Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 30, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show

49:14

Ep. 210 - The Virtues (And Vices) Of Selfishness

iPhones, Me-llennials, and the sacrament of self-love have infected every aspect of society, from Alex Jones’s browser history all the way up to the White House and the Vatican. We will discuss the virtues and vices of selfishness. Then, on this day in history, George Washington shows the difference between pride and dignity. Finally, the Mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	iPhones, millennials, and the sacrament of self-love have infected every aspect of society, from Alex Jones' browser history all the way up to the White House and even the Vatican.
	We will discuss the virtues and vices of selfishness.
	Then, on this day in history, George Washington shows the difference between pride and dignity.
	Finally, the mailbag.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	We gotta get right into it today.
	There's so much to get to, beginning with Alex Jones' browser history.
	The question here is selfishness, because this is something that cuts across conservatives and leftists.
	I remember when I was 17 years old, I was introduced to Ayn Rand, The author of The Fountainhead and what's that other one book that nobody's read?
	Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.
	And this is her philosophy.
	Her ideology is a selfish ideology.
	It's also atheistic.
	And I, like every other 17-year-old who reads Ayn Rand, immediately bought it.
	This is a phase that I think every 17-year-old boy has to go through, is really liking Ayn Rand for a couple years, and then usually people move on past that.
	Some people still really love her forever and ever.
	And she talks about the virtue of selfishness.
	When is selfishness good?
	When is selfishness bad?
	When is selfishness...
	When can it be used to a better purpose?
	And when does it make us look ridiculous and degrade our humanity?
	Let's begin at the back end of all of that.
	Here is Alex Jones explaining why, in a videotape of his cell phone browser, he had what appeared to be transgender pornography coming up.
	Mr.
	Jones, take it away.
	And also, what about the trans porn on your phone, Alex?
	Are you ever going to talk about that?
	Say that again?
	Trans porn on your phone?
	That's all they keep talking about.
	You know, I saw a couple news articles about that.
	It's ridiculous.
	I was like looking up some reporter we're trying to hire today and punched in some number and it popped up porn on my phone.
	Everybody's had porn pop up on their phones hundreds of times.
	So I'm sitting with a phone on air showing it to everybody.
	because I couldn't get a URL up in the studio.
	And then like something pops up like, "Oh my God." And I looked at it, wasn't the news blurted out 'cause there was nothing there.
	They blurted to then say something was there.
	Then you went to it with some porn menu.
	I probably had porn menus pop up 500 times on my phone.
	So I appreciate your call.
	I mean, it's insane ladies and gentlemen.
	There's two types of people.
	People that look at porn and people that lie about it.
	But I wasn't looking at porn on my phone.
	I don't take phones on air that I look at porn on.
	And so I saw all that.
	I didn't respond to it.
	I mean, if I respond to half the attacks on me, it'll be ridiculous.
	But I'll say this.
	The Amazon ads, the Viagra ads, the weird non-plastic bag ads are taking my iPhone over.
	iPhones didn't used to be that bad like Androids.
	Note to self, never show cell phone screen on the air, ever.
	Never.
	Alex Jones, I actually don't really want to beat up on Alex Jones for this, because I felt the same way when Kurt Eichenwald, that insufferable left-wing writer, when he got caught looking at tentacle porn on the internet.
	There's this sub-genre of pornography where it's tentacles, and he got caught looking at it, and he gave some bogus excuse where he said, oh, I It was just a joke.
	Ha ha, right everybody?
	He was obviously looking at tentacle porn.
	And I sort of feel this way with Alex Jones.
	Because he's exactly right.
	There are two kinds of people.
	People who have looked at pornography on the internet and liars.
	At least among men.
	At least among guys.
	Statistically, in the United States, 100% of men have looked at naked ladies on the internet.
	Or in the case of Alex Jones...
	I have looked at men who look like naked ladies on the internet because perhaps Mr.
	Jones was drinking the same water that the frogs have been drinking for the last few years.
	I said I wasn't going to make any jokes about it, and I did.
	That's awful.
	No, because everyone's done it.
	Everybody has looked at porn on the internet, especially for the generation of people like my age and younger who grew up basically with the internet.
	Like...
	A full 100% of people have seen porn on the internet.
	So that isn't the issue.
	It isn't about judging people for looking at porn on the internet.
	It's not about judging Alex Jones.
	It's not about judging Kurt Eichenwald or whatever.
	But this is very important because it shows...
	There's a reason that he's embarrassed by this.
	There's a reason that I just made that note, don't ever show your phone on camera.
	There's a reason people are ashamed of this, which is that it's a shameful thing.
	It's a shameful thing to look at tentacle porn or whatever.
	Here's the proof of this.
	This is the Norm MacDonald theory on sex.
	He has a whole bit on one of his albums about how sex is a dirty, shameful, filthy thing that is obviously only meant for procreation.
	And his evidence for this is that when you go into your room to have sex...
	You close the blinds.
	You don't open the windows, put a camera there, broadcast it to all your friends.
	And obviously, that's even more so true of when you look at porn on the internet.
	When people look at porn on the internet, and then they get caught, like Alex Jones, even Alex Jones, who is a master of just exposing himself, literally exposing himself.
	He takes his shirt off a lot.
	He's just out there.
	He's not ashamed of anything.
	Even he gets flustered.
	Even he says, oh, well, I didn't, and these are crazy, and I don't know.
	Even he gets Can't spin this yarn.
	Even Kurt Eichenwald says, oh, this wasn't true.
	This didn't happen.
	People get very flustered because it's obviously a shameful thing.
