All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 16, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show
46:49
Ep. 281 - Running Train On Racism

Misgendering, white privilege, and transphobia: to quote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, today we run train on the progressive agenda. Then, what should be done about Steve King? We analyze congressional Democrat hypocrisy. Finally, the Left is furious that Karen Pence is starting work at a Christian school. Date: 01-16-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Misgendering, white privilege, and transphobia.
To quote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, today we run train on the progressive agenda.
Then, what should be done about Steve King?
We analyze congressional Democrat hypocrisy.
Finally, the left is furious that Karen Pence is starting to work at a Christian school.
Heaven forfend!
I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.
All right, before we run train on today's program, we got to run train on some new sponsors.
I want to thank a wonderful new sponsor, Spear.
Spear is this terrific product.
I've now just started using it because I didn't know it existed.
You have got to try it too.
Most people hate writing, especially me.
It took me 27 years to not write a book, though it did become a bestseller.
Most people hate writing because word processors are not designed to help you organize your thoughts.
They're word processors, but they're not thought processors.
If you've ever had writer's block, if you've ever stared at that blank screen, if you want to write podcasts or blogs or diary entries or books or whatever you want to do, Spear is a thought processor that helps you organize your ideas as you write.
You can write your thoughts in any order you want.
you can move your thoughts around.
You can make changes without the fear of losing your original idea.
You will be able to articulate your ideas faster and easier because it's the most flexible tool for writing and thinking.
Most people are not in the know.
They just use a word processor.
This is so much better.
The possibilities are infinite.
It is like working with Legos.
This week, my listeners can get Spear for just $3.75 per month for the first year of service.
That's a 25% discount off the regular price.
Sign up today by going to Spear, S-P-E-A-R-E, you know, like the writer, Shakespeare.
Spear.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, that is Spear with an E, like Shakespeare.
Speaking of people who are not great with their words, speaking of people who could probably use a thought processor herself, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our gaffe-prone congresswoman from upstate New York, she's really done it again.
This was probably the funniest one she's done yet.
She was doing an interview with a newspaper, and she said, quote, I'm six days into the term, and you already used all your ammo.
She's referring to the right wing.
So enjoy being exhausted for the next two years while we run train on the progressive agenda.
So for those of you who don't know what running train means, running train is when a man and a man and a man and a man and another man and like 10 or 20 other men and a woman don't love each other very much.
But they all get together and they do that thing that men and women do when they do love each other.
That is running train.
It's a very graphic sexual act and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apparently thought running train means succeed in implementing.
I don't know.
Is that what she thought it meant?
You can check out Urban Dictionary if you don't believe me, although I do warn you about putting that phrase into your Google searches.
You will get some results that probably you don't want to see.
This is just a lovely gaffe.
It doesn't have much to do with her policy proposals.
It's not a major news story.
The reason, though, that I really like this one is this is what happens when a nice girl from the suburbs, all of a sudden at the age of 28, decides to pretend that she's Jenny from the block.
This is what happens, is you have this girl who grew up in this lovely little place where the The does are jumping, and the little rabbits are, you know, and it's so, so lovely.
You go to the community festivals, whatever.
And she's pretending now that she's from the Bronx, that she's from the South Bronx, the mean streets of the boroughs, and she's not.
And so she's trying to use slang terms, you know, vulgar expressions, as though she grew up in those areas, and she didn't.
And she doesn't know what they mean, and it's really funny.
This is an authenticity issue for her.
She has a lot of things going for her in the media.
She's likable, she's bubbly, she's relatively attractive, she is young.
So she's got all those things going for her.
This authenticity thing though is an issue because pretty soon you're going to see her like misquoting Biggie Smalls or something.
She has all of the trappings of people who are from really privileged areas.
She's a socialist.
She's kind of ditzy.
She has a very expensive education, even though it didn't teach her very much.
And she's pretending to use urban language or vulgar language in a way that doesn't quite work.
Donald Trump, you know, knock him if you will.
The guy really did grow up in Queens, and he really talks like he grew up in Queens.
And I bet he knows what that phrase means.
Moving on to a more important story, but equally frivolous.
On CNN, a CNN analyst, Areva Martin, went on a radio show with conservative radio host David Webb, whereupon she accused David Webb of white privilege.
There's only one problem.
David Webb is a black guy.
Here's the exchange.
I never considered my color the issue.
I considered my qualifications the issue.
Well, David, you know, that's a whole other long conversation about white privilege and things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don't have the privilege of.
How do I have the privilege of white privilege?
David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege.
It's a whole long conversation.
I don't have time to get into it.
Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped.
I'm black.
Okay, then I stand...
See, you went to white privilege.
This is the fall suit in this.
Do you hear what she started to say?
Arriva, I hate to break it to you.
I'm black.
And then there's that moment of silence.
