. All the things that you talk about that are bad in Israel today were going on in the Old Testament. The worshipping of the golden calf, all kinds of sexual immorality.

Why this is illogical?

Here's why. Because you're drawing the fallacious conclusion that somehow if the Jews are secular, if they have LGBTQ rallies, somehow they have ceased to be the people of God. They are no longer sort of real Jews. They are now secularists. They are outside our area of moral concern. And I'm simply suggesting that the God of the Bible takes the opposite view. Never once does God say, you know what, you Jews, because you worship the golden calf, I'm taking back all my promises to Abraham. Give me the land back because I never gave it to you unconditionally. I gave it to you conditionally. Hand it back over. Does God ever say that in the Bible?

+5 R-1.1 · Strawman · Dinesh D'Souza

He just punishes them. No, I'm not, I'm not making that claim.

And Israel has been punished.

You're just putting words in my mouth again. Back to the ethical claim. None of this even matters. It's completely irrelevant to what you're even talking about.

Why is it irrelevant?

I'll tell you why. This is hilarious.

You think the character of God is irrelevant to our discussion of good and evil?

You made the claim that God will use evil for good. Do you agree with that?

Yes.

Okay, great. You agree with that. Then why do we assume that he's going to use the evil ideology of the Jew for good? but not the Muslim?

Well, God may well—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

Hang on.

Yeah.

I want to repeat that question because I want you to answer it.

I'm answering it.

Why should we assume that it's only Jewish people, who we both agree hold an evil ideology, instead of Muslims, who we agree hold an evil ideology, that God won't use them for good? Why do we just instantly assume it's only going to use Jewish people for good?

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-342

Well, number one, we are fallible people in the world, so we have to look and make judgments. It is possible to argue, for example, someone might say, due to the fact that America has become like Sodom and Gomorrah, God used 9/11 as a form of divine punishment on America, right? You could make that argument.

Yeah.

It's kind of— it's a very speculative type of argument.

I agree.

Yeah.

And so I don't think you can make it, but in theory— So is the argument that God's going to use Jews to do good.

In theory, it's not impossible.

That's speculative.

That's a speculative argument to say God's going to use this evil ideology to do good. That's your argument.

So my argument was not, quote, God is using the Jews who are evil to do good. My argument was ideology. Hold on, let's be really clear.

Okay.

You basically were saying these are bad people and they are outside of God's purposes. And I said many times God uses people, even people who have completely rejected him as his instruments for his divine purposes.

Like Muslims.

He's done it repeatedly.

Like Muslims?

Now, I don't deny that in principle, God could use the Indians, the Muslims, the Chinese. Yes, God can use those people.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-349

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Dinesh D'Souza

That's the whole point, man. You're just defaulting for some reason to say only this specific people group who I think holds an evil ideology, which you did say, that people group, God's going to use for good. These other people groups— Of course not. You're asking us to pick an interest. between 2 evil ideologies, pick and choose which ideology we prefer because you think that God's going to prefer that we prefer one of those evil ideologies. Well, first of all, that's the reduction of your logic.

First of all, you're arguing as if there is no connection between God the Father. I mean, if you look at the Christian Bible, you could almost say that—

Magic Jew blood?

Hold on. You could almost say that the Old Testament is the biography of God the Father. The Gospels are the biography of God the Son, and the Acts are the biography of God the Holy Spirit. This is the Trinity right there. And this is the historical unfolding of the Trinity in the Christian story. And now you're pretending like there is no relationship between Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, God the Father, and the Jews?

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-349

Are you pretending that there's no relationship between God the Father and Christians?

Yes. No, I'm saying—

That's really what's hilarious here.

No, I'm saying— We can break it down.

Hang on. We'll break it down. I'll break it down with you. I'll go right along with you.

Okay.

Would you agree Jews have magic Jew blood? Yes or no?

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-001

Have what?

Magic Jew blood. So they're preferred by God.

Well, God isn't picking based on magic Jew blood. God is picking based upon a particular community that is built around a set of divine instructions, rights, laws. commandments.

Does this particular community have a specific DNA by chance?

Sure.

Got it. So, and we could trace that through their blood, right? So you would basically just say that people who have this particular blood are favored by God.

Well, no more— I mean, you could make the same argument about Christians. Christians have DNA.

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-378

Exactly. So I would make the argument, I would make that exact argument about Christians. What's kind of hilarious here, as we're kind of moving through this, we're finding out that one, you still have no moral law for why it is that Christians are supposed to support Jews or Israel. Haven't heard a single argument.

Well, that's because—

Not one. And by the way—

That's because you're setting a standard where I am a Christian monk sitting on a sacred pillar in the Himalayas, and you're now asking me, give me a reason to support Israel. Yeah, I'm talking about Christians living in the world. Yeah, where we recognize that in the world There's a lot of admixture of good and evil. And someone— there might be good people in an Islamic world, but the Islamic ideology is bad. There might be good people in your own religion.

And Jewish ideology is also bad by your own admission.

Jewish theology is bad. Judaism isn't, quote, an ideology. Judaism is a theology. And I agree.

Where do you get your ideology from? Your theology.

Well, when I was getting at—

You know who said that? You, in your book. Well, you in your own book said that.

I said a little minute ago, and you agreed, that Islam is a comprehensive ideology that includes family law, divorce, honor killing, Sharia. Judaism is not an ideology in that sense. It is not trying to create a sort of comprehensive supervision over the world.

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-305

Except its own state? Its own state?

It doesn't do it in Israel. Israel doesn't— When is the last time you've heard, for example, of Jews being stoned for adultery like in the Old Testament?

Oh, not in forever.

Happens all the time?

Not in forever.

Exactly.

Yeah, of course.

So in other words, there's a big difference. In Islam, you still do get stoned. You get thrown out of windows. You get killed by your own family members. You get killed for leaving the religion.

Nobody's making a dispute there. The dispute that we have is whether or not Christians have any obligation to morally morally to support Israel or support Jews who you, by your own admission, you say is an evil ideology.

And I was saying that Israel against that ideology is doing a lot of good. If there's a ring of pedophiles and a cop decides, I'm gonna go in there and I'm going to beat the shit out of all these people and I'm gonna save all these kids, you go, wait a minute, isn't the cop a Jew? And I'm like, yeah. And you're like, well, isn't he a heretic? Doesn't he have the wrong ideology? Shouldn't we be rejecting him as much as the pedophiles? Dinesh, why are you making arguments for the lesser evil?

This is like the— this is backwards. It would be like—

How is it backwards? I'm saying that Israel—

It would be like the cop who was also a pedophile beat the shit out of 10 pedophiles. And I'm like, oh, okay, that's right on.

We disagree.

Pedophile cop who beat the shit out of 10 pedophiles.

Wait a minute.

What are you talking about?

So pedophilia—

An evil ideology make me want to pick and choose. But why? Why should I support either? Why should I support either?

Why? Right, so because the cop is a drunk, uh, and he, and he insults his wife and he got divorced and he has a mistress, we're not going to support him in his campaign against the pedophiles because he's no better than the pedophiles because they're both evil according to you?

No, you're taking— so if you want to take the extremes there, we can actually do that and we can look at that.

Why is it an extreme? Let's, let's—

sure, hang on.

So pedophilia, same logic, is Sharia.

Yeah, yeah, hang on.

Pedophilia equals Sharia.

It's the comprehensive Islamic Are you gonna use your national resource or your resources? Let's just use your same example. Okay, the example of the drunk. Yeah, he's a drunk and we're all morally against drunkenness. Let's say—

I mean, not me, but I'm not.

But let's just say in this hypothetical that you are. So the drunk cop comes in, he beats up all the pedophiles, and we go, right on, man, you beat up these pedophiles, that's great. And what you're doing is a lesser evil because we assume in this analogy That drunkenness is evil, right?