	And the reason it's proliferated is because it's so easy.
	Everybody has seen it.
	You get it instantly.
	Nobody can catch you.
	It's very difficult to catch you.
	So, people say, oh well, it's a harmless activity.
	But it isn't really harmless.
	You know, a lot of studies have been done on this.
	Overuse of porn and high-speed internet porn and video porn can cause erectile dysfunction in young guys.
	It can cause really perverted fantasies.
	It's caused guys to stop wanting to sleep with their wives or girlfriends because it doesn't match the fantasy of porn.
	You know, we talked a little bit about this, I think, yesterday.
	Porn is a fantasy.
	And so it's a shameful thing.
	This should be a lesson to everybody.
	Obviously, people, when the lights are out and the walls are closed and the window's down, people do things that they're not proud of.
	That's human nature.
	That is just built into us.
	But this is a lesson that we shouldn't do that, you know?
	These things do come to light, and you just don't want to do those things, you know?
	I think an old gym coach of mine said, a character is what you do when you think nobody's watching.
	So, you know, if you're looking at transgender tentacle porn on the internet when nobody's watching, that's not a good thing.
	Because it's selfish.
	It's ultimately selfish to just sit in a room and pleasure yourself.
	It's not gratifying because you're not doing anything.
	You're not helping anybody.
	You're not producing anything.
	And it won't make you happy over time, just like any other selfish activity.
	Doing drugs, abusing alcohol, staring in the mirror and admiring yourself or whatever.
	That's the extreme example of selfishness.
	Anytime you're just doing something for your own pleasure, your own gratification, you're going to get tired of that and ultimately you're not going to be fulfilled.
	There are some uses, though.
	There are some uses to selfish behavior.
	If you can put your self-interest and channel it toward a public good, then selfishness is not a dirty thing.
	Then it's not like the tentacle porn.
	And Kanye West describing Donald Trump to very self-interested men explains this very well, and it's why selfishness is not necessarily a dirty word in politics.
	Kanye, take it away.
	I feel that he cares about the way black people feel about him.
	I feel that he cares about the way black people feel about him.
	And he would like for black people to like him like they did when he was cool and the rap songs and all this and stuff.
	And he will do the things That are necessary to make that happen because he's got an ego like all the rest of us and he wants to be the greatest president and he knows that he can't be the greatest president without the acceptance of the black community.
	So it's something that he's gonna work towards.
	But we're going to have to speak to him.
	Well, let me go with you the next time you go to the White House.
	I need to go with you to the White House.
	I got a couple things I got to say.
	So this is a longer interview, and he goes on and on about this.
	But the point is very important, which is Donald Trump doesn't want to offend the black vote.
	He doesn't want to offend black people.
	He wants them to like him.
	He remembers in the 1990s, you know, there were all these rap songs about how cool it was to be Donald Trump because Donald Trump was this billionaire playboy.
	And that's, you know, that's very popular.
	Now he wants to get that back.
	He wants to channel his self-interest for black people.
	It's not that Kanye West says, Donald Trump, he's thought through the ideals of the American founding, and he realizes that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights because that comes from the natural law and the natural creator, and therefore we all need blah, blah.
	No, it isn't that.
	He gives a much straighter argument that I think everyone can believe, which is that he wants black people to like him because he wants to be liked, because he wants to be a successful president.
	That's a good enough answer.
	I think people on the right, conservatives, mock this sometimes.
	They say, oh, he's so narrow, he's so shallow, Trump.
	He's so, oh, who wants Kanye West's support?
	Kanye West is shallow and selfish and he's not this high ideal guy.
	Fine, but they're doing good things.
	You can channel these natural instincts.
	You can channel lower passions toward a public good.
	There is a selfishness there that's a good thing.
	If Donald Trump can be a good president for everybody, help everybody succeed, put black unemployment at historic lows, put the economy at historic highs, market highs, have wages increase...
	If he does that because he read the Federalist Papers one day and it really opened his eyes, or if he does that because he just wants the history books to be nice to him, either way, I'm happy.
	Either way, the black unemployment rate goes down.
	Either way, the stock market goes up.
	Either way, I win.
	That's fine.
	We don't need to treat the presidency like it's a religion.
	We don't need to treat it like it's the Vatican.
	Nowadays, we might have to treat the Vatican like it's the presidency, but we'll get to that later.
	We don't have to treat it in these exclusively idealistic terms.
	If he's using his selfishness to become a good president, that's a very good thing.
	And this applies not just to the individual players in politics.
	This applies to national policy, too.
	The Washington Post has this story today.
	This is an absurd story, but it shows you It shows you where the logic of this ends up, especially for the left, and it shows you why you do need self-interest or you can't look after anybody else.
	From the Washington Post, this is the headline, quote, U.S. is denying passports to Americans along the border, throwing their citizenship into question.
	So it's based on this policy right now.
	People present their documents.
	They say, here's my birth certificate.
	Here's whatever.
	I want a U.S. passport.
	But if they were born along the southern border, The State Department is saying, hold on a second, we need to prove that you're a citizen.
	Now people are up in arms, they're saying this is racist, this is denying Americans their rights, this is bigoted.
	Some dum-dum on Twitter was comparing Trump to Hitler because of this.
	Which, by the way, you remember Donald Trump deported that Nazi a couple weeks ago?
	That should buy him some he's-not-Hitler cred for a little while, but that's neither here nor there.
	Here is what the piece goes on to say in the Washington Post.
	Quote, On paper, he's a devoted U.S. citizen.
	His official American birth certificate shows he was delivered by a midwife in Brownsville at the southern tip of Texas.
