A mere 11 months to the day since President Trump took office, ISIS has been defeated in Iraq and Syria. Not bad. Also, grand-standing empty-head Charlie Rose has been fired for sexually harassing women after months of haranguing Donald Trump for saying naughty words to Billy Bush. We’ll catch you up on the latest Democrat sexual assailants to be exposed, pun very much intended. Bradley Devlin, Amber Athey, and Elisha Krauss join the Panel of Deplorables to talk the DOJ’s investigating Harvard for race discrimination over its affirmative action policies, how the era of sex bots is upon us—finally!—and, BLM activist Sean King’s idiocy. How redundant.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
A mere 11 months to the day since President Trump took office, ISIS has been defeated in Iraq and Syria.
Not bad.
Also, grandstanding empty head Charlie Rose has been fired for sexually harassing women after months of haranguing Trump for saying naughty words about women to Billy Bush.
We will catch you up on the latest Democrat sexual assailants to be exposed, pun very much intended.
Bradley Devlin and Alicia Krause and Amber Athe join the panel of deplorables to talk the DOJ's investigating Harvard for race discrimination over its affirmative action policies, how the era of sex bots is upon us, finally, and BLM activist Sean King's idiocy, how redundant.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.
We have a lot to talk about today.
One thing I do want to mention though, I mentioned this at the end of the show yesterday that Another Kingdom, my narrative podcast with Andrew Klavan that he wrote and I perform and it's the last acting role I'll ever have in Hollywood.
Thank you.
Believe it or not, a major Hollywood producer that I can't disclose on the show is interested in taking on this project.
So more than ever, I really need you to send this to your friends and keep reviewing it and sharing it and whatever.
Because I think we might actually be able to ram this down Hollywood's throat.
And that would give me immense, immense pleasure as Hollywood is lying in rubble to force a project by conservatives and performed by conservatives on them.
So please do go over to Andrew Klavan's Another Kingdom, wherever fine fantasy right-wing conspiracy podcasts are downloaded.
Okay, into the news.
ISIS is over.
That's some news.
And it was pretty quick, wasn't it?
Mattis, General Mattis, told us back in April that Trump had given him a mandate to annihilate ISIS. And now, guess what?
ISIS is annihilated.
Iraq Prime Minister Hadir al-Abadi and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced victory today.
For those with short memories, ISIS developed...
In 2013, during the Barack Obama administration, in the power vacuum created by Barack Obama's very stupid decision to pull American forces out of Iraq.
But, in fairness to Barack Obama, how could he have known?
How could Obama have known that pulling troops out of Iraq would lead to the rise of an even more dangerous threat than we were already fighting?
Our nation deserves a serious debate about Iraq because the outcome of this conflict will have enormous consequences for our country.
Failure in Iraq would allow terrorists to operate from a safe haven with access to the world's third largest oil reserves.
Failure in Iraq would increase the probability that at some later date, American troops would have to return to Iraq to confront an enemy more dangerous and more entrenched.
Failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal to America's enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat.
America's involvement in Iraq does not have to end this way.
What a dummy, huh?
I can't believe anyone ever believed that guy.
You know that guy that just perfectly predicted every single thing that would happen after he left office?
Yeah, you know that guy.
Even predicting what his opponent, Barack Obama, what his political opponent, Barack Obama, would end up doing and all of the terrible things that followed from that.
What did we get just a few years later?
Let's take a look.
This is James Wright Foley, an American citizen of your country.
As a government, you have been at the forefront of the aggression towards the Islamic State.
You have plotted against us and gone far out of your way to find reasons to interfere in our affairs.
That was Jihad John and we tolerated him beheading a lot of Americans.
Americans James Foley, Stephen Sotloff, Peter Kasig among many others were gruesomely beheaded by ISIS on Barack Obama's watch.
Though the most chilling actually may have been ISIS's simultaneous beheading of 21 Coptic Christians who were crying out their belief in Yeshua on a beach in Tripoli while Barack Obama was apologizing for the Crusades or whatever other nonsense he was doing in office.
ISIS also shot up a Tunisian tourist resort, killing 38 Europeans.
ISIS bombed Turkey and killed 33, crashed a Russian airplane, killing 224, bombed Turkey again.
Petersburg, killing 15, Manchester, killing 22, and many, many other attacks.
After all, with all that weight of evidence, how would Barack Obama describe the group?
President Obama speaking out about America's deadliest enemies, his choice of words getting a lot of attention.
In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, he compares groups linked to al-Qaeda to an amateur basketball team.
Quote, the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, Doesn't make them Kobe Bryant, they're just the JV team, isn't that?
Barack Obama did this from the beginning of his campaign onward.
He was operating under the belief that if he would say things, that would make them true.