Exactly.

Now, are we going to give this guy any resources to go get beer?

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Dinesh D'Souza

Yes, if he did a good job, I would give him some resources.

So you're gonna so so you're gonna so so you're gonna support so you're gonna support a thing you consider to be evil?

No, I'm not I'm not supporting the evil. I mean, if you ask me if you if I then what makes him evil?

What makes the drunk evil in this analogy?

What I'm getting at is that the cop who did this deserves a medal. If you ask me, are we morally obligated to support Hamas?

Yeah, great, give him a minute.

Here, we'll go over every time. The answer is yes. And it has nothing to do with what their private lives are like and whether— you know, this is like, you know—

Oh, this is great.

Yeah. So what I'm getting at is you agree— let's talk about what we agreed. You agreed that Islam represents a kind of comprehensive evil. You agreed that because that is the case—

No, I agree both of these ideologies encompass an evil.

So, you would say, for example, that Judaism poses the same menace, for example, to Western civilization, to your and my religious freedom, to taking over America that, say, Islam does?

I would say that the embrace of secular Jews, and that being a part of the extension of the ideology of Judaism, exactly because they don't have the same formations that you just explained Islam does, does create an existential threat of progressive liberal ideology all the time. including in their own nation, Israel. And I do consider that to be the existential threat of humanity right this second. Progressivism is the worst, worst threat to planet Earth right now.

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-036

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground · Dinesh D'Souza

I agree.

Even above Islam, for now.

I agree. Okay, so this is why debates like this are good. I would argue that the primary authors of Western secularism are— well, if I had to name a single religious group, it would have to be the Episcopalians. Why? Because where is progressivism the most ensconced in America? The answer is in the Northeast. That's why the guy from Maine stood up in the beginning and said Maine has been ruined. It hasn't been ruined by Jews, by the way. It's been ruined by white Protestant Anglicans for the most part, but Unitarians.

Okay, so these heresies lead to bad outcomes due to the fact that they push in secular ideas. But just like you would make the claim, and I would agree with you, that many Protestant ideologies, especially out east, which is where it landed first, right? What we end up seeing is that they push in progressive value structures. The problem that you have with Judaism is it does the same thing. It often pushes for secular ethics, secular values, due to the fact that it does not evangelize nor have these same foundations you're criticizing Islam for.

Right, but it's not because—

Is that true though?

No, because you are blaming— look, let's put it this way. With the Christians, you're saying that the deviation comes from departing from Christianity. So you would say, well, these Unitarians aren't really Christian.

Didn't Jews depart from Christianity?

No.

Judaism?

No.

Yes.

Hold on. Of course, Judy.

The main part of Christianity called Christ?

The analogy we were making is as follows. You, you are saying that secular Judaism is the fault of Judaism. That's why you said Judaism produces this.

Yes, but yes, I am. In fact, it's just like I'm saying that this Protestants who have bad theology, that leads to a secular ideology, provably.

And let me ask you this.

That's what we saw with Judaism. It's same foundational heresy leads to secular values and progressivism. All we have to do is look at the state they're currently in that they founded. And what do you see, Dinesh? Honestly, is it a progressive state or not?

It is a progressive state, but so is America. And what I'm getting at here—

America is founded by Protestants who are in heresy. Exactly.

Why?

Why does Judaism have to account for secularism as a fault of Judaism? But Christianity suffers no blame, no responsibility, no inherent objection by the fact—

Protestantism does! You just gave an accounting of it. You just said Protestants hit out east. When they— when you have all these different Protestant heretical sects out east, that led to a progressive ideology. I said, yeah, I agree.

Hold on one sec. Hey, Sean, I think the mic— we might have lost Andrew's mic.

Testing, testing. Okay, I think we got it. Okay, so I say I agree the Protestant ideology led to progressive values. Somehow though, when it comes to another heresy you agree is a heresy, which also led to huge progressive values in a state you just got done saying is progressive, that has nothing to do with Jews. Because it has nothing to do with Jews, has nothing to do with Jews. It has to do with Judaism being a heresy, man.

I said it has nothing to to do with Judaism, just like I would say the same, that in the case of the Northeast, the progressivism comes out of a rebellion against Christianity. Now, what the left—

Like Judaism?

It's a rebellion against Judaism, whereas you're presenting it as a manifestation of it.

Wait, say that again.

I'm saying that the secularism in Israel is a result of a rebellion against Judaism, not a manifestation of it. You are maintaining that Judaism—

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-435

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-461

It's a rebellion against Christianity. The reason that these, these people groups become so ensconced in progressive ideology is because they reject Jesus Christ as their foundation. That is Islam, that is Judaism, and from my view, that is also many sects of Protestantism which are non-Trinitarian. The reason they have to adopt those things is because the theology is so bad They have to fill in the gaps with other things.

All right, so what we're saying here, and this is a point of agreement, we are dealing with a menacing radical secularism that has developed in the world and in the West.

Yes.

The West invented it. The Jews did not invent it. Its authors—

Protestants didn't invent it either.

Was Charles Darwin a Jew? Was Nietzsche a Jew? Was Heidegger a Jew?

The Protestant Reformation paved the way for progressive ethics. I agree with that.

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground · Andrew Wilson

I agree with that too.

But it happened before the great thinkers of progressive Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation paved the way, but it happened before these things came to fruition. By the way, many of these Protestant heresies are considered by both Catholics and Orthodox to be Judaizing heresies for a reason. Same reason that we consider Jews to be heretics, not ethnic Jews. Remember, I'm making the distinction now between people who believe in Judaism theologically versus people who are just ethnic Jews. I don't have any problem with Arabs, and I don't have any problem with ethnic Jews. That has nothing to do with anything.

Right.

My point is, you can't look me in the eye and say that Protestant heresies led to the embrace of progressive ideology but that Jewish heresies don't. And I can prove it to you. If you reject Jesus Christ, who is the source of all truth, what do you end up with? What do you end up with?

Let me say that even here in America over the past 30 years—

This is not an answer to my question.

It is an answer. It is an answer. I have had a fair amount of experience with Orthodox Jews who have been fans of mine. They come up to me at events. Now, why are they fans of mine? They socially, politically, morally, they are to the right of me. They are totally against abortion. They are totally against LGBTQ.

So are Muslims.

And not only do they say it, they actually live it.

So do Muslims.

Hold on. So are the Muslims, correct. But what I'm— so what I'm getting at is that to argue that Judaism is itself responsible for secularism is stupid, because the most religious Jews are not secular at all.

Great.

They are—

and to argue that— look, let me show you guys— I'm gonna show you how stupid this is.

Oh yeah?

To argue that Protestantism is responsible for progressivism is stupid, 'cause out in the hallway I met some Protestants and they were really fucking based.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dinesh D'Souza

No, no, no. Hold on, hold on.

That is literally the stupidest thing you've said tonight out of many stupid things.

This is pure sophistry.

No, it's not sophistry.

Well, let me tell you why. Because what you do with an analogy is you misstate the analogy. If you could find me a group of devout evangelical Christians and say, these devout evangelical Christians who go to church on Wednesday, they go to church on Sunday, they are really into it and serious about their faith, but they happen to also support trans surgeries, they support abortion. I would be shocked because I would say no, if someone is devout and serious about their faith, they're not going to support those things. They're going to be solid on the moral issues.

So Episcopalians are not solid in their faith? Hold on, I'm not going to interrupt you.

So I just told you that Orthodox Jews are very solid on the moral issues and they are not part of secular degeneracy.

Yeah, but this is crazy.

And then you switch the analogy and give me a generic Protestant.

I'm going to repeat it to you verbatim to make sure I got it right before I respond.

Okay.