	He spent his life wearing American uniforms, three years as a private in the Army, then as a cadet in the Border Patrol, and now as a state prison guard.
	But when Juan, 40, applied to renew his U.S. passport this year, the government's response floored him.
	In a letter, the State Department said it didn't believe he was an American citizen.
	Okay, so that's bad.
	That doesn't sound good on its surface, right?
	There's a guy who served his country, 40 years old, and they said they don't believe he's an American citizen.
	So this has to raise a few questions.
	Why don't they believe he's an American citizen?
	Is this question just or is it unjust?
	And has this happened before?
	Is this some totally new thing?
	So, despite the headline, despite the first scare paragraph, the article actually goes on to explain all of this, and it should refute the entire headline.
	Because this goes back to the first sentence of the article.
	First sentence is, his official American birth certificate shows he was delivered by a midwife in Brownsville.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	The official one.
	The question is, is that true?
	So the piece goes on.
	Quote, So just listen.
	Even when they're admitting that this is a totally legit thing...
	The Washington Post can't quite give it to them.
	They say, the government alleges blah blah blah.
	But then later in that same paragraph they say, in a series of federal court cases, the birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents.
	So it's not that the government alleges this.
	It's that we know for a fact it's true because the people who did it admitted it years ago.
	So forget alleges.
	We know this is a legitimate thing.
	This isn't the government trying to pull a fast one.
	We know this is a legitimate thing.
	And is this new?
	Is this something that just happened?
	Is this a brand new policy that's never happened before?
	Trump's just using it as an excuse to deport people he doesn't like or to discriminate against people he doesn't like.
	Because that's what's being alleged by the left.
	But the same exact piece in the Washington Post goes on.
	Quote, Denied passports to people who were delivered by midwives in Texas' Rio Grande Valley.
	Really buries the lead, doesn't it?
	Not only during the last Republican administration, George W. Bush, but even during the previous Democrat administration under Barack Obama, this exact same policy was in place.
	Nothing new.
	So why is this a news story?
	It's a news story because the mainstream media are trying to use it as a cudgel against Donald Trump.
	So they're going to dig up something that was barely reported on, if at all reported on, when it happened in the first place.
	They're going to say, see, Trump's being a racist, Trump's being this, Trump's being that.
	The reason I bring this up, though, is not just to beat up on the mainstream media, which is a daily hobby.
	It's a wonderful thing to do.
	I encourage it.
	But the reason I bring it up is because of the policy itself.
	Which is, we have not just credible evidence, we have proof that some of these birth certificates were fraudulent during the 1950s to the 1990s.
	We're talking about a four decade period here, five decade period.
	And so the United States has two options here.
	Either it can say, oh well, it doesn't really matter.
	If we're giving foreign nationals the rights of U.S. citizens, that's okay.
	That's fine.
	Whatever.
	Hey, what does it matter to us?
	Those guys are poor in Mexico and whatever.
	They can do that or they can pursue their selfish interest.
	Their self-interest in this case for the United States is to protect its borders, to protect its sovereignty, to protect the legitimacy of its citizenship, and to kick people out who shouldn't be here.
	Now, this seems icky to people.
	The whole left is saying that's selfish, that's selfish, that's selfish.
	Governments have to be selfish.
	Governments have to pursue their own interests.
	And when governments don't pursue their own interests...
	When they don't pursue the interests of their people, it's not just that they're being charitable or compassionate or something.
	They're being tyrannical.
	They're being tyrannical.
	If a government is not pursuing your interests, if you are not being represented by your government, that isn't a small matter.
	That's a matter of the government becoming tyrannical, of opposing the will of the people, which in the United States is not kosher.
	That's not what our republic was built on.
	It's a very, very bad thing.
	Governments have to pursue their interests.
	These days, among the left and among the idealistic, ideological right...
	They're pretending that countries don't have interests.
	This is where nationalism has become a bad word.
	We're going to talk to Yoram Hozoni, the author of The Virtues of Nationalism.
	We're going to be talking to him, I think, next week about this issue.
	To say the country has its own interests is a bad thing.
	All you heard from the idealistic right, all you heard from the left is, oh, Trump, he's saying that other countries need to pay up To their responsibilities.
	He's saying that the United States is going to pursue our own interests.
	He's saying we're going to put America first.
	Where are my pearls?
	I've got a clutch.
	Where are they?
	What's wrong about saying America?
	They said that America first harkens back to Charles Lindbergh or something.
	It doesn't harken back to Charles Lindbergh in the minds of the people using it today.
	The Americans who say, yeah, I think we should put America first, they're not thinking of Charles Lindbergh.
	They're saying we have a national interest.
	And it's incumbent upon the government to follow our interests because we're the people.
	We're their bosses.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	That's self-interest.
	People draw a difference between self-interest and selfishness, between being childlike and childish.
	One of those is bad.
	One of those is perfectly appropriate.
	And it is perfectly appropriate for the government to pursue the interest of the people.
	Putting America first is not a bad thing.
	The late Senator John McCain ran his 2008 presidential campaign on the phrase, country first.
	Do you remember this was the whole country first thing?
	Other candidates have used this too.
	They say, country first.
	Can someone explain to me the difference between country first and America first?
	America is the country, right?
	We're not talking that these people aren't running for president of Mexico or president of Hungary or something, right?
	It's America first or country first, and yet it's a bad word.
	You're not allowed to say it.
	It's a good thing for countries to pursue their interest.
	Because in the United States, by the way, when the United States pursues its own interest, everything gets better for everybody.
	When the United States is allowed to pursue its own foreign interests abroad, the world is more peaceful.