He clearly suffered from some version of narcissism, and very frequently he would just say things that obviously didn't comport with reality, but nevertheless he said a lie often enough told will become a truth.
What exactly did he mean by the JV team?
We think we have an idea, but he goes on and explains it in another interview.
What I do insist on is that we maintain a proper perspective And that we do not provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order.
Yeah, you know, they're not – how would they be an existential threat?
They're the JV team.
They're not wreaking havoc all over the entire globe and destroying a region, destroying two nations in a region and challenging American credibility there.
The existential threat is crucial here because – We're talking about an ideology that has been encroaching and fighting the West for 1,400 years.
We're talking about political Islamism.
And Barack Obama, for whatever reason, refused to see that as an existential threat to the West.
He also famously made fun of Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat, probably because Barack Obama thinks the greatest threats are from within or something.
He couldn't seem to identify an actual geopolitical threat.
To the United States.
Now, because he didn't consider them an existential threat, he didn't pursue them.
Here's Barack Obama explaining that strategy.
He says that what you have on the ground now is not going to be enough.
Every couple of months, you're going to be faced with the same choice, back down or double down.
I think what is true is that this has always been a multi-year project.
Unbelievable mealy meth.
This is what happens, by the way, when I'm late writing a piece or writing up a show or God King Jeremy Boring or Ben Shapiro, they come to me and say, where's the piece?
I'll say, look, look, look.
This has always been a multi-year project.
Look, this has always been, we just need strategic patience.
We just need to lead from behind.
But clearly, he had no interest in fighting ISIS whatsoever.
We know that he wanted to be a domestic policy president.
We also know that he failed at every level when it came to foreign policy.
Let's bring on our panel to discuss the failures of Barack Obama, one of my favorite topics to discuss.
We have Amber Athey, we have Bradley Devlin, and we have the Daily Wire's own Alicia Krauss.
Thank you all for joining.
Amber, why would Barack Obama not destroy ISIS? Apparently it wasn't that hard.
Apparently it only took 11 months when we decided we actually want to do it.
Why didn't he care?
I think there's this weird kind of political correctness from the left where they're actually afraid to speak strongly to our enemies.
And that's become even more apparent since Donald Trump has taken office because people get really upset at him When he uses strong language towards ISIS or regimes like North Korea, you'll remember when he got in that Twitter spat with Kim Jong-un, the left was freaking out worrying about a nuclear war.
So in some senses, they're more worried about the language that they're using rather than actually defeating our enemies.
They are concerned with language because they think that they can speak reality into existence.
The appearance is the reality, but of course that isn't the case.
The reality is the reality, and when you use a language that doesn't comport with that, eventually people are going to stop believing you.
You can't do that forever, Bradley.
Bush predicted it.
Obama completely lost control over it, and Trump defeated these guys.
Why are Democrats so bad at foreign policy in the last 20 years?
I can't answer that question.
It's really hard.
It's a tough one.
It's a head-scratcher.
Exactly.
And the interesting thing is Republican presidents have been fairly consistent with their foreign policy since the Reagan era.
The greatness of the Republican presidents is that they understand that their generals and the individuals on the ground will always be better at assessing the situations.
And so what Trump has done is delegated that power back to his generals.
And what have we seen?
In 11 months, ISIS is taken down.
In six months, we We declared victory in Mosul, and we took back one-third of the territory that they gained in 2015 under the Obama administration.
So I believe there was a lot of disingenuous attempts to spread democracy and Wilsonian democratic peace theory through the Obama administration.
We're no longer going out and building nations.
We're going out and defeating terrorists.
We can't build nations if the preconditions to build a nation don't exist.
So the way we do that is fighting terrorists.
Surely, if we're talking about Wilsonian democracy and making the world safe for democracy or whatever, we do have to bring up Mr.
Bush Jr.
That was the rousing second inaugural of George W. Bush was like a religious sermon on freedom and freedom around the world.
How much blame should we put at George W. Bush's feet?
And how does he compare to Barack Obama?
Well, I think you saw Hillary Clinton try to do that a lot and put the blame on Bush for Barack Obama pulling out of Iraq.
Barack Obama Obama was supposed to renegotiate with the Iraqi government on how many boots we were going to keep on the ground and how we were going to maintain peace in that region by limiting the terrorists' impact.
And Bush does share some of this blame, but not to the extent that Barack Obama did, because Bush, as you showed in your monologue, predicted all of these events if we were to abandon Iraq.
And Wilsonian foreign policy aside, trying to spread democracy abroad aside, there is a big difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and that's one demonstrated political courage and one demonstrated political cowardice.
When George W. Bush ordered the surge in Iraq in 2007, it was as unpopular as one could imagine, but he chose to do it because it was the right thing to do, and Barack Obama pulled out of Iraq, a war that we had already won, We're good to
when it came to Barack Obama, and there was courage when it came to George W. Bush.