I'm going to steelman the position so that there's no doubt this is not a straw man.

+6 C-5.1 · Steelman · Andrew Wilson

Okay.

You are saying to me, there are Orthodox Jews who are just super based, Andrew. They don't like abortion. They don't like LGBTQ. They don't like any of that degenerate stuff. Right?

Right.

Okay. Can we agree that there's lots and lots of Protestants, including Episcopalians, who you say are responsible for the current state of progressive Enlightenment principles being enacted in this nation, who are super based and also don't like abortion. And they also don't like LGBTQ. They don't like any of that. True or false?

Yeah. And those Protestants— hold on. Those Protestants fall into the Assemblies of God. They fall into the Baptist denominations. Very different from the Unitarians, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists. I mean, the reason you go—

But you just said— you just got done saying, though. Now you're in contradiction. I'm saying that the second you say Episcopalians are responsible for this, but not some Episcopalians. You're making the same, the same argument with exception that I would. You're right. Judaism is also a heresy, therefore responsible for the integration of progressive values, especially in Israel, but not all of them. Great. What the hell have we established here except that heresies lead to progressive ideology across the board, which is why the church has always been against them?

Heresies should be rejected theologically.

Yes.

But it's possible in a decent society to make moral alliances with people who are heretics but agree with us on certain moral issues.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-299

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Andrew Wilson

Agreed.

And so you could find someone in America right now who's an atheist, but they don't think that kids should be killed in the womb. They don't support euthanasia or infanticide. They don't support trans surgeries. And you would say, guess what? You know what, buddy? You're on the right side. Now, are you going to heaven? No. Theologically, you are on the outside.

But is it immoral not to support them? Is it immoral not to support them?

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-510

What I'm saying is—

Is it immoral not to support that same group you just said we could make an alliance with if we so chose? Would it be immoral for us not to?

It would be immoral to reject them when they want to be in alliance with you on the side of good. It would be like the pro-life movement deciding that anybody who's going to hell cannot be allowed in the pro-life movement. It would be wrong and immoral to do that because these are allies on a good cause. It doesn't matter if they have bad opinions on— they're socialists and other things. You don't support them in the socialism, but you support them in the area that they are on the side of good.

Got it.

And that's what I'm saying about Israel.

And this makes, this makes complete and total sense to me. So if I'm breaking down your position, okay, and I'm getting it totally correct, you're saying that if it is the case that, let's say, there's a group of atheists who oppose abortion, you're not going to reject that help because the greater good is to stop abortion.

You would not reject their help in the pro-life cause, correct?

Right, right. Yes, correct.

Okay, so it would actually be immoral in that context to reject that help.

Correct.

Got it. Now let's get an equivalent analogy. Yes, for how it is that if we decide that we're not going to send billions of dollars to Israel, we're not going to send a single soldier over to help them at any time, because the United States electorate doesn't want it, and if it is the case that we no longer want any Israeli influence in our government whatsoever, why would that be immoral?

Well, it would be— it would be a wrong decision, both tactically—

Why would it be immoral?

It would be immoral because what we are ultimately doing is we are taking an ally that is on our side and is kicking the ass of the bad guys in a very dangerous neighborhood. They're all bad guys. No, they're not all bad guys on this issue. The Islamic project is global caliphate. There's no equivalent Jewish project to that. The Jews are fighting that and they're doing it with great effectiveness.

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-305

So then tell me this. Let's just, let's just say pretend.

So in other words, I'm not saying that we have— democratically, we could decide by the majority of people saying we don't want to have anything to do with it.

Let's dive right in.

And we have every right to do that.

Let's dive right in. Let's find out if this is true, if this is logically true. Okay. Let us play pretend.

Okay.

Tomorrow, all of these Islamic nations right around Israel unite and they crush it and they wipe Israel out in a single day. Let's just say in this hypothetical.

Okay.

What happens then to the United States? What happens to the United States? What?

What happens to the United States now is that you will have created what Islam has long dreamed of, which is a restoration of the— we haven't had an Islamic—

Yeah, why do I give a shit about the Islamic caliphate though? Why do I care if they—

The Islamic caliphate is established. They have destroyed Israel. They destroyed Israel. The Islamic caliphate is all over Texas. It is not only taken over—

That's immigration though. We can fix immigration whether or not you have a Jewish state or not.

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-231

Hold on, hold on. Many of these Muslims have been here for decades. This project has been going on. Muslims came to Detroit in the 1920s. What would that have to do with Israel being here? It was the antisemitism of Henry Ford where he said, I wanna go and bring a bunch of Muslims over here.

Let's stay on topic. Israel's gone now in this hypothetical in a single day. They just steamroll it. They take all the land.

Right.

Okay, they are reforming a caliphate, let's even say.

And you're like, who cares?

Yeah, when I go down into my toolbox to grab the wrench to wrench on my fucking car, I care about this.

Why? Okay, why would you care if the same thing happened to Alaska?

Because those are my countrymen.

Oh, those are your countrymen, but you still can go to your toolbox and you can work in your garage, and if Alaska's off the map—

No, that would have drastic— It doesn't matter to you. That would have drastic, direct repercussions upon me if it was the case that one of the states of the country that I live in was steamrolled by Islam. On the other hand, I think that there would be—

No, no.

Far less drastic and direct consequences were it the case that, let's just say Israel's steamrolled by Islam. What I wanna know specifically, if it was, what the hell does the mechanic in the garage down the street, what does that do to him? Specifically, what?

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-533

Well, in your view of the world, if it is outside the geographic border of America, the toolbox guy has nothing to do with it. Would you say the same about Mexico?

I want you to answer the question I asked instead of the office games.

The world is a much more dangerous place.

Yeah, the world's a dangerous place. Dangerous neighborhoods in the world. But you don't care. I know.

It doesn't matter.

It's terrible. That's all rhetoric. Answer the question I asked. Forget the rhetoric. Give me the logic. Let's pretend Seriously pretend. Game out the hypothetical with me. Israel's destroyed in a single day by its Islamic neighbors. Okay, that's what happens. It's gone. Let's just say. How the hell does that negatively affect the United States? What is it going to do to the average citizen here if that happens? Even if Muslims are getting super uppity and want their caliphate.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-533

How?

What? What does it do?

Let's play it out.

Let's.

Okay, so number one, let's assume that a juggernaut launched out of, let's say, Iran and Qatar takes Israel. And not only that, but now all the other Gulf kingdoms are intimidated. And so they submit to a single unified force. Let's just call it the United States of Islam.

Okay.

And that's the whole Middle East.

Okay.

It is fantastically rich. It has nuclear weapons and it has a suicidal and genocidal ideology that says, we love death, we don't like life. These guys, right, are now going to start bankrolling the Islamic project in America to a degree that you can hardly imagine. So we are now talking about the fact— and let's just game it out. You want to game it out? Let's game it out.

Okay.

Every politician in Texas, by and large, If you want to get their attention, just write them a check for $10,000 and they will call you within a week. Within a week to hear you out and what's on your mind.

Sure.

Now imagine an Islamic regime, 2 billion people in the world with almost infinite resources, offering every US congressman $100 million in their pack if they vote on the side of Islam. What percentage of Democrats do you think would say no? I would submit it's about 1 or 2%. What percentage of Republicans would say no? I submit it's about 10%.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-566

Okay, great.

My son-in-law included.

Okay.

But what we're basically talking about is a buyout of the United States of America, Inc. This is on the table. The Muslims say they're going to do it. They are doing it.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-566

We would force a buyout. And all that stands in their way is 10 million Jews. Okay, so you started out All that stands in the way of all of the Muslim world uniting, even though there's nukes there now, even though they have a shared value to destroy Israel now, is 10 million Jews that are sitting. That's the stupidest thing that I ever heard. Here's actually what you like. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Let's game it out.