She says, well, okay, I can either apologize for just being a race-hustling, ignorant, cynical politician...
Or, I stand by my...
And then he starts to cut her off there.
This is obviously hilarious.
One of the best media moments of the year.
In a year full of them already.
But this is the problem with the left right now.
I identify this in left-wing rhetoric.
When you're debating a leftist, when they go on television...
When they're in the halls of Congress or wherever, they use so many logical fallacies, and specifically they use these ad hominem fallacies.
They can't argue with the points that you're making, so they just start attacking the person who's making them.
And I've just identified a few of these.
You've got to look out for it, because whenever the left throws one of these at you, you know that you've won the argument.
The first one, you saw it right here, is privilege.
Privilege.
I mean, the way this woman did it from CNN, she went in, she felt, I don't need to look up who this guy is, I don't need to look up what this guy thinks.
All I'm going to do, I'm assuming he's a conservative, I'm going to assume he's a white guy, and I'm going to assume that he has all of this privilege.
And she didn't take a second to even second guess this notion.
And then he tells her, I'm a black guy.
You've done no homework.
You know nothing about me.
But imagine if that host were a white guy.
What could he have said?
It would have convinced half the country, at least, if he had been a white guy and she'd say, ah, but you have white privilege, and even though she can't explain how that manifests, it still would be convincing.
This privilege thing is obviously an ad hominem attack, and it means that arguments are not as important as the arguer.
You should judge a person's argument based on the color of his skin or who he is or where he is rather than the quality and content of his arguments.
The thing that's funny about privilege, though, is that no privilege disqualifies anyone from conversation.
What privilege would disqualify anyone from debate?
In fact, privilege should overqualify you for debate, shouldn't it?
If I've had the privilege of maybe a few extra brain cells than the average Joe on the street, maybe if I'm lucky, I've had the privilege of a good education from kindergarten all the way through college.
Those are privileges which have actually prepared me better to think about certain things and to discuss certain ideas, just to think about certain things.
That's a privilege of education.
That's a good thing.
That's not a disqualification from debate.
The left, as we talk about a lot, gets reality backwards.
So what is a privilege?
A privilege is a special advantage for one person or one group.
That's a privilege.
It's an advantage.
What the left has turned privilege into is a disadvantage.
They're saying that if you are privileged, you are now at a disadvantage.
You can't give your opinion.
Your opinion is invalid.
Your political work is invalid.
And your vision is invalid.
As the left always does, it's perverting the thing into the opposite of the thing.
The advantage into the disadvantage.
And by the way, everybody has different privileges.
I'm not suggesting that nobody has privilege.
I'm not suggesting that everybody has privilege.
If that were true, there'd be no such thing as privilege.
But some people have different privileges.
Some people are more athletically gifted.
I'm not an Adonis of a man.
They have more of a natural privilege in that regard than I do.
Some people are more mathematically gifted.
They have a privilege in that way.
Some people are financially gifted.
They're born into money.
I met a lot of people in my life who were born into money.
I was not, but many people are.
That's a privilege.
That's an advantage.
I'm not going to demonize that.
I'm not going to vilify that.
If you're born into money, good for you.
I hope that helps your life and you get a good education and you can enjoy all the pleasures in the world.
Some people have other privileges.
There is a privilege to not being born into money.
And the privilege of that is you learn a little bit how the world really works.
You can see more how most people are living.
You can go through a little bit of suffering.
Maybe that suffering helps to form your character, makes you stronger, makes you more courageous.
Maybe it makes you more daring or more ambitious.
I've seen plenty of people born into wealth who become wastrels, and I've seen plenty of people who had nothing growing up really make something of themselves succeed at the highest level.
Privilege is really hard to quantify in some hierarchy of victimhood, which is exactly what the left wants to do.
We all, to varying degrees, can have a privilege of reason.
Some people are unreasonable.
Some people have a very low privilege of reason, but if one has the privilege of reason, then you shouldn't say, you have privilege, so you're not allowed to speak.
You should say, you have that wonderful privilege of reason.
Please use it.
Please enlighten me and describe the world as you see it.
The next one, which is very closely related, is mansplaining.
This is also obviously an ad hominem attack.
This is also an attack that says that the arguer is more important than the argument.
What mansplaining does, the funniest thing about that stupid word, it's like manspreading.
Manspreading is when men sit, but if they're sitting, these are their two legs, instead of sitting with their legs crossed over one another really tight, they're sitting so that their legs are a little bit apart.
The reason they do this, in case you didn't take...
High school biology class is that they're making way for certain anatomical privileges that only men have and women do not have.
So there's a reason for this.
It's a commonplace occurrence.
Half of the population doesn't.
The same thing with mansplaining.
Mansplaining is when a man explains something.
Now, we all explain things to each other.
The reason we do it is because we're human beings with the faculties of speech.
So we use speech, and speech is politics.