	When the United States is allowed to pursue its own economic interests, the world is more prosperous.
	When the United States is allowed to pursue its own environmental interests, the environment This was the issue of this Paris Climate Treaty.
	We pull out of the Paris Climate Treaty because we say we're putting our country first.
	You don't get to take away our sovereignty.
	You don't get to tell us what to do.
	What happens?
	We're the only people who improve the environment.
	So many other signatories of the Paris Treaty actually are destroying the environment.
	They're not living up to their promises.
	They're polluting at even higher rates.
	The United States, when we pursue our interests, things get better.
	This is almost always the case.
	We've got to move on a little bit.
	as a matter of national policy, don't let the mainstream media fool you.
	Don't let them pretend that a country pursuing its own self-interest is a bad thing.
	Self-interest can be a very good thing.
	This is the premise of liberal economies.
	This is the premise of liberal democracy, is that when you allow people to pursue their interests in good faith, to pursue their interests in good faith and to discipline themselves and to order themselves, and not just look at transsexual porn all day, but to actually discipline themselves and pursue virtue.
	But when they pursue their interests with that discipline, things get better.
	Freedom works.
	And it does.
	You know, when Americans keep an orderly sense of self-interest and virtue and pursue their interests, the country thrives, the world thrives.
	When they do that without the sense of discipline, then it falls apart and then they start worshipping fire demons in the Nevada desert, have sex with each other in orgy domes.
	You don't want that.
	I mean, these things can fall apart.
	But self-interest can be a good thing.
	Freedom works when you have people who are ordered to it.
	When liberty doesn't become licentiousness.
	And this perversion of the idea of liberty, this perversion of the idea of self-interest is nowhere more apparent than in this billboard.
	This was going around Twitter yesterday.
	This billboard is unbelievable.
	The billboard says, do we have the words?
	It's something to the effect of black women look after their families and they take care of themselves.
	Abortion is self-care.
	Abortion is self-care.
	So I'm looking at this thing and all these progressives are sending it around Twitter.
	They're saying, yeah, support black women.
	The logic of this billboard is support black women.
	Kill black babies.
	Because it's not even saying like all women or all whatever.
	It's saying, no, no, we need to kill specifically black babies.
	And that's progress.
	That's progressivism in 2018.
	Is kill black babies at a higher rate.
	Because it's self-care.
	And the argument here, by the way, is that somehow it's good for a mother, it's good for herself to kill her child.
	There's no evidence of that.
	Mother Teresa said, I believe in 1994, that the greatest cause of evil in the world, the greatest policy issue of evil in the world is abortion.
	Everyone mocked her and they said, no, what about genocide?
	What about this?
	What about that?
	She said, if a mother can kill her own child, That is the greatest font of evil, interpersonal evil.
	Because if a mother can kill her own child, what can't we do?
	What won't we do?
	Is there any bond more sacred than that from mother to child?
	And if you can murder your own child, what won't you do?
	And that's what they're saying.
	They're saying now it's self-care.
	This is not proper self-interest.
	This is real selfishness.
	This is base, wicked selfishness.
	And you don't want to do that because when a man is wrapped up in his own self, he makes a very small package indeed.
	You know, you don't If you're just there staring at the transsexual frog porn or whatever, I don't know what it is.
	If you're just doing that, you will not be fulfilled.
	Whenever someone satisfies the flesh, that can be you go and you just eat a table full of food or you drink three bottles of whiskey or you do whatever you do on your cell phone browser or whatever.
	Or you leave the orgy dome at, what's the festival called?
	Burning Man.
	You leave the orgy dome at Burning Man.
	I don't think people ever walk out of there and they say, gosh, I feel great about myself now.
	Yeah, I really pleasured myself.
	I gave myself a lot of pleasure.
	You know what they're going to read at my funeral someday?
	They're going to say, you know, he, oh John, John lived a lot.
	He went to the orgy dome and looked at stuff on his cell phone browser and ate a table of food and guzzled bottles of whiskey morning tonight.
	He really pleasured himself.
	Let it be said of that great and glorious man, he pleasured himself.
	Nobody wants that.
	Nobody wants that as their epitaph.
	Nobody wants that on their headstone.
	But that's what this stupid billboard is saying.
	They're saying, it's really caring for yourself to kill your baby.
	Nobody, not a soul, not the biggest shout your abortion proponent in the entire world wants it written on her headstone.
	Here lies Sally Jones.
	She killed her babies.
	Nobody wants that.
	It's a shameful thing.
	It is far more shameful than looking at transgender porn on your browser.
	It's far more shameful than that.
	We all know that that's true.
	And the people who put up these billboards and say it's self-care.
	It's self-care.
	It's shout your abortion.
	It's good.
	It's loving.
	They know it's a lie.
	It's such an absurd lie.
	Kill black babies.
	That's progress.
	That is such an absurd lie.
	No amount of saying it.
	It doesn't matter how big your billboard is going to get.
	It doesn't matter how loud you shout your abortion.
	That isn't going to change the fact.
	That is a shameful thing.
	The next one they're going to do is euthanasia.
	They're going to do it for assisted suicide.
	Black women take care of themselves.
	They have to look after themselves.
	Assisted suicide is self-care.
	That's what they're going to say.
	That is as incoherent as...
	Abortion being self-care.
	It's as incoherent.
	Those things aren't self-care.
	The challenge that we have to do, because we have a broken human nature, and we have original sin, is to take our inherent selfishness, the pride that caused the fall, and turn that away from ourselves, to not look away, to channel all of that, to do something good.
	And that can be done.