+5 R-1.1 · Strawman (mirror) · Andrew Wilson · low confidence: excluded from score

Yeah, good.

So I'll game it out.

Let's game it out.

I'll game it out a different way.

Okay.

They destroy Israel in a single day. Isn't it equally possible that they open up relations with the United States and the rest of the West because they want to enter into massive trade agreements, because it is the case that they want their own people groups to thrive, because it is the case that they are geographically landlocked away from Europe for the most part, and definitely the United States.

Okay.

Isn't it the case that we could then get oil for cheaper?

Yeah.

Isn't it then the case that there's all sorts of trade agreements we could have that we no longer have to sanction them on because we don't have to have this protectorate there? That's equally logically possible. The problem that you have here— I'm not saying that this should happen. I'm pointing out an analogy that you are making the determinative kind of quality here that 10 million Jews are stopping this nightmare scenario. And it's absurd. That's not what's actually going on. What's actually going on is the United States military is what's stopping that nightmare scenario, not 10 million Jews in the United States. And if we had mass migration of Christians to that region for their own Holy Land, for them to have their own holy relics, for them to have the Holy Land back to them, that region would be infinitely safer than it is right this second.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-575

So I think here we've reached the point where the core naïveté of your position, which is that the Muslims are just like the rest of us, Comes to the forefront. When the Barbary pirates were menacing American ships and Jefferson sent ambassadors, Jefferson's question to the ambassadors was, "Go talk to the ambassador in Tripoli and ask them what is their beef with America? They've been fighting with Europe for a long time. We haven't done anything to them. Why are they doing this to us?" And the ambassador Abd al-Rahman replied. He goes, it has nothing to do with you. We are doing this because it asks us to do it in the Quran. You are an infidel, and our job is to fight, defeat, and destroy the infidels. This is in the Quran. Where is it in the— It is the actual constitution of the world of Islam.

Great.

So when you say, these are guys who want coffee shops and tall buildings and Trump Tower and high tech, yes. But I would say, and here is where you would say that the Muslims who want those things are actually the Muslims least attentive to the Quran. These are the Muslims who are actually less Islamic.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-586

And less inbred.

The true Muslims—

And less inbred.

The true Muslims see all of America as the house of war. So the idea that you suggest, which is that, gee, they're going to be— we're landlocked, we need to make some trade deals. is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Islam. And this is part of the reason that you see Israel as an unnecessary add-on.

I just want to make sure the naivete is on my part, that you believe the only thing stopping this future is 10 million Jews who are in that region.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-575

No.

I just want to make sure that that is the actual position.

I'm not saying— look, you asked, you gave me a hypothetical.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-594

Yeah.

And you said if Israel is obliterated, the scenario I'm describing doesn't require the obliteration of Israel. It simply requires the complete mobilization of those countries. I think what Trump is doing is he's playing a game in which he's trying to set one Muslim off against another. He's like, listen, let me see if I—

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-594

This is actually perfect. So that if it is the case, Dinesh, that this does not require the obliteration of Israel for Muslims to do this right this second, if they do begin acting this way, and I agree with you that they likely will, Then I could see how Christians would have an obligation to intervene, especially in our own interests, because now they're coming here to kill us. Great, we would need to do something about that. But you see how you carefully took Israel out of that equation, and 10 million Jews are out of that equation? What's the obligation morally that we have to go help them right this second when you just made the claim that without them there— We're not going to be able to do it. or with them there, this can still happen even without their obliteration.

Well, let's extend out the same analogy to see why what I'm saying makes total sense.

Okay.

Let's envision a scenario where it's not Israel that is overrun, but Australia, Canada, Great Britain, France, and Germany are overrun by the Muslims.

With their immigration policy?

That's right, with their immigration policy, but not just immigration policy. Massively supported by terrorist infiltration, money coming out of Qatar and other Islamic countries.

How did the terrorists infiltrate without the mass migration, Dinesh?

No, many of them are already in the country.

Because of mass migration, Dinesh.

Because of original mass migration, yes, I agree.

Yes, because what we've done is that— this is suicidal empathy, but that has nothing at all to do— if we have good border policy and we have good immigration policy locking Islam out of the United States and Western world, which I would love to see, right? This problem goes away regardless of us helping Israel or not.

Number one, many of them are already here. Number two, the Muslim— hold on— the Muslim Brotherhood has made it really clear in its memoranda that we don't actually want to focus on bin Laden types with long beards and white robes.

They want to focus on the womb. They want to focus on the womb.

We want American-born kids, dude, and American-born converts to take the vanguard. We need Islamic lawyers born in America. So unless you have some plan for getting out 30 million Muslims who are legal and US citizens, by the way, you're talking nonsense. You're just hypothetically saying if we close the border, the problem will go away.

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-610

We're not the UK, Dinesh.

We're not the UK.

We have very few actual Muslims here in comparison to the population total size. We have a lot of Hispanics here in comparison to the population of total size, especially illegally. If we were right this second to curtail off immigration from Islamic nations, this problem does go away. It's not usually the 4th, 5th generation Islamic kids, who by that time, by the way, have usually left Islam, who are the problem with this.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-609

This is—

What it is, is it's usually within the first couple of generations, or people coming in on H-1Bs, or coming in with different visas who conduct those terror operations. We've already absorbed Islamists. We've already absorbed a few million of them. But there's not that many of them. That's one. And two, over several generations of integration, that ideology— many of them move to Christianity. They move to secular ethics. They move to the general kind of civic ideology of the nation that they're in if they're that small of a minority. So I don't think we would really have to worry too much about terror attacks.

Almost everything you're saying is factually untrue.

Which thing?

Okay, number one, while it is true that European immigrants and Jews— hold on, no, no, no, I mean, it's my way of talking. There are other immigrant groups, including Jews, that have assimilated, that no longer practice Judaism. This is least true of Muslims in America. Why? Because the mosque in Islam does not fulfill the same purpose as a church.

Yeah, but that's a half-truth because—

It's a half-truth?

Yeah, so it is in fact the case do you agree with me that by the 3rd generation in an Islamic family, the children by that time are actually way more likely to leave that faith? One leaves for everyone that joins, and usually the people who join, right, you have another one who leaves. It's a revolving door which is declining. It is declining in the United States, not increasing.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-617

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-617

You are missing a really important countertrend, just as true in America as in Europe. Okay, the children and the 3rd and 4th generation of Muslims are far more likely to become terrorists and radical Muslims than even the first generation or the Muslims in the Muslim world. Why? Because in the West, we have a crisis of identity. Like, who am I? I'm in a meaningless life. I have a meaningless society. So Islam provides for people in the West that sense of higher purpose, motivation. You can be a soldier for Allah. If you go tell that to some guy in India or Pakistan, he has no identity crisis. He's not going to be talking this bullshit. If you tell him, listen, we all need to go pray in the middle of the street, he'll be like, are you insane? We don't do this anywhere in the Muslim world. But we do do it in London. We do do it in Dallas. We do do it in America. Because the American Muslims have this sense of identity, and they are much more likely to see themselves as fighting in a higher cause than some ordinary Muslim on the Muslim street in Detroit.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-617

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-610

Yeah, but when we're talking about domestic terrorism, most of it's not even conducted by Islam. Let's be real. And by the way, again, the ones who are here already, if we cut off and curtail any more from coming in, this cross-generational problem does eventually go away. It has to. Why support that? Not having any more come in. The ideology is terrible at spreading in Christian nations. Never been good at it in the West unless you import it. The thing here that's really funny though is that out of all of this, you still haven't given me an aught for why it is that Christians need to support Israel. With all of the tangential policy that we've gone over, which I think much of this we can find some kind of even ground. Like you, for instance, I'm sure you would love to stop Islam from immigrating to Western nations. I'm sure you would love that, right?