But moving away from both of those guys, Alicia, Mitt Romney famously was pilloried for saying in 2012 that the United States' greatest geopolitical threat is Russia.
Barack Obama said that the Muslim terrorists should not pose an existential threat to the United States.
Where does Muslim terrorism rank on all of the global threats that we face?
I think radical Muslim terrorism and ISIS specifically still ranks as number one, even though we have the prime minister of Iraq and, you know, people, leaders in Iran saying, oh, we've eradicated ISIS, they're out of here.
Not true.
Just four hours ago, German authorities released details that they have made an arrest that they think was the leader of a terror cell that came directly from Syria.
And had we, in George W. Bush's defense, by the way, had he been in power during the Arab Spring, I know he would have handled it better and differently.
Had he been in power during the fall of, you know, the Egyptian leader and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood there, it would have been handled better.
Something different there.
Also, now we're dealing with Bashar al-Assad, who is meeting with Putin and super chummy.
So Mitt Romney was right.
Not only is he a decent human being, he was absolutely right on the geopolitical field of what was going to happen and how dangerous Russia is.
You know, they're assisting China, who's assisting North Korea.
They're assisting, you know, Assad in Syria, who's very dangerous for the region, committing genocide against his own people.
And all those countries are assisting Iran.
This is a problem, and I really hope that our Secretary of State, General Mattis, who I'm a big fan of, and President Trump, get down to business and do something about it very quickly.
But one has to rank priorities because sometimes these foreign policy threats conflict.
So you would rank radical Islam as the greatest threat, as a greater threat than Russia, you say?
Well, tied, because Russia is feeding into radical Islam, so it is a threat, for sure.
I think that ISIS attacks on Western civilization all over the world is a massive threat, but they are being fed by the likes of Russia.
And there is an existential threat here.
I mean, it depends.
Russia appears to have a relationship with Bashar Assad, but Bashar Assad has no fondness for ISIS or other Islamist groups that threaten his power in Syria.
The thing that Putin and Bashar Assad have in common is that they are fond of themselves, and that's about it.
Aren't we all?
We're all a little fond of ourselves.
I'm definitely of the Nikki Haley mindset here, that if we're using the excuse that Assad is going to help us defeat ISIS, he ain't the kind of guy to invite to be on our team.
Well, it's hard.
There are always challenges between more idealistic foreign policies and more realpolitik foreign policies.
And there's a strain of this in conservatism.
We've been grappling with what to do between these for all of the history of conservatism and moves one way during George W. Bush.
It's a different way under Nixon.
It's a different way under Reagan.
Maybe Reagan fuses the two together.
But a difficult situation, and the one thing I think we can all agree on is that Barack Obama was dead wrong about it because there are existential threats to our civilization and our way of life, and it's not just about who controls some piece of the Middle East.
It's about ideas, and it's about attacking the foundations of civilizations that sometimes come into conflict.
All right, we need to get onto the news.
We have a lot of news to talk.
We haven't talked about sex once today, I don't think.
This has been the longest we've gone without talking about sex.
And we always talk about that when I'm on the panel.
There we go.
I'm about to get Weinstein'd.
Marshall, throw out the bathtub.
I blew it.
The bathrobe, rather, not the bathtub.
Keep that in there.
We have to talk about all of this sex.
We have to talk about many other wonderful stories.
We're going to attack Harvard a little bit.
We're going to talk about sex bots.
We're going to talk about Sean King being a dum-dum.
But unfortunately, if you are subscribed only on Facebook and YouTube, you can't see the rest of the show.
You have to go to dailywire.com and subscribe, and then you get the whole rest of the show.
You'll get no ads on the website.
You'll get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan Show.
You get the Ben Shapiro Show.
Yada, yada, yada.
Thank you to everyone who already subscribes, but you're always listening to this anyway.
I appreciate you for keeping the lights on.
For those of you who are not yet, let me try to convince you, huh?
I've got three words, buddy.
Leftist Tears Tumblr.
There it is.
With ISIS in ruins, the Obama-era tears, people who said he was going to institute a new world peace, he was going to make the world love us, they are going to be gushing tears, and you are going to need a vessel to contain all of them.
That's why you need to go to dailywire.com right now.
We'll be right back.
All right, back to saxophone.
Finally, finally, this whole week, the whole last two weeks is just sex, sex, sex.
I guess that's fine by me.
It's scintillating enough to read the news.
Al Franken, as you know, is under fire.
There was another allegation against him that he groped a woman's derriere during the state fair.
He, I know, I know, I really like it when these guys, who are so sanctimonious about sex, then it turns out that they are kind of creepy themselves.
So...
In typical fashion, Saturday Night Live, liberal women empowered feminists.
What did they do when they found out their former colleague has been groping women?