Speech is civilization.
We speak to one another.
We don't grunt like the brutes most of the time.
So we just talk, and we persuade each other, and we try to get each other to come around to our points of view, and we learn, and we instruct, and we're curious, and we ask questions.
So that's just man-explaining.
What the term man-splaining does is it portrays as bizarre or strange When half of the population does the most basic human thing, that's supposed to be really weird and strange.
So you're talking to a girl who's not girl understanding, to use Andrew Klavan's term, and she says, you're mansplaining.
You say, damn right I'm mansplaining.
What else can I do?
I can't womansplain.
I don't identify as a woman.
I'm sorry about that.
The way that they use this, of course, on the left is that it's a way of shutting up half of the population.
All it means, these phrases, check your privilege, these phrases, mansplaining, it just means shut up.
And the reason that they go after men is men are more likely to be conservative.
Obviously, there are a lot of conservative women.
There are a lot of very sad left-wing men.
But generally, men trend more conservative, and certainly in America.
So they use it to shut up half the population.
The other one they use is the phrases safety and comfort and safe space and that sort of thing.
This is a little bit different, but it's playing on the same idea.
It still means shut up.
It's still a logical fallacy or a discursive fallacy.
But what it does is when they say, your ideas are making me feel unsafe.
The things you're saying are making me feel threatened.
I'm not in a place of comfort anymore.
I hear this all the time when I go around to colleges.
We speak at these colleges.
We'll get protested.
They'll...
There have been student groups that have tried to shut us down with the administration, and they'll say the things that Michael is saying are unsafe.
They threaten us.
But of course, what do they threaten?
What am I talking about?
I'm talking about Edmund Burke, and that threatens them or something?
Of course not.
What they do is they conflate speech with violence.
And so when the left, if you're having a conversation, when they accuse you of this, of threatening them, of making them feel unsafe, of making them not feel comfortable, what they are essentially doing is accusing...
You're speaking as physically assaulting and battering them.
You're saying your words are punches.
Your words are hurting me.
It says, when you couple that with mansplaining, it's that if you're speaking to a woman and you're disagreeing with her, you're the equivalent of a wife-beater.
Because you're threatening her, you're making her unsafe, you're making her uncomfortable.
That's the third one.
And then just one other, this is a broader observation in the culture of it's being led by the left, it's being weaponized by the left, is mental illness.
Mental illness is all the rage these days.
It's all anybody can talk about.
It's used as an excuse to excuse terrible behavior.
And it comes from a real place.
Young people are much more likely today to be anxious, to be stressed, to be depressed.
An ASU study found that a quarter of college students are suffering PTSD because Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016.
Their rates of suicide are increasing, especially among young people.
Teen suicide is up 70% now, and rates of being prescribed these depression drugs, all of these SSRIs and those sorts of things, are way up.
They're also through the roof.
So everybody thinks they have a mental problem.
Everybody is on depression drugs.
Constantly talking about mental illness, what it's really about is not the few people who really could benefit from taking drugs all the time.
Not the few people who have worked through their psychological problems and actually have a physical problem that requires medication.
What this is about is relativism.
This is what it's all about.
You see it all the time on Everyday Feminism, on all the really far...
Left-wing websites and podcasts, they all say that they have mental illness, and we need to talk about mental illness, and we need to describe mental illness.
And the reason that they talk about mental illness all the time is because it brings to the fore different visions of reality, but not different visions of reality using right reasons, specifically different insane visions of reality to say, well, this person views things this way, and their mind is inaccessible to you.
Because when people are sane, when they have mental health, we can use our faculties of reason to communicate with one another.
And we're speaking about an objective outside world.
But if everybody's a little crazy, if everybody's a little kooky, nobody's really accessing the objective world in the right way, then we don't have access to objectivity anymore.
We don't have access to reality anymore.
We're back in the tyranny of subjectivism.
We're back in the tyranny of our feelings.
We can't talk about facts.
As we say here on The Daily Wire a lot, we have to talk about feelings.
And nobody can be wrong and nobody can be right.
Every opinion is valid.
Everything is your truth or my truth or this truth or that truth.
This is why the left is focused on that.
This is why not necessarily on CNN or The Washington Post.
But when you go to the really more fringy, more radical left-wing websites, blogs, podcasts, that's what they're focusing on.
It is not out of compassion for people who have psychological problems.
Very often, by the way, people who have psychological problems have philosophical problems.
The issue isn't the synapses in their brain.
The issue is how they're living their lives and how they view the world and how they view themselves in relation not only to their creator but the rest of the creation.
And so they talk about that not out of compassion for those people, but they do it as a way of advancing their base agenda, which they've had now for at least 50 or 60 years, which is radical subjectivism.
Speaking of mental illness and speaking of radical subjectivism, this video first cropped up on the Internet, I guess really between Christmas and New Year's, But because everybody was shut down in the commentary, we haven't gotten a chance to talk about it.