	That can be done in politics, as we're seeing.
	It can be done in the government, as we're seeing.
	It can be done in business.
	Those things can be done, but that's the only way we're going to do it.
	We're not going to do it by denying the reality of selfishness, and we're not going to do it by pretending that awful, shameful things are somehow good and glorious.
	This, of course, brings us to the Catholic Church.
	I do have to address.
	We'll address this in our last minutes before the mailbag here.
	I do want to correct one thing.
	I think I said on the show the other day, I referred to that whistleblower, that high-ranking Catholic official, the nuncio to Washington, the Vatican's ambassador to the U.S. I referred to him as a cardinal, Cardinal Vigano.
	He's not a cardinal.
	He's an archbishop.
	But he's not a cardinal.
	And this seems like a minor distinction and it's easy to get confused.
	But the reason that's important is because he's not a cardinal.
	He's not in a power play, a personal power play in the Vatican.
	He's not in the College of Cardinals or something like that.
	There's a lot less to selfishly gain from this.
	This is much more clearly an act of conscience and an act of love for the church to air out this dirty laundry, which so many clerics, so many Vatican officials don't want to do.
	But I've got to play this for you.
	This guy, Cardinal Cupish, I said that uncharitable people refer to this guy as Cardinal Cupcake, which is not nice.
	I wouldn't do it.
	Not nice to do.
	But Cupish, I think it's actually pronounced Soupish, but people call him Cupcake, so then they think it's Cupish.
	But I believe it's Soupish, whatever his name is.
	This is a guy who, he's the one who came out immediately and said, the Pope doesn't have to say anything.
	Well, I'll let him tell you himself.
	Here's Cardinal Soupish.
	The Pope has a bigger agenda.
	He's got to get on with other things of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church.
	We're not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.
	The record shows that whenever there's actionable information, Pope Francis acts.
	Quite frankly, they also don't like him because he's a Latino.
	It's not just about the Catholic Church.
	Let's look at all the agencies and institutions that deal with children on a day-to-day basis.
	Anything else you want to blame this on except for what's actually being discussed?
	This is unbelievable.
	Look at what he said just there.
	I can't even go through all of that.
	He's saying that it's because people are racist that they're attacking him.
	They're saying that Pope Francis can't address the major sex abuse scandal that he is now implicated in by a high-ranking, incredible church official because he's got to talk about What, air conditioners and subverting immigration law?
	Because he's got to talk about global warming and immigration so he can't address the serious accusations credibly leveled against him.
	Then, what else?
	What is he saying?
	He says we have to talk about other groups because he makes a fair point here, which is that the Catholic Church does not have higher rates of child abuse than any other religious denomination, according to any study.
	And Children are orders of magnitude more likely to be abused by school teachers than by priests.
	Sure, that's fine.
	But that's not what we're talking about.
	That's not what we're talking about at all.
	We're talking about, specifically, this guy's buddy...
	And Cardinal Supish's buddy, Cardinal McCarrick, who has been seriously accused, credibly so, of abuse, not just of seminarians and priests, but also of minors.
	We're talking about Pope Francis, who has been implicated in a cover-up here.
	We're talking about another story that just came out today, which is that Pope Francis apparently gave a sweetheart apartment, a really posh Vatican apartment, to a priest who was known to be a problem priest.
	To this guy, what is his name?
	Monsignor Luigi Capozzi.
	He was known to be a problem priest.
	He was known to engage in sexual behavior, known to be a big issue.
	He gave it to him as a favor for his friend Cardinal Francesco Cocco Palmerio.
	And...
	This priest ended up having a drug-fueled gay orgy in this Vatican apartment for hours and hours on end.
	It's only because the neighbors, who also are priests, almost certainly, called the cops on him.
	He finally got arrested for this.
	There are serious sex abuse and cover-up issues here.
	And what is Cardinal Cupich's response?
	No.
	No, no, no.
	I've got more important things to do than to deal with this.
	This is the classic response of the left, by the way, which is that the left loves humanity and they don't care that much about humans.
	They say, no, I can't talk about these people who have been sexually abused.
	I can't talk about these people who have covered up sexual abuse and who have been personally, directly implicated in this.
	I've got to care for humanity.
	I've got to stop global warming.
	I've got to subvert U.S. immigration laws.
	I have a much more important task than your silly little sex abuse scandal.
	Give me a break.
	This is outrageous.
	An outrageous response.
	I mean, this response by the Cardinal is the most tone-deaf response to a legitimate social grievance since Marie Antoinette's apocryphal line, let them eat cake.
	Which she didn't actually say.
	But this is at least as tone deaf as that.
	And they need to give an answer for it.
	But I'm sure more is going to come out every day.
	And by the way, while this is all happening, just a note for the New York Times.
	The New York Times ran a headline.
	While all of this is, I mean, worse and worse news every single day for Pope Francis.
	This is the headline.
	Francis takes high road as conservatives pounce, taking criticisms public.
	That's the news report.
	That's not an op-ed.
	The news report from the New York Times.
	Francis takes high road as conservatives pounce taking criticisms public.
	So they're saying...
	They're judging that Francis is taking the high road by refusing to acknowledge the legitimate and credible...
	Allegations about him covering up sex abuse, for one.
	They're then saying that the news story is not the credible allegations of sex abuse, but that conservatives are pouncing.
	And by pouncing, they mean asking questions about the credible allegations of sex abuse and cover-ups by the priest.
	And then this is the best part.
	The third part is the New York Times headline is that the conservatives are pouncing and that's bad and they're not taking the high road because they're taking the criticisms public.
	So they should be covering them up.