They issued a statement of support for Al Franken.
They supported Franken.
They don't believe his accusers or they don't care about his accusers.
They are just supporting their buddy because they're totally full of it.
Speaking of people who are totally full of it on the issue of sexual deviancy, we have to talk about Charlie Rose.
Charlie Rose has been fired.
He's that droning, slothy zombie who's at CBS and gives terrible interviews because he doesn't know anything about the people that he's interviewing and might not have ever read a whole book in his life.
Charlie Rose has been fired for multiple sexual harassment scandals.
Apparently people have known about this.
His producer has known about this forever.
And just to refresh your memory, here is Charlie Rose grandstanding on the issue of sexual assault and naughty language to Steve Bannon just a few months ago.
They do care about values and they do care about respect for women.
They do.
And you know that.
And it's not just locker room talk.
That's locker room talk.
The Billy Bush thing is locker room talk.
By the way, we have empirical evidence to prove this.
Democrat Rep, let's just point this out.
John Conyers is also denying sexual harassment claims as we speak.
I assume since we started the show, another 12 or 15 Democrat congressmen have been accused of sexual harassment.
We'll try to update you as I check Twitter during the question section.
Alicia, what is going on?
This is really, really weird.
Obviously, we've been talking about this a lot over the last two weeks.
Yeah.
What has spurred this crazy era?
We've seen it trickling a little bit with Cosby.
We know the individual incidents, but culturally from a bigger level, why are we all grappling with sexual assault right now?
I think that really, to her credit, Gretchen Carlson, when she came forward against Roger Ailes, it was something that the mainstream media was like, oh my God, this is amazing.
We can try to take down Fox News.
They obviously failed there.
And credit to Gretchen for coming forward publicly.
Megyn Kelly and other women at Fox were brave and came forward as well.
And I think that once the mainstream media saw that this, like you used the word titillating and interesting, and it increased their clicks, it increased their ratings, they were, the blood was in the water and they were pouncing and ready for more.
And I do think that there is an aspect of women, you know, as they hear other women come forward, they become more comfortable with coming forward and sharing their stories.
Credit to Leanne Tweeden and these other people for doing this.
The Conyers thing, by the way, is just atrocious.
I think our very own Amanda Prestigiacomo wrote a really great piece that outlines how our taxpayer dollars have been settling HR and ethics and sexual assault complaints in Congress for years.
Our tax dollars have been covering these guys' butts for their crappy behavior.
And I don't know.
I mean, even my liberal girlfriends, I think, would be able to get on board with saying our tax dollars should not be covering that.
You and I have been paying out hush money to cover up Democrat sexual deviance.
It's ridiculous.
In fairness, there are sexual deviance on both sides of the aisle.
But recently we're seeing this spate of Democrats.
But Bradley, is there something in the air?
I was talking to Andrew Klavan about this last night.
He thinks what we're seeing is the end of the Clinton era, that if...
If Hillary Clinton had been elected and Bill Clinton were in the White House right now, none of this would be happening because then there would be uncomfortable questions about the first gentleman, an ironic title if ever there were one.
Is that what we're seeing?
Are we seeing the end of Clintonism, this Clinton break for women's progress, or is it something else?
I think that hopefully I could be wrong about this, that the mainstream media is figuring out that if they actually want to be pro-women's rights, they can't be for anyone who has committed sexual assault regardless of their political affiliation.
And it's funny because now the mainstream media is adopting conservative standards that if you are acting sexually immoral, you should be removed from whatever position of power you have.
And it's refreshing to me to know that all of these individuals...
Are older individuals within these political and media spheres and hopefully my generation and our generation will be able to come forward and push candidates and push individuals and politicians that You give them more credit than I do.
I don't think there's anything high-minded about their realizations.
I don't think they suddenly woke up one day and said, ah, I know the way to advance women's rights is to attack those scumbags that we've been covering for for two decades.
Maybe I'm a little jaded or a little cynical, but I think it's because they've been attacking Roy Moore.
Bill Clinton, the big albatross on sexual issues for Democrats, is finished.
He's totally done.
And I think they realize the only way we can continue to attack guys like Roy Moore is if we clean a little bit of house ourselves.
Amber, tell me that I'm too jaded and too cynical.
Or are we heading into a new Victorian era?
I 100 percent agree with you, actually.
I think as soon as this stuff about Roy Moore came out, a lot of conservatives, myself included, were critiquing the media, asking, why didn't you do this for people like Bill Clinton?
Why didn't you do this for all the people that you've been covering for for all of these years?
And they started to realize, if their claims against Roy Moore were going to be credible, then they had to go out and clean out, basically clean house of all of these abusers That have been sitting at news desks with them for years.
And I know that this is true because just last week, or excuse me, last year, During the presidential election, the media ran defense for Bill Clinton.