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-609

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-617

Right.

Okay, I would too. So we, we have like an olive branch there. Neither one of us wants to see ethnic Jews persecuted, destroyed, hurt, anything like that, right? We can agree on that too.

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground · Andrew Wilson

Right.

And we don't want to see that happen to Arabs either. We can agree on that too.

Yeah.

So we're talking about ideology here. So when we're talking about and we're discussing ideologies and these ideas, I'm still gonna take you right back to the original point. And the original point is that Judaism leads to the same type of secular progressive poison ideology The Jewish faith itself does this, just like it is the case that the heretical Protestants do the exact same thing. And I would say that that is 10 times more damaging even than if we had 10 times the amount of domestic terror attacks we have right now from Islam.

Let's test your proposition that Judaism itself gives rise to secular degeneracy.

Sure.

You've had Jewish communities in many, many parts of the world over many, many centuries.

Like Israel?

No, I'm talking about the diaspora.

Okay.

And I'm talking about through the Middle Ages, through the end of the Roman Empire, in the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation. Now, you would expect if Judaism is the problem, that all the secular degeneracy would emerge by itself. Inside of these tribal Jewish communities. You'd expect, for example, that when Shakespeare talks about the Merchant of Venice, the Jews would be like having sex with a dog, or they would be, you know, killing off their kids, or they would be engaging in all kinds of moral degeneracy. You get the exact opposite picture. The Jews maintained not only their tribal identity, but a strict regimen of laws and codes and commandments. Shylock is upset with his daughter because she marries a Christian. But from Shylock's point of view, that is not moral laxity. That is a rigorous enforcement of Jewish orthodoxy. So the secular— hold on. The secular degeneracy emerges in the West outside of the Jewish community. Then it penetrates and pollutes the Jewish community. And you're trying to blame Judaism for it.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-435

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-461

No, I'm not. I'm telling you that all heretical ideologies lead to secular progressive values because they don't hold the truth of Christ. If you don't hold the truth of Christ, you cannot know the truth. Period. You, for instance, Dinesh, I'll give you an example of how it is you don't hold truth. You claim, for instance, that you would say that Jesus Christ isn't a Christian, right?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-645

Jesus Christ can no more be a Christian than Marx can be a Marxist. Or Buddha could be a Buddhist, or Confucius could be a Confucian. It is actually impossible.

Great. Is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Is God omnipotent? What—

Is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Yes.

Okay, great. Then that would mean that he saw Jesus's crucifixion at the same time that he, uh, made the earth. Is that the case?

Yes.

Okay, well then, great. And what did he determine at the very second the earth was made then, if he saw the beginning of time and the end of time?

Yes.

As Jesus Christ was being crucified, what was Jesus Christ's purpose To come as the Redeemer of the world. And is Jesus Christ God?

Yes.

Then Jesus Christ was a Christian. Thank you. That's what happens when you don't hold true—

This is called philosophical horseshit.

How?

How?

Refute it.

I'll refute it. I'll refute it. Go ahead.

Okay.

I'll refute it.

I can't wait.

Okay. I'm going to apply your same— I'm going to apply your same logic.

Okay.

To Let me think of how— what's the best way to unfold this. Well, let me get to what I think you're doing. The Bible operates on more than one level. In fact, the early Christians spoke about the fourfold way to read the Bible. The Bible should be read literally or historically, number one.

Okay.

Metaphorically or symbolically, 2. morally, 3, and eschatologically or prophetically, 4. And the early Christians emphasized that all 4 readings are simultaneous. Neither refutes the other. So there is the historical Jesus. He came into the world just like the flood actually happened and Noah really did build an ark.

How is this refuting my logic?

Yeah, I'll tell you why. Because you then go, is God omnipotent? Isn't it the case that the ark represents Christ. Yes, it does. Metaphorically, the ark does represent Christ. Metaphorically, the ark was foreseen as a progenitor.

This is prattle, dude. Look, repeat back my argument, okay? And then refute it.

Okay, I'm refuting it thus.

No, repeat it first.

Okay, your argument is that God foresaw that Jesus would be the Redeemer of the world from the beginning of the world.

Because God's non-temporal, he's omnipotent, He's omniscient, correct? So if that's the case, and Jesus Christ is God, right?

Yes.

Then how could it possibly be that he, as he saw Jesus's crucifixion, knew his purpose for the world, and heralded it with every single prophet he had, that his purpose on in life, God's, wasn't Christianity? And he wasn't a Christian if that was the entire purpose, right?

And he wasn't a see. So that's that last quick move that you make that's completely fallacious. How's it fallacious? God could have seen from the beginning of the world.

Yeah.

I will take an itinerant Jewish rabbi who was born a Jew named Yeshua, whose dad was a Jew named Yosef and his mom was a Jew named Miriam, who kept all the Jewish rites and celebrated all the Jewish festivals and taught as a Jew coming to save the Jews first and foremost, and then later allowing other non-Jews to be grafted In the Bible couldn't be more clear about this. Jesus was the Jewish savior of the world.

This literally doesn't refute my argument at all. It's not even contending with it.

It does. God is omnipotent because—

and God is omniscient. And God saw that the purpose for himself was to die on the cross for our sins at the very beginning of time. His purpose was Christendom, and he was a Christian. How could it be anything else? It's not even logically possible for anything else to occur. You say—

It is logically possible.

You can't call Marx a Marxist. What if Marx was omniscient and omnipotent and knew that he was going to institute Marxism? Could we call him a Marxist then? Could we call him a Marxist then, Dinesh?

Well, the problem—

could we call him a Marxist then?

If Marx identified and said, I'm a Marxist, I'm going to start this movement in which I am its first leader right from the beginning. That did not happen with Jesus. Perfect. Did it? What did Jesus say? Guess what? I am a Christian and I'm starting this new religion called Christianity, and everybody who follows it now is going to take my name. Jesus did not do any of that.

He didn't need to.

He didn't need to, but he didn't do it. Right.

Filled the purpose. If you fulfill the purpose for which you yourself foresaw and heralded would happen, Jesus Christ knows that he is God. He knows it. He knows what the fulfillment of his own ideology is going to be, and that is Christianity. Yet you still say he's not a Christian even though the Jews reject him. That's insane. He's omniscient. He's omnipotent. He's non-temporal. He sees the end and the beginning simultaneously. You can't refute this.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-645

I am refuting it.

How?

Because you are using omniscience to get around logic.

2 minutes.

Here's the logic. All this shit's together. Let me lay out the logic. Let me lay out the logic. Jesus— hang on, let's just pursue this for a minute. Let's think for a little bit.

I'm thinking.

Jesus is a Christian. Okay? Jesus is a Christian is a statement of the type A is B. Right? A is B. Jesus is A, is a Christian. Now, in logic, if you say A is B, It must follow everything that is true of B is also true of A. Otherwise, A can't be B. A is B means whatever you say about B is true of A. Now let's look at a bunch of things that are true of Christians.

Okay.

Okay. Do we follow Christ? Isn't that the meaning of Christianity? Yes. Did Jesus follow himself? No. We worship Christ. Hold on, let me finish my thought.

Who did he follow?

We Jesus followed the Father.

We follow Jesus.

Is himself part of the Father? But Jesus—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption (cutting into Dinesh's answer to press cross-exam) · Andrew Wilson

so who did he follow then?

Just to be sure we hear the last thought.

Who the hell was he following?

Do we— do we— was he following the point? Do we as Christians worship Jesus? Of course, yes. Did Jesus worship himself? No.

Who did we as Christians pray to in the garden?

Just to let Dinesh finish his point.