	That's what the headline is saying.
	The conservatives should be good.
	They should be nice.
	And they should cover up all of the sex abuse.
	They should cover up all of the cover up of the sex abuse.
	This shows you, by the way, for certain, that the New York Times does not care about the victims of sexual assault.
	They do not care one little bit.
	They care about leftism.
	And they have what they think is a pope who is pushing leftism and who's covering for cardinals who are pushing leftism.
	And there does seem to be a strange coincidence of leftism and these cardinals and bishops who are covering things up.
	And that's all they care.
	That is what they clearly care about here.
	They don't care about abuse.
	The headline is begging them.
	To keep covering up the abuse.
	Now they actually had to change this online because it was so beyond the pale.
	So the online version is Vatican power struggle bursts into open as conservatives pounce.
	Conservatives aren't pouncing.
	There's a credible allegation that these left-wing clerics have been...
	Covering up or participating in sexual abuse for a long time.
	That's what happened.
	That's the news story.
	But conservatives pass.
	They do this in politics all the time.
	You know, there's more I want to get to.
	There's another important story to get to.
	And there's this day in history.
	Man, I didn't get to anything today.
	We've got to get to the mailbag, though, I'm sorry to say.
	We'll have to save those other things for next week.
	In the meantime, go to dailywire.com because we've got a lot of mailbag.
	What do you get?
	You get me, you get the Andrew Klaven show, you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get to ask questions in the mailbag, that's coming right up.
	You get to ask questions in the conversation.
	I'm practicing my Ben Shapiro voice.
	I want to see how fast I can talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.
	But, before any of that, you've got to get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	You've got to get it, because this...
	This Leftist Tears Tumblr tastes like the effects of people pursuing their appropriate rational self-interest.
	This tastes like the effects of enforcing immigration law.
	This tastes like the effects of Donald Trump doubling, more than doubling, his support among the black vote, which is traditionally a Democrat stalwart vote.
	This tastes like...
	The virtues of pursuing self-interest, not the vices.
	And that's a wonderful thing.
	Because there is nothing vicious about leftist tears.
	They are a true wonder and a blessing.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with the mailbag.
	I never get to everything that I want to get to, but I also never get to finish the mailbag, and I'm probably not going to today.
	We're going to give it a good try, though.
	From Robert.
	I wanted to point out that smoking substances grown from the earth to get high has been around for thousands of years, mainly in Asia, so it's not exactly a new drug.
	I generally appreciate your insight on most subjects, but your anti-pot rant was lacking depth.
	Love your show.
	Well, thank you for watching the show.
	I appreciate it.
	I knew I was going to get this objection, so I wanted to head it off, but I'll say it again.
	I don't deny that.
	Yeah, smoking pot has been around for all of human history.
	Using drugs, smoking drugs to get high, whether it be shamans in the desert or eating or smoking whatever in Asia or the pre-Columbus Americas.
	Yeah, that's been around for all of human history.
	That hasn't been mainstream in the West.
	That's true.
	That's from other cultures.
	Absolutely.
	In fact, this is my defense of alcohol.
	Alcohol has been with our culture since the dawn of time.
	Alcohol has been around a very long time.
	In fact, Christ, from whom we get our Christian culture, his first miracle was to turn water into wine for drunk people.
	Not just any wine, but very good wine.
	So this was the argument people say, why don't we have pot?
	Pot is not as bad for you as alcohol.
	Well, I'm not arguing that one way or the other.
	I'm just saying alcohol is part of our culture.
	So if you try to get rid of alcohol, you're going to fail.
	You're going to end up with prohibition.
	It's just simply not going to work.
	You're butting up against thousands and thousands and thousands of years of tradition and culture.
	And ideologues think that they can get rid of thousands and thousands of years of tradition overnight.
	But we know that that can't really happen.
	So I'm not arguing one way or the other.
	I'm just saying that's not going to work.
	My question is, why would we introduce a new one?
	Why would we introduce marijuana into the culture?
	Marijuana doesn't come from our culture.
	Marijuana was introduced as a mainstream concept very, very recently.
	So why would we help that become mainstreamed?
	Yes, that's part of Asian culture, whatever.
	Smoking things to get high is part of a lot of cultures.
	They can have it.
	That's their culture.
	Why would we introduce it to ours?
	What's the benefit?
	Why would we do it?
	I see no reason.
	I'm not even saying that pot is a terrible thing or that it's worse than alcohol.
	I'm not saying that at all.
	There's a time and a place for everything.
	That place is college.
	One in seven Americans smokes pot on occasion year to year to year.
	I'm just saying why would we mainstream it?
	Why would we legalize it?
	Why would we encourage it?
	If the government were to pull away alcohol from our culture, that would be a real incursion, that would be a real interference into our culture and our society.
	But if the government were to stop legalizing marijuana, that's not interfering in our society.
	Marijuana's never had a place in our society.
	So why would we introduce it now?
	People have to think not ideologically about this, because ideologues think they can get rid of culture overnight.
	They have to think about this more broadly, from a traditional perspective, from a perspective of culture and society and conservative thought.
	Next question, from Emmanuel.
	God with us.
	Hi, Michael.
	I was wondering if you could speak to the vocation of the artist, particularly with your background as an actor and now in the context of Catholicism.
	I've been struggling with this for ages, constantly looking for something to tell me that it's a good thing I wasn't built to be an accountant or a mechanic.
	Or anything with any conceivable life skill.
	I have no problem paying my dues working at a regular job until I can do what I ought.
	That's not the issue.
	I just want to know that it's a good thing to aspire to.
	That the church and the world, perhaps, might need someone like me.