Whenever it was brought up in relation to Donald Trump, they always shut down whatever pundit was on TV with them.
They called the allegations against him discredited.
And those are the same exact language that people use to defend Donald Trump.
So the media started to wise up and realize, well, look, if conservatives are going to be on board with us attacking people like Donald Trump and Roy Moore, Then we're going to have to finally come out against Boaklin.
And by the way, it doesn't actually matter anymore anyway because he's not in power.
Yeah, it's over.
I think they, for a while, it was more important to them to keep Bill Clinton than to hit Republican sexual deviants.
But now that Clinton's over, it's much more fun for them to attack Trump or Roy Moore.
I also think that you've seen the tides turn specifically, and we talked about this the other day.
Millennial women voters, even the liberal ones, didn't get out and vote for Hillary Clinton because they did care about the Bill Clinton aspect.
And you have, Ben pointed it out on his podcast a couple days ago, and I think he is accurate in saying it's interesting that all of these reports that we're seeing typically tend to be these dirty old men.
There has been, thank God, a generational change where men don't do this anymore or they realize that it's not appropriate in the workplace anymore.
And so you don't really have that many Generation Xers or Millennials that are going out there and doing this kind of stuff in the workplace.
Alicia, give them time.
Give those dirty dogs some time.
Wait till they turn 60.
Right.
Yeah, they're young and good-looking now.
Just wait until they get old and creepy.
I'm less hopeful than you are, I think.
All right, enough about sex for now.
Don't worry, we'll get back to sex.
We'll go back to all the sex bots later on.
But first, let's make fun of Harvard a little bit.
The DOJ is currently investigating Harvard University, first university in the country, for racial discrimination in its admissions practices because of affirmative action.
Specifically, they're talking about discrimination against Asian American students who are applying and being disadvantaged because Asian American students on average do very well on tests and there have been de facto quotas at universities for decades.
Now, so often we hear about the side of affirmative action that gives people an unfair advantage.
So students who come from either poor places or because of the color of their skin or where they come from or whatever, they get a little boost when it comes to college applications.
Very rarely are we willing to consider the logically necessary flip side of that coin, which is that students who are more qualified, who have on just on paper better applications will be disadvantaged if you give someone else an advantage for another reason.
Alicia, is there any reason in 2017 to continue the practice of affirmative action in college admissions?
I really think that it is damaging.
And now we're typically seeing that I think the next generation—I'm sorry, I'm all about generations today.
I've just been reading lots of studies about them.
But you talked a couple weeks ago to Kristen Soltys-Anderson about Generation Z, right?
They're the best.
They are the best.
And they're potentially going to be really the best.
And I think that conservatives have an opportunity to win them over politically.
But in addition to that, they're the most racially diverse, and they're now going to be majority minority.
Most of them come from mixed families.
Most of them come from what typically was minority families for every other generation in the United States.
And so really, when you look at the beauty of America and the melting pot that we have become, just hold everybody to the same standard.
And we've seen that Harvard isn't the only one that's done this.
There are some professors that came out a couple years ago at UCLA that had said during the admissions process they knew that people in the admissions department would see an Asian last name and they'd automatically deduct SAT points or not pay as much attention to that student's essay because they suspected that the Asian student's IQ was going to be better than that of a Hispanic or an African American or even a white Caucasian student.
That's just ridiculous.
Let's, like, stop looking at people's names.
Let's stop assuming their ethnicities.
And let's get down to the brass tacks of are they qualified and able to go to that school or not?
But then, of course, the lefties won't be able to hang on to their favorite aspect of politics.
That's right.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Amber, is there, you know, 25 years ago when Sandra Day O'Connor upheld, maybe a little bit less, when the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote and said, That over time, it would become less important to have affirmative action and eventually it would be ruled unconstitutional or done away with.
It was almost admitting that it's unconstitutional, but it simply was being upheld to correct some historic wrong.
Has that time now come?
Is it important in the upcoming Supreme Court sessions that we overturn or deem unconstitutional affirmative action policies?
I think it has come.
And as Alicia said, the upcoming generation is one of the most racially diverse and the generation that has some of the most opportunities available to them.
And I think affirmative action is especially damaging in the sense that it admits people who aren't qualified for universities and ultimately is just setting them up to fail.
So liberals sort of We're good to go.
In the Georgetown student newspaper yesterday, that's where I went to school, and there was a student they had admitted who finished his junior year of high school with a 1.5 GPA, and Georgetown is supposed to be a prestigious university, and you can guess what happened.
The student failed two classes his freshman year and then ended up having to take a year off for health issues, and he's not even sure if he's going to graduate.
So I think it's really disappointing to see Liberals claiming kindness when really they're just harming these people and damaging them financially, too.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is—what you're talking about is mismatch theory.