Number 3, we as Christians are in need of salvation and we need a savior to die for us. Otherwise, we can't be saved. Did Jesus need a savior to die for him so that he could be saved?

No, he was the savior.

Right. So now what you're doing is in repeating back to me what I'm saying is you are reluctantly agreeing that the statement A equals B cannot be true because I've just told you 3 things that are true of B that cannot be true of A.

Okay, so let me just make sure I got this correct. We'll see if this actually holds logical muster or not. Okay, so let's start with this. Jesus Christ, you say, is not a Christian. He's a Jew, right?

Right.

Okay, got it.

Historically.

Historically, right? He incarnates as a Jewish man.

Right.

Okay, so there's no dispute there, right?

Right.

Was his ideology Jewish?

His ideology was Jewish, yes.

So why did he die for our sins?

Because he was sent on a divine mission to do that.

By who?

And to do that as—

By who?

He was sent by the God of the Old Testament, God the Father. The God who chose the Jews chose Jesus to come out of that Jewish line.

And who was he dying for?

And while Jesus died for all of mankind, his ministry Was to the Jews. It later took a Paul. It took other apostles.

Do you think that Jesus never intended his ministry to be?

No, I think he did intend it.

Me too.

I think he did intend it.

So the fulfillment.

So what?

So the fulfillment of Christ's purpose is Christianity.

No one denies that it is. Yes, it is the fulfillment of Christ's purpose.

So then if.

But that doesn't mean that Jesus was a Christian.

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-709

No, no, no. We'll walk it through. We'll walk it through.

Okay.

Okay. So. If the fulfillment of Christ's purpose is Christianity, then how can you possibly say if he has the foreknowledge that that is going to happen that he wasn't always a Christian? How? Well, did God change his mind one day?

No.

No. So then he always knew.

Hold on. If through the particularity of history, a Jesus Comes. Let's just say Jesus came from America. Okay, okay. But he had a ministry for the whole world, and he foresaw that the whole world would receive the message.

Yeah.

Would Jesus cease to be American? Would he become a globalist? No, he would remain an American because he was born in America. He was American through and through. He ministered to the Americans, and the fact that his the fact that his ministry was worldwide and foreseen to be. Worldwide and known by God to be worldwide does not change one bit the fact that Jesus was, is, and will remain an American. That's a fact, and you know it's true. But you have to—

I'm going to show you how stupid this logic is.

Okay, how so?

So you say Jesus would remain American, right?

That's right.

And we agree that Jesus remained Jewish, right?

Right.

Okay, great. But the fulfillment of his ideology was Christianity?

Yes.

Okay, great. And we know that from the very beginning of time, he knew the fulfillment for all of mankind. was Christianity.

So?

So then if the fulfillment of the entirety of the ideology is Christianity and you have the foreknowledge of that, that that is the way, the truth, and the light, and you have that fulfilled in yourself, he comes and dies. How could his ideology right from the very beginning not have been Christianity if it was the case that he was coming to fulfill Christianity?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-645

I'm Karl Marx. I'm born in Germany. I'm a German. I foresee that I'm going to write a book, the Communist Manifesto, that is going to be adopted by Russia and China, that will create massive communist societies on my model. And not only am I writing for that purpose, I know that purpose in advance.

So you have omniscience.

Hold on. Does that make Marx a Russian or a Chinese? Of course not. He remains a German. He remains someone who has put out a German message, which was then picked up and adopted worldwide, but it doesn't change who he was in the slightest. You're acting as if because Jesus knew in advance—

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-709

Wait, wait, hang on. I just want to make sure I get this right.

Okay.

So you're talking about his nationality?

Well, I'm just by analogy.

Because Marx knows beforehand that people are going to accept his ideology, he's still a Russian?

But he's not a Russian. He's— Marx was a German.

But I'm pointing this out, right? Whatever he is, let's just say, okay, he's that thing still. We still agree that Jesus was Jewish and he was born in Bethlehem, right? And we agree to these facts.

And we agree that Jesus subscribed to Judaism. It wasn't just that he was Jewish in the sense that he happened to be born over here.

He knew that his purpose— he knew that his purpose was Christianity.

He knew that, right? He did. He knew that his purpose was a was a universal gospel message.

Now, let's say—

And that his followers would go by the name of Christians. They would take his message.

Now, let's take the Marx analogy very quickly. Sure, one minute. Let us pretend, just very quickly, that Karl Marx had the gift of foresight and he knew that Marxism was going to lead to capitalism. That was going to be the fulfillment of Marxism. It was always going to lead to capitalism, and he knew it, and that's why he instituted Marxism and allowed Marxism to happen. 'Cause he knew it was gonna turn into capitalism. Was Marx a capitalist?

No, he would remain a Marxist.

Okay.

Isn't it true? This is a great YouTube— Are you saying that if Marx realized that in the unfolding of history, Marxism would— let's just say, let's say Marx foresaw that my Marxist model will somehow be changed and capitalism will replace Marxism.

He only had Marxism there to get to the capitalism. That's what it was there for, to lead to capitalism. Was Marx a Marxist then, or a capitalist?

Well, first of all, the reason your analogy is so dumb is it actually reverses Marx. Marx thought that—

I know it reverses Marx! So, so one more time, Marx foresees that Marxism is going to lead to capitalism because he's omniscient and his ultimate purpose is capitalism and not Marxism, but he knows Marxism will lead to capitalism. Was Marx actually a Marxist or a capitalist?

Well, Marx would be a Marxist whose followers would be capitalists. It's obviously true because the fact that I foresee—

And you know logic, huh?

Okay, well, I think what we're talking about is history versus eschatology.

30 seconds.

That's my whole point. And I think that that went off on a side tangent. I did want to address it because I know it's part of what it is that you believe.

Well, you're using—

But I'll just point this out. I'll just point this out.

Okay.

We still haven't actually established any moral oughts.

Well—

At all for why Christians have to support Jews or Israel. Not one time.

Well, you're using Islamic logic. Islamic logic is to take somebody like Abraham. who was Jewish, never saw himself as anything else, and you're going— the Muslims will go, he was a Muslim. They will take Jesus, who saw himself as Jewish. Of course, Jesus foresaw Islam, but they'll go, Jesus was really a Muslim. Now, the reason we would immediately recognize this as bogus reasoning is because you don't have the right to foist on people identities that you invented later and give them names and labels that belong to you as if you can somehow appropriate them out of their environment. That's not right. Right? That's what you're doing.

That's not—

That's what you're doing.

That's not why we would find that poisonous.

We have to— this is the time that we do normally go into the Q&A, but it is kind of an amazing—

Can we get a brief closing each?

Yeah, that works.

Okay.

How much would you guys like? 2 minutes? 3 minutes?

Just, yeah, 2 minutes is fine.

Yeah, you go first.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, you should close last. I agree.

Well, I went first in the beginning.

Yeah, no, no, no, I agree. You should go— you should have the last word.

OK.

So first and foremost, this was really fun. And I really appreciate you coming up here and tangling with me, Dinesh. And by the way, I never take any of this personally. We have different ideologies that we're fighting for, slightly at least, but we have a lot of overlap too. And for that, I thank you. I— it's never personal for me. With that said, I kicked your ass in this debate bad because, because you never established a single moral ought or reason why it is that Christians have an obligation to support Jews or Israel. In fact, I got a lot out of you here I was not expecting. You claim that Judaism is itself an evil ideology because it's in heresy. You also claim that Islam is an evil ideology as it's in heresy, which is exactly my position. I believe those 2 things as well. And we both established another fact we can agree on, that ethnic Jews nor Arabs are evil because they're ethnic Jews or Arabs.

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground (naming agreement on ethnicity and building on it) · Andrew Wilson

Yes.