We have to talk about it.
This is a transgender guy, so a guy who dresses as a woman, goes into some store and starts losing his mind, losing what's left of his mind, because he thinks that somebody has referred to him a six-foot-two giant man as a man.
Take a look.
Excuse me, it's ma'am.
It is ma'am.
I can call the police if you'd like me to.
You need to settle down.
You need to settle down and mind your business, okay?
Ma'am, once again, ma'am.
I said both of you.
No, you said sir.
Once again, it's ma'am.
I actually said both of you guys.
Right beforehand, you f***ing said sir.
Motherf***er, take it outside.
If you want to call me sir again, I will show you a f***ing sir.
Motherf***** My father is now I need your corporate number Because I'm going to call them and talk about how I was misgendered several times in this store I need your corporate number now!
Get it for me now!
I'm going to ask you to call me out and stop cussing.
Give me your corporate number.
Well, I'm going to ask you for the fifth time to stop calling me a man because quite clearly I am not.
I'm sorry for that ma'am.
I will get you that number.
Is that okay?
Yes, get it for me now.
Get it for me now.
Yes, the giant person screaming, shouting, six foot tall, knocking over products, screaming that he's going to go take the kid outside and beat him up.
That person is clearly not a man.
Giant Adam's apple, I assume, down below.
Well, I don't know.
Maybe let's not assume.
That guy is a man, obviously.
He has a psychological condition, one imagines.
He also has a philosophical condition, which is being indulged and encouraged by our mentally insane society, which is that he thinks that a man can be a woman, and a woman can be a man just because he puts on lipstick.
If you put on lipstick, then you're a woman, but of course that's not what makes a woman.
Growing your hair a little longer is not what makes a woman.
I know plenty of scraggly-haired hippies out in LA who have long hair and don't think that they're women.
This thing that we've just watched here, the kid, I guess he said, okay, guys, calm down.
I think he was using guys in a gender-neutral way.
And this guy, who thinks he's a woman, loses his mind, starts screaming.
And this kid backs down and says, I'm sorry, ma'am.
I'm sorry, lady.
It's okay, you know.
And The reason I bring this up is this guy's obviously lost his mind, and what's unfortunate for him is that the society is even crazier than he is, so they're going to encourage him and let him continue down this path of self-degradation.
The reason I bring this up too is because it shows where the rubber meets the road between various schools of conservative thought.
If you look at this guy, this guy is a man who wants to be a woman, and if you find your political views are rooted really in individualism, self-definition, I can do whatever I want to do absolutely at any time, I own my life, I can define myself however I want to define myself, Then he actually makes a pretty good case for always making other people call him ma'am or call him a woman.
The line from individualism to collectivism is actually pretty direct.
I think sometimes among conservative circles, we want to pretend that the big dichotomy in the world is between individualism and collectivism.
One prioritizes the individual as the absolute most important thing in society.
The other prioritizes the collective, all of those individuals together.
There are two sides of the same coin.
There's a direct line between them.
If you say that the individual is the most important atomic fundamental building block of society, that in a state of nature individuals are just floating around in free space without any ties of loyalty to family or friends or tribe or country or whatever, if you believe that, Then the government's job is first and foremost to protect individualism.
That's the purpose of it, is to protect individual liberty to the point of individualism.
But if the government is there to protect individualism and our corporate society decides that they're not going to recognize somebody's own self-definition, then that corporation is infringing on individualism.
If this guy says, I am a woman, and corporate America or the government, state government or whatever, says that he's not a woman, they're not going to call him a woman, they're infringing on his radical individual self-definition.
And so it makes perfect sense for there to be regulations over how businesses can treat people, how schools have to refer to people, how to use pronouns.
They use the phrase misgendered.
Obviously, the only person who has misgendered this guy is himself.
He is misgendering himself because he thinks that he's a woman.
But they've inverted this phrase, and it does make sense.
There is a reason why, in the thinking of all of those early, what we would call classical liberals or even libertarians, if you look at Thomas Paine, for instance, The guy who wrote Common Sense, Force in the American Revolution, or the writings of Thomas Jefferson, or people who come after that throughout the Enlightenment and onward.
You can see a line from exalting the individual as the be-all and end-all atomic unit of society and protecting the collective of individuals.
The actual difference here, the actual different worldviews, is between...
Liberalism or modernism or individualism or collectivism or everything that goes along with it and the conservative worldview which says there is a reality.
You cannot by yourself define reality.
There is an objective reality.
You are a man.
No law passed by any government will change the fact that that guy's a man.
No surgery that is cosmetic and alters his cheekbones or his Adam's apple will make that guy not a man.
No corporate code of conduct will make that guy not a man.
No market, no free market, which is now getting all of these corporations to start playing into the social justice warrior handbook