Scalia was called a racist for bringing this up, but it's a well-substantiated theory, which is that if a university admits somebody who isn't qualified, then they're not going to excel there.
Maybe they'll graduate, but they won't do very well, and that will follow them throughout their lives, whereas— Yeah, this is— It's happening, actually.
Sorry to interrupt you.
Sorry, go ahead.
No.
Well, it's happening in law schools as well, and there's actually studies that have come out that have shown that minority students are passing the bar at much lower rates, and it's mainly because less qualified applicants are being admitted through affirmative action programs.
It's really no good because if you go to a school that you're qualified for, then you have a chance of doing well there and succeeding and moving up an academic ladder or a professional ladder.
But if you're constantly failing, it's very difficult to pull yourself back up.
I think there's also a realization that, you know, sometimes, and this is coming from the college dropout here that ended up working in talk radio and now is still in media, so maybe I haven't done everything right in my life.
A lot of college dropouts have done in talk radio and have done very well in that field.
I'm not as successful as Rush and Sean, but thanks for that.
But I think that we need to come to the realization, too, is that kids cannot be whatever they want to be.
I think Mike Rowe did a video about this over at Prager University.
Maybe kids shouldn't follow their passion.
You might want to feel like you should be an attorney and argue before the Supreme Court one day, but you also might not be able to cut it, so you should figure out a profession that you're actually decent at that's going to pay you for the rest of your life.
You know, it might be this thing that we've been told since we were kids.
You can be whatever you want to be.
You can do whatever you want.
That has maybe led to this moment where a little boy thinks that he can become a big grown woman or vice versa.
But again, we are limited by, in part, our biology, by our circumstances, by time and space.
And unfortunately, I will never be a ballerina no matter how much I try.
Let's get to sexbots.
Are you ready to talk about sex bots?
It's been almost 35 seconds since we last talked about sex.
The sex bot demand has been skyrocketing around the world.
There are brothels across Europe that are now firing women and just hiring plastic dolls.
The men would prefer the dolls.
According to porn star Harriet Sugar Cookie, I think that's her Christian name, she said, you can get almost anything you want.
It's a fantasy.
A doll with three boobs?
No problem.
Elf ears?
Sure.
A cattail?
Why not?
And they make them look super realistic.
I'm just going to take a moment and think about that.
Thank you.
That's very, very strange.
Very hard to process.
Don't know that I can.
Three boobs, a cattail, and elf ears.
Alicia, what is the...
Why are you going to me on this?
What is...
You're our expert here.
What?
You're our...
You know, on this question of artificial sex versus real sex, virtual sex versus real people, is the culture moving toward...
A fake reality toward an illusion?
Is that the essence of the sexbots, or is it just that perverts can't find women to fulfill their fantasies?
It's like a mix of Hunger Games meets Brave New World meets a book that hasn't even been written yet and probably shouldn't be.
I never thought I would defend the oldest profession in the world, but I mean, these poor women getting, like, talk about the fight for 15 and minimum wage.
I knew McDonald's was replacing cashiers with robots, but now apparently hookers are being replaced by them, too.
Things are real tough in that business.
It's really hard with industrialization like this.
But I just, I kind of am like, if you're going to be the creeper, the creepy creepy creeper that doesn't just want a hooker but wants a robot hooker, you go do your thing and us conservatives will be fruitful and multiply and then we're going to eventually take over the world.
This is my only hope for the future and I will keep repeating it and beating that drum forever.
Bradley, I think you're the youngest guy on this panel.
You're one of those Gen Zers maybe.
Maybe you're at the end of the millennials.
What is it about the removal from real people?
You know, I know now all of dating happens on a phone.
You just swipe.
There's a lot of texting.
In the old days, in my day, that wasn't the case.
Obviously, porn is on the rise globally among younger and younger people.
There was a study that came out that one in 10 teenagers under 18 have tried anal sex with a partner of the opposite sex.
I think it's three in 10 by 25.
These kids are getting kind of weird and kinky, but it's also less real.
It's also more digital.
It's also more virtual.
What does that say about the dating scene?
Why are people substituting illusion for the real thing?
I think it's superficial.
and it's based on instant gratification.
Women won't necessarily give you exactly what you want when you want it, and so you need a robot to do it.
Sadly, apparently.
And I think that this trend is very clear in Japan, where if you look at Japan's population in the 1990s, it looked like a Christmas tree.
But now it's starting to look like a spinning top, and it's because Japanese women are actually turning towards erotic apps because Japanese men can't connect with them on a personal level, and so Japanese men are turning towards video games and sex robots.
And coincidentally, those sex robots look like Christmas trees on spinning tops, which is really weird.
You would never expect that.
Exactly.
A Christmas tree with three spinning tops and a cattail.
Don't forget the elf ears.
Don't forget the elf ears.