Arab. That's ridiculous on its face. So, we can make this ideological distinction immediately. The problem that we have is that I think due to your bad theology, which I'm happy to tangle with you in a different debate on the theological aspects of this, it's led you down this road where you seem to believe for some reason there's this ambiguous moral reason why there's an ought or a must for why it is that we must support Judaism or we must support Israel, this secular state which you agreed was a secular state, and you also agree, well, it's all— it also has religious Jews in it, and those religious Jews who are in it, they're following an evil ideology, and the secular state itself is part of an evil ideology because it's secular. We never got to the establishment of the ought. Now, I will give some credit to Dinesh. He had the harder position to defend, and usually that's me, so credit where it's due. It's a much harder position to defend that there is some moral obligation versus saying that there's not. So credit where credit's due. But honestly, my friend, you just never established one. And we tried and tried and tried and tried. Most of your analogies got turned back on you. Basically, every hypothetical you had got turned back on you, and your reasoning was shown to be completely fallacious. And with that, I'll end the debate. And I thank you very much for having it with me.

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-036

Thank you very much. Ready for you.

As Christians, are we morally obligated to support the Crusades?

Yes.

As Christians, are we morally obligated to support the spread of the Roman Empire and the Roman legions who carried Christianity across Europe?

Yes.

Were the Roman legions good guys?

No.

Were the Crusaders always good guys?

No.

Were we morally obligated to support the Allies in World War II?

Yes.

Were they all good guys? No. But they were on the right side of something— of a terrible evil that was being unleashed in the world. Were we right to support Stalin against Hitler?

Yes.

Because Hitler posed a greater threat at the time. Having supported Stalin against Hitler, were we right to have a Cold War against Stalin himself because he represented an embodiment of a different kind of evil in the Cold War? Yes. The world is no different today than it's ever been. There are lots of bad forces in the world, and there are some good forces that are trying to counter them. It's a very big world. And there are in it Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, Jews, Muslims. The fact that they are not on board with us theologically is one thing. It says that we need to promote the Great Commission. We need to promote the gospel. We need to support missionary efforts throughout the world. I don't disagree with any of this. But this is being deployed in a kind of brutish, fashion to somehow imply that Judaism is different than any— we make allies with countries all the time. We have common cause all the time that lasts for decades, sometimes centuries. We have special relationships with countries for good reason. We support and we should support South Korea against North Korea. That's why South Korea is a prosperous Western society. Now, maybe they allow a pride parade. But they are nevertheless a much preferable moral alternative to North Korea.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-025

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-234

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground (agreeing on the Great Commission) · Dinesh D'Souza

30 seconds.

The Jews are basically the good people in a really bad neighborhood made up of really bad people who wish us evil no less than them. Right there is a link. And this is not even considering the historical, the religious, the civilizational, the Athens and Jerusalem, the fact that our own heritage is inconceivable without the Old Testament no less than the New. We are linked historically, morally, and it so happens to be that there is a current serious threat in some ways greater than threats we faced before.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-025

Tense indeed.

And it's a threat faced not just by America, it's a threat faced by Christianity because the Islam The Islamic project is a religious project. It is the first totalitarian religious project in world history. We've had other totalitarianisms, but not based on religion. We're dealing with one. And what we've had this whole debate is a pretense that somehow there's no fundamental difference between the Islamic project and the Jewish project. And all of this nonsense about the fact that somehow Israel is just as evil—

Hear, hear.

arises out of that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Nash. We're gonna have a brief Q&A, and as people line up on the left side of this inside column, I wanna give a final thank you to all of our sponsors, including Main First Project, Roar, Uncensored America, Apologetics Arc, and Yonaguni International Cuisine. Check them out in the description box. We are grateful for all of our sponsors who believe in fair debate. With that, we're going to start the Q&A. If you guys can move right over here, thanks so much, and we're ready for you. And then folks, if you can do a favor, if you want to have a conversation, do us a favor, just do it in the hallway. That way people can hear people asking the questions and the speakers answering their questions. All right, here we go, folks. Need you— folks, need you to keep it down. Otherwise, it's okay to talk, but just go in the hallway and talk. Here we go.

All right, so my question's for Dinesh. Dinesh, the United States is $40 trillion in debt. Only 1 in 4 Gen Z adults own their own home. 69% of Gen Z reported living paycheck to paycheck in a 2025 survey. So my question to you is this: how much money am I as a 22-year-old husband and father obligated to give to Israel? Or if it's not that, if it's not a monetary obligation, do you just want like warm fuzzy feelings towards the Jews in Israel?

+4 R-2.1 · Whataboutism (money-to-Israel question deflected to other countries) · Dinesh D'Souza

May I ask you a question? What is—

Can you answer mine first and then ask me the question?

Yeah, I'll answer yours. I'm asking you with a view to answering yours. What is the total amount of money that we give to other countries?

I don't think we should give any money to other countries.

I'm not asking you what we should do. How much is it that we do give?

Couldn't tell you.

You have no idea?

No, I don't know. I don't know the details of our aid.

How much do we give to Israel?

About $3 billion a year, I think.

Okay, do you think it's kind of interesting that you are super well-informed on the $3 billion we give to Israel, and not informed at all as to how much do we give to Egypt?

Well, you did say that in this debate, to be fair.

What?

That's also true. That we give $3 billion to Israel.

No, correct. But what I'm saying is, isn't it interesting when the United States— I learned it from you, Dinesh. What I'm saying is—

You've been learning a lot.

The United States, unfortunately, is a profligate country that both domestically and internationally throws and wastes giant amounts of money. I'm simply saying it is really interesting that you have a surgical eye toward the $3 billion we give to one country, and you don't even know— you can't even say approximately what— if we were giving, let's just say, For example, $300 trillion or $10 trillion to other countries and $3.8 billion to Israel. Wouldn't that be interesting that you have no objection to all the others? You don't even know anything about them, but you're really well informed on this one.

This is entirely a non sequitur. You didn't answer my question and you went on a random tangent about other countries.

And I asked you specifically, how much am I obligated to give to Israel?

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-830

How much?

You are not obligated to give a single penny, but you're not obligated. No, you're not obligated.

Yeah, baby!

No, we, we as a country have to make— hold on, we as a country—

folks need you to keep it down in the back.

We as a country have to make a political calculation about what is the value of our alliance with Israel. Zero. Okay, well, what is the val— you know, we have We have NATO. We have alliances with South Korea and Japan. What is the value of having an alliance with India and Korea and Japan to check the growing power of China? You might answer again, zero. And that will put you into a position where the United States, by and large, just remains to itself and protects its own borders. And that's a defensible position. I'm not arguing against it. I'm simply saying that With Israel, we actually do get a lot for our money. With other countries, not only do we get nothing, we don't even ask. We don't even ask what we're getting.

Well, Dinesh, should Israel pay us to protect them?

Well, I mean, Israel, Israel, if the United States does Israel buy our military equipment just so they can pay us?

Well, I'm asking them just so they can hear you, Dinesh.

Just so they can hear you, your mic, if you can bring your mic. back towards you.

Right.

Oh, the second mic, though.

Yeah. Sorry.

I'm asking you specifically, should Israel pay us to protect them?

Yes. And I think it does. Israel does pay us.

What? How much per year do they pay us?

+4 R-2.1 · Whataboutism (Israel-pays-us question deflected to Europe/Taiwan) · Dinesh D'Souza

Well, does Israel buy our military equipment? Yes.

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-864

We buy theirs.

We buy theirs and they buy ours. So we—

that's a trade agreement. We actually send them cash. We send them money yearly. How much should they send to us? For protecting them, I don't want to hear about we trade with them. We trade with everybody. How much do you think they should pay us to protect them?

How much should the Europeans pay us to protect them?

A lot.

A lot.

And how much do you think that they pay more?