	Thanks so much.
	Love the show and keep up the good work.
	Well, as somebody who has no discernible hard skills whatsoever, I feel able to answer your question.
	Of course you should pursue art if that's what you should be doing.
	But you can't really...
	You can't plan these things out too much.
	And if you make an idol out of your art or your preferred job or your preferred craft, you're going to go down a bad path and that isn't the thing that you should be doing.
	I'll say this as someone who's never going to work in this town again.
	I still, on occasion, get the opportunity to work as an actor.
	So I'm doing Another Kingdom with Andrew Klavan right now.
	We're doing the second season of that.
	The first season was very successful.
	Second season is going to be successful.
	I've been able to do...
	Handful of movies and plays, some of which were good, some of which got good reviews, and that's always nice, but you don't get to do it all the time.
	I say now the only time I get hired as an actor is by Ted Cruz, Dennis Prager, and Andrew Klavan.
	Those are the last employers.
	That doesn't keep me up at night.
	I'm not crying and sad all the time because I'm doing something different than that.
	You'll do what you can do.
	You take the step that's in front of you.
	But art is a wonderful thing.
	I've never wanted to become an accountant or to become a mechanic or to do anything that is practically useful whatsoever.
	And I think I'd be unhappy doing that, and I don't think I'd make a contribution to that at all.
	But if you're interested in things such as art or politics, philosophy, those sorts of things, that's one, theology, whatever, then pursue those things.
	Pursue what you think that you're called to do.
	A good way to measure this, to see if you're actually doing the right thing, is one, are you willing to work?
	When people offer you an opportunity, are you willing to do it?
	Even if it's not exactly what you planned out?
	You can never plan your own life for you.
	It never works out that way.
	If it did work out that way, we'd be in a very shallow, paltry world.
	So are you willing to do that work?
	Do you mind being led where the thing leads you to go?
	Then perhaps you're willing to do that.
	And are you willing to deal with it if you can't pursue that art for a year or two years or three years or you do something else?
	If you're willing to go where God is leading you to go, then...
	You're on the right path.
	If you're making an idol out of your art and you're languishing and you're upset all the time, like virtually everyone is in Hollywood, especially actors and directors and writers, if you're languishing and saying, I want to do this, I want to do this, I want to tell God how my life is going to go, then you're not doing the right thing and you should really rethink your priorities.
	From Jody.
	Hey, Michael.
	Why was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez late to the socialist political rally in Boston?
	Because she was Stalin!
	Thanks, Michael.
	I thought that was a question when I read that.
	I didn't realize it had the punchline built in.
	I'm going to use that.
	That's really good.
	I'm going to use that while I wear my shirt.
	I wear my She Guevara shirt.
	From Nathan.
	Hey, Michael.
	You have multiple times put down churches that use acoustic guitars.
	I know there are typically more problems with those kind of churches, but let's ignore that for now.
	I feel the same way, but I don't know why.
	Other than pure tradition...
	It should be this way because it's always been this way.
	Do you have a reason why some instruments are more or less appropriate to use when praising the Lord?
	And where, why do you draw that line?
	I assume organs are okay, but what about pianos?
	Keep up the good work and God bless.
	Yes, there is a hierarchy.
	Certain instruments are more fit for worship than others.
	And I say this as a guitar player.
	You know, I've played guitar since I was like 12 or something like that.
	I actually enjoy playing guitar and strumming around.
	But guitar is a lesser instrument.
	The reason I've been playing guitar since I was 12, I basically taught, maybe I took a couple classes, but I basically taught myself how to play guitar.
	Most people teach themselves how to play guitar.
	It's because it's an easy instrument to play.
	Now, certain composers have made good use of guitar.
	Classical guitar made it a complicated instrument.
	But not as complicated as a violin, for instance.
	Not as complicated as the harp.
	You know, there are higher instruments to play, harder instruments to play.
	The French horn, whatever.
	And they do different things.
	You know, the ancient Greeks and...
	All wise people throughout history have recognized that music plays upon your soul.
	It's the most important of the arts because it speaks right to your soul.
	It can put you in a different mood.
	It can put you in a different perspective.
	It can make you rethink certain things, which is why when you play really guttural, visceral, ugly, tribal music, you feel less elevated.
	You feel less human than if you're listening to Bach or something.
	What I think should be used for worship is actually just the voice.
	I think the early church had it right.
	I think the Eastern Orthodox Church still has it right.
	It should be the voice.
	I think the whole liturgy should be sung.
	The reason for this is it takes out that personality.
	There's nothing worse than a...
	I suppose there are some worse things.
	But when it comes to the liturgy, there's nothing worse than a priest getting up there and giving the performance of Hamlet that he never got to play.
	You know, he goes up there, I'm going to really perform this gospel today.
	I'm going to make you feel it with my emotions.
	And goes up there and does a shtick and starts telling jokes and does a little soft shoe during his homily.
	People don't want that.
	You don't want personality.
	You want the priest to be a conduit between God and you.
	You want to see...
	Christ through the priest.
	And this is why you want the ad orientem facing.
	You don't want the priest facing you like he's doing a sticky vaudeville show.
	You want you and the priest together to be looking up toward God, to be looking at the altar, to be looking through to heaven.
	So I much prefer the voice.
	Oregon is nice too.
	There are a lot of great old Protestant hymns that sound very nice in Oregon.
	But when you get to the guitar church, you get these saccharine things.
	Catholic and Protestant alike, you get these eagle's wings and Oh, yeah, it's really like a bad 90s rock song that will not lift you up to worship.