Yeah, you know, I almost wore my Spock ears on the show, but I thought it was going to be a little too nerdy.
Yeah.
I just pray that America doesn't fall into this trap.
I think that we saw the movie called Her, where he falls in love with a Siri character played by Scarlett Johansson or something like that.
And I just pray that we keep in mind that instant gravification isn't the way to build a proper society.
I mean, if you look at the polarization of politics and sensationalization of media, It's had effects in the political realm, and I hope that we don't take that to our bedrooms.
Well, I don't know.
I always think about politics in the bedroom.
Amber, to be devil's advocate, people who are saying that these sex dolls aren't just the end of human existence, they're saying that it's a good outlet for perverts to indulge their sexual fantasies without hurting people.
Pedophiles, for instance.
If you have sexual fantasies about children, then you can use one of these little dolls and then you don't have to hurt a child.
Does that argument hold water or no?
Uh, God, no.
I mean, who is the person that's making a child sex doll?
Pretty rich in certain parts of the world, apparently, but I don't know, maybe we'll pass laws against it.
Yeah, I mean, I think this whole thing is rather disturbing, and I'm going to be really original here and blame liberals for this, because I think a lot of this comes out of...
So brave.
I know, right?
Thank you.
I think a lot of this comes out of the sort of free love, anything goes movement, where liberals have told people for years and years that you can indulge whatever your weird sexual desires are and nobody can judge you for it.
And we've always said that there were some things that people should be judged for, like pedophilia.
And now apparently we're at the point where, well, we're going to judge you, but we're also going to provide an outlet for your weird desires.
So everything is spiraling downhill into this sexual degeneracy.
And I think it also just causes people not to value human relationships and human sexual relationships as much, which leads to the sexual harassment culture.
So everything goes full circle.
It just feeds the lust.
It just feeds the sin.
Yeah, Alicia, you brought up these poor, now impoverished prostitutes who are seeing their wages go down.
Isn't there something to be said, though, that prostitution is a vicious and terrible industry?
That's why we have laws against it, is we don't want women who are desperate to fall into this abusive industry.
If there are sex dolls for men to go and have their fun with, won't that create an incentive to get rid of prostitution, and won't that be good for women?
Is it possible that, like, both are bad, and both are demoralizing and awful for society, and we should maybe say, hey, the buck stops here?
Like, we don't want this done at all?
But if you had to make a choice, if you had to say we have a world in which, because that's really what's being posed by the sex bots...
If they're really spreading, if they're really shutting down brothels, are the sex bots better than the prostitutes, than prostitution for women?
If wishes were fishes, we'd all be swimming in riches, but it is a fallen world.
If you had to choose one sort of decadence and debauchery, would you take the robots or the real life hookers?
Why are you doing this to me?
I don't like this question at all.
I say neither, neither, neither.
Amber, Bradley, any thoughts?
I completely agree with Alicia.
Let's keep with these aren't binary choices that we're working with.
It's like 2016, Michael.
Don't do the binary choice again.
That was also a good decision then.
It's been a pretty good year, as we just talked about ISIS being defeated.
Amber, are you going to take a stand?
Against sex robots?
Yes.
No, I am really curious about this question because I think there's an unwillingness to deal with it.
We can say, well, we should outlaw the sex robots and we should keep prostitution illegal.
Well, you know, they're both bad things.
But it poses a real question for society.
It's very easy for conservatives to say that pornography is bad and virtual sex is bad and yada, yada, yada.
But is it possible that there is something good that might come out of it, which would be the protection of women in desperate circumstances?
Maybe.
I think the problem, though, is that if you rely on the sex robots, like I said, you take away human interaction from people.
They start to value human relationships less.
And when they do get into human relationships, I think they're more likely to act improperly or abuse those people because they haven't been taught what the rules are.
So I don't like this Would You Rather game either.
That's a great point.
And C.S. Lewis brings this up when he talks about animal cruelty.
He says the reason not to abuse animals is not because the animals have some rights or something, but because it makes you crueler.
It deafens your humanity.
It dulls your humanity.
And certainly that's the moral hazard with weird sex robots or something, is it...
To the greatest extreme, makes you view people as objects.
You are literally objectifying people, and that can't be good for your own humanity.
We're going to end on an excellent tweet, just a tweet that personifies, that totally embodies left-wing activism in 2017.
Sean King, the BLM activist who recently blocked me on Twitter because I quoted his own words at him, Sean King sent out a tweet, and he said, Ungrateful is the new n-word.
The word ungrateful.
because Donald Trump called LeVar Ball ungrateful after his child was released from that Chinese jail because of Donald Trump's machinations with the Chinese government.
And so Sean King said this was a racist statement and ungrateful is the new N-word.