No, Trump is not. Trump is not even demanding that they pay us. Trump is simply demanding that they pay more to their own defense. Trump has not even asked for one dollar that the Europeans should pay us. Yeah, but so why? So why?

Look, then they should pay more for their own defense.

Okay.

The thing that's funny is like, all right, the European Union is not even a protectorate. They can defend themselves. Israel can't. They can't defend themselves without us. How much should our protectorates pay us? How much can we ask reasonably? Can we ask reasonably for fairness? Why not $500 a day per citizen of Israel?

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-856

I can give you a chance to respond, then we gotta go to the next question.

Yeah. How much should Taiwan pay us for, for preventing an invasion by China?

They should pay for whatever the naval cost is of doing that.

Right. This is why you're not president, because billing the Taiwanese per citizen isn't really going to work. We don't have to defend Taiwan if we don't want to, but it is in our interest to do it, by the way. It is in our interest to protect South Korea. It is in our interest to prevent bad stuff from happening in Europe. That's why even Trump, even though he's not involved in the Ukraine war, is keeping an eye on it. We do have interests even over there.

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-864

Well, I'd actually say this is why you shouldn't be president, because we can easily force these nations to pay a protection cost for us protecting their asses from invasion from their enemies.

Folks need you to keep it down.

Okay.

All right, just to get to the next question, and then folks, do me a favor and just keep the backward— or the background.

Thank you.

All right, Dinesh, to get to the Bible, right, in Isaiah 63:10, God turns his back on the Israelites because they disobeyed and broke the covenant.

Hosea chapter 1, verse 9, they did the same thing and he said to them, you are not my people, I am not your God. And then Christ himself, when he was brought before Pontius Pilate, the Jews said, we crucify him, something like that, and they accepted the curse. So why should Christians be morally obligated to support the ideologies that put God on a cross? Okay, I'm going to read you from Paul's letter to the Romans. This is 11:28-29. I'm reading verbatim. This is Paul talking about the Jews. Hold on, he's talking about the Jews. He's talking about the Jews. Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. End quote. The meaning of this is that God never permanently turns his back on the Jews. God never revokes his promises. You will not find a single passage in the Old Testament or the New which says God— whatever God gave to Abraham, God took it all back.

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-887

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-333

Okay.

Even though there are gripers who talk about that now, we should go occupy Israel, it really belongs to the Christians because Jesus was a Christian. The truth of it is that the Salvation— Jesus, out of Jesus's own mouth— salvation is from the Jews. I mean, this passage must really— I talked about some suppositories, right? Here's one from Jesus himself.

Yes.

Salvation is from the Jews, and the rest of us have the opportunity to be grafted in. In other words, there's no salvation without the Jews. Now, is anything that Andrew said today even remotely consistent with that? No. You know, you know that same chapter you brought up? Paul actually says the people of the Old Covenant were the ones getting crafted out, and then we, the Gentiles, are the ones being put in.

↳ evidence for the P27 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-888

11:22 and 27. It reaffirms the fact that wild branches grafted can be cut off. There you go.

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-887

All right, we'll jump to the next.

Being—

yeah. So yes, Andrew did say things that remotely support that.

Yes. No, no, he didn't. Yes, he did. No, he paraphrased something that he's interpreting in his own way.

I know. Who interprets the Bible? You? You're the ultimate authority?

Well, no, I just— I mean, I read it for you to interpret for yourself.

Well, and I just did.

It speaks for itself.

I just did, and I interpreted it differently.

Ready, Jonathan?

Funnily, I was actually going to do the same scripture, but I think it's really we need to protect the Jews. Because God is going to say, hey, when the full number of Gentiles come, then the Jews have to be saved, and then the end will come. That's really what I would go with. And I actually have a great idea for your next debate. Should Israel become a basically like, um, like a protectorate? Like, uh, what's the word? A vassal state? Yeah, well, not like a vassal state, but more like, um, like how, um, Puerto Rico is a, um Territory of the United States. Are you asking me? Would you like to do that as like a feature? Listen, what I think is this, is that I agree with a lot of what Dinesh says when he's talking about the rights of nations, especially when he's talking about conquest. I just think that you're not in a position to bargain if you're a protectorate, right? The, the Holy Land does not just belong to Jews. An Orthodox Church sits on the tomb of Jesus. Why is it that we don't continuously allow, Dinesh, for Christians to immigrate to Israel and make that demand that they allow it? Because there would be tens of thousands who would, and it's not like they're in a position to bargain. Why do we need to leave it a Jewish state exactly? Why is it necessary?

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-036

Well, first of all, we do live in a world of sovereignty where you— a lot of what you've been talking about, we need to seal our borders, America has every right to decide who comes in. But then when it comes to Israel, somehow they don't have that right.

No, no.

They can't decide who gets to leave.

It's not a right. Hang on. It's not a right. A right is what you can enforce.

This whole, this whole—

A right is what you can enforce, and they have no choice. We do. We're the United States. We can tell you, you can't come in here, fucker. But if we couldn't, what do you say? Conquest. It's conquest. If you're a protectorate, you don't have rights. Accept the rights that you are given by those who protect you, and that's that.

All right, so you have a holy land. By the way, the holy land is not just Israel, right? There are holy sites in Jordan. There are holy sites all over the region. The Muslims maintain iron control over the holy sites in their countries. Christians have no rights. If you've been to any of the holy sites in Israel, as I have, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is thronging with Syrian nuns and nuns from India and priests from Africa. It's open. All faiths can come there. There's no restriction. So the argument that we should use military force—

I didn't say military force.

Or we should strong-arm Israel, that we need 100,000 Christians to go over there to keep an eye on the holy sites. This is an invented solution to a non-problem.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Dinesh D'Souza · ruling prints at U-911

Oh wait, every solution—

And it's done with just malicious intent.

Every solution is—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption (talking over Wilson's fragment to continue own point) · Dinesh D'Souza

Because you would never say, say that of anybody, any other country. Yes, I would. No, you wouldn't.

I would say the same thing. Any protectorate that we have where we allow immigration to us, we should demand that they allow immigration there, period.

Okay, so what's legal?

Then we gotta go to the next one.

Let's keep moving. Um, Dinesh, if I decided to convert to Judaism tomorrow, do I have the right to move to Israel and kick out a Christian family from their home?

live in it?

And if the answer is no, what percentage of my DNA being ethnically Jewish would make this morally justified?

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-921

+2 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard hypothetical (convert displacing a Christian family) · Dinesh D'Souza

Let's go through it slowly, because there are like 4 steps in there. If you have a right to convert to Judaism, which you do, yeah, and then you would have a right to emigrate to Israel. If Israel takes Jews from all over the world, it follows. The rest of it doesn't follow. So I don't think that you have some right to go kick someone out of their home. I don't agree that you would have the right to displace a Christian family. So no, you would have the right to move to Israel. You could go buy an apartment in, you know, Hazor or wherever you want and live there.

But what about a nation's sovereignty, man? Like, couldn't they just say, hey, you can kick out this Christian and you'd be fine with that? Because they're sovereign and stuff, right?

Well, what I'm saying is that Israel is a democracy. They have— they can make laws within their country. just like we can make laws in ours. I haven't heard you propose that we go take Jordan by force, even though there are holy sites in Jordan. There are holy sites all over the region, by the way. You have abstained from calling for any kind of strong-arming of any Muslim country. Why? Because you know that that's stupid and we're not going to do it and it's not even on the table.

Yeah, I don't—

But somehow when it comes to Israel, it's like, okay, because—

Yes, I don't think Christians want to immigrate to invade bred Muslim nations. That big brain mesh over here.

Okay. Okay.

I do think that they would want to immigrate to Israel, the site of Jesus Christ. Yes.

Try to get more. Yes.

This one's for you, Andrew.