	That makes you just look back at yourself and your own saccharine, sentimental pop culture and then looking at the priest and seeing if the priest is putting on a good show and if he's entertaining you.
	One of the real giveaways for this is if people applaud at the end of Mass.
	If you're applauding, then you're going to the theater.
	I hope you like the play.
	Was it a good musical?
	Did they do the good dance at the end?
	That's about a play.
	If you're applauding people in church, you're probably not looking at who you're supposed to be looking at.
	Even when it comes to those old Protestant hymns, the ones on the organ and everything, I really like those very straight ones where it's like, we will worship God and we're worshiping God.
	Let's keep worship God.
	Those are great because they take out this saccharine personality and they direct you toward God.
	If you can do that with an instrument, very good.
	Certain instruments are more likely to do that.
	But otherwise, use the human voice.
	I think it was Augustine who said, to sing well is to pray twice.
	To sing well.
	That's an important qualifier there.
	But to sing well is to pray twice, and I think we should be singing the whole time.
	When we get up to heaven, we're going to be singing, and we should do that in the liturgy, because the mass should be heaven on earth.
	From Jonathan.
	Do we have more time?
	I can do like one more.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	I've been single for several years and have thought of getting back into the dating game again, but I have little to no confidence.
	Is there some way out of this trouble?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	I'm going to give you the advice that Don Corleone gave to Johnny Fontaine when he was trying to get out of his contract to get a better contract.
	Imagine that these are your shoulders.
	You can act like a man!
	What's the matter with you?
	You've got to act like a man.
	That's the answer.
	You've got to act like a man.
	And that should tell you every single thing about it.
	You are a man.
	You are a man.
	Gender is not socially constructed.
	Biological sex is not socially constructed.
	Act like a man.
	Act like what you were built to be.
	You have no confidence?
	Just do it.
	Forget about...
	When people say, I have no confidence, it's because they're thinking about themselves.
	They go, I'm thinking of me.
	Should I be doing this?
	Am I doing this right?
	Do I look good?
	Am I wearing this?
	Stop it.
	Stop thinking about yourself.
	Don't do that.
	Just act like a man.
	Acting like a man doesn't mean dragging your knuckles and knocking the lady on the head with a mallet or something.
	Acting like a man means being a gentleman, too.
	Doing the other thing.
	But what it really means is focusing on the girl.
	If you're on the date, focus on the girl.
	If you're trying to meet a girl, don't be desperate.
	Because when you're desperate, you're thinking about yourself.
	You're just thinking about your own desires, your own needs.
	As a matter of practical, where do you meet girls?
	There are a lot of places you can meet girls.
	You can meet girls at a bar.
	You can meet girls at a church.
	You can meet girls in a club.
	A lot of times you can meet girls through friends.
	You can meet girls on those apps.
	I kind of missed the apps because I had a girlfriend during the apps, but I know multiple people who have gotten married from the apps, close friends and family of mine.
	So the apps can work, and some of them are very religious.
	Some of the apps are to hook up, and some are not.
	They're for more serious things.
	So use that.
	Do whatever works.
	I'm not saying you've got to be prudish about it and be waiting to meet her in the choir loft at your church or something.
	You go meet a girl wherever you're going to go meet a girl.
	But just be confident about it.
	You say, I don't have confidence.
	Just be confident.
	But how do I be confident?
	Just act like a man.
	That's really what it takes.
	When you're thinking of yourself, this is actually a perfect question to end on because it ties exactly in with selfishness and self-interest.
	They're used interchangeably today, but there really should be a distinction.
	If you're being selfish, you're just trying to use the girl to fill some hole in yourself, some desires.
	I really want sex, or I really want a dinner companion, or whatever.
	But self-interest is.
	It's not good for man to be alone.
	You've got to go out there.
	You've got to find a partner.
	You want to Men want women.
	That's a natural fact.
	And you're going to pursue that self-interest.
	And the way you're going to do it is do the things that men are supposed to do.
	Hold the door open.
	Pay for dinner.
	Don't go Dutch on dinner.
	Pay for dinner.
	Pay for the drinks.
	Whatever.
	And be interested in her.
	This is the advice for when you're on the date.
	I am shocked at how men do not understand this.
	Shut up and listen to her.
	It'll be the best conversation.
	They will love it.
	This is ironic because I talk every day for 45 minutes to you, but I'm telling you, maybe it's because of that that I've learned this in every other aspect of my life.
	Listen to them.
	If you're just there to pontificate, then you're not going to learn anything.
	You're not going to have a good time.
	Talking to people is only interesting when they teach you something, when they show you some aspect of human nature.
	And I promise you, At the end, if you let this girl talk for 90% of the time, then you're going to walk away.
	She's going to say, wow, you're an excellent conversationalist.
	Wow, I've never met a better conversationalist.
	But just do that.
	I know it seems like a cop-out to say, be normal, be a man, go get the girl.
	I know that seems like I'm not giving you good advice.
	I'm giving you excellent advice.
	There is no secret.
	It's not in that book, you know, the pickup guide book.
	There's no trick.
	There's no you're going to hack their brain or whatever.
	No.
	People can sense it.
	Don't be inauthentic.
	Be authentically the best version of you.
	Be authentically who you're supposed to be.
	Hope that helps.
	Get back to me.
	Let me know if it works out.
	You've got to binge Another Kingdom because we're filming the new season of Another Kingdom, so you've got to get through season one.
	The new season is even better.
	The first season was popular.
	The new season's even better.
	It's been a lot of fun to do it.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	In the meantime, have a good weekend.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	show.
	I'll see you on Monday.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Jim Nickel.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