Now, it's worth pointing out that Donald Trump has also called Chelsea Manning ungrateful and called rapper Mac Miller not only ungrateful but an ungrateful dog, both of whom are white people.
Amber is ungrateful the new N-word artist.
Are these racist dog whistles coming out of the White House?
No, obviously not.
As with a lot of Donald Trump tweets, I think it was maybe a little bit tone deaf.
Not in the sense that it was racist at all, but just that it was kind of not very presidential.
But, I mean, what else is new?
But on the other side of the coin, you have this weird...
Where Donald Trump did a really great thing and got three UCLA basketball players out of a Chinese prison.
And the father of one of them has been incredibly unkind to the person who basically saved his son.
So no, I don't think it's a racial thing.
And I actually saw a hot take on CNN yesterday, where one of their guests said that Donald Trump is unwilling to attack white men on Twitter, and I'm sure all of us could probably name like 10 white men each.
Rosie O'Donnell.
No, that's not nice.
That's not nice at all.
Not nice.
They do accuse this.
They often say that the word thug is now a euphemism for the N-word.
You probably saw this during the Ferguson riots and the Black Lives Matter summers.
Bradley, are these euphemisms, or is it okay to call a thug a thug and an ingrate an ingrate?
Well, actually, I'm taking a class that's political justice, and it's basically Reagan bashing 101, and they kind of lay out the narrative on why the Nixon and Reagan administrations actually were using the N-word when they were using all these euphemisms, like, we're going to be tough on crime, we're going to be tough on thugs, and things like that.
And it's not convincing, but the problem is we're seeing a growing divide in Republicans and Democrats on this.
A Pew Research study came out that says there's a 50-point difference between Republicans and Democrats when they ask the question that racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can't get ahead these days.
And we're in 2017.
We're 60 years out of Jim Crow.
But then you see Netflix documentaries like The 13th saying that no matter what we do, our criminal justice system will always be conflating criminality with the N-word.
So I think that it's smart labeling by the left to get their narrative out there and to attract a large block of voters in American society.
But no, it's not conflating people who commit crimes with African Americans.
And if you insist that African Americans and people who commit crimes are the same, then you are making a racist argument in terms of the law. - Alicia, you are an insightful commentator, but Sean King is not.
Why does anybody care what this guy thinks?
Oh, gosh.
Who knows?
Because, you know, he was ahead of Black Lives Matter.
And isn't he over at the Young Turks or some progressive?
I don't know.
Young Turks, CNN, New York Times, all the same.
Who knows?
They're all the same.
But it's just like, it's the do as I say, not as I do.
And I'm sorry.
I tend to agree with my black friends who say I don't use that word.
I'm a woman.
The B word could be used to describe me at some times, especially when I'm cutting lanes on the 101.
But who, you know, I still don't use that word toward myself or my girlfriends, and I would expect black people to do the same.
Just this everything about Trump being racist, it's like, come on, guys.
I didn't even vote for the guy.
He's not my favorite person in the world.
But you're really reaching here.
I mean, the latest yesterday was that apparently he's racist now because the two turkeys that he's going to be pardoning on Thanksgiving Day are white.
So, yeah.
Yep.
That is, it's like Poe's law in action.
It's so absurd that you can't tell if it's parody or if it's true.
And with this administration, though, and the mainstream media has then left its reaction to it, it's like, wait, is this Babylon Bee?
Like, is this a joke?
But no, it is not.
Unbelievable.
True.
And, you know, speaking of those euphemisms, as someone of Sicilian descent, anyone could use the T-word about me, and I'll leave it to those well-read Italian scholars to know what the T-word is.
But, you know, it's okay, man.
I don't complain about it.
Because I'm grateful.
I'm especially grateful for you, panel of deplorables.
Have a very happy Thanksgiving if I don't talk to you tomorrow.
Bradley Devlin, Amber Athey, and Alicia Krauss, The Daily Wire Zone, thank you for being here.
Grateful.
That guy, LeVar Ball, was ungrateful, and there's so much to be grateful for right now.
We've defeated ISIS.
The economy is booming.
Foreign policy is back on track.
Deregulation at huge government agencies, massive deregulation.
New York Times is complaining about it almost every day.
We've got tax reform on the table.
Great originalist justices all the way up at the Supreme Court and being nominated to the lower courts.
This is pretty good.
There's a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving, and I'm thankful for you.
Okay, come back tomorrow.
We have got a really fun Thanksgiving Day special that we're going to be running, the real history of Thanksgiving, and why it's evidence of God's providence for the pilgrims.
I'll be talking about my four Mayflower ancestors, some of whom were great, really virtuous, pious guys, and one of whom was the first criminal executed in the New World, in that colony.
So tune in tomorrow.
I'm my own old show.
Come back tomorrow.
We'll do it all again.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Marshall Benson.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Haig.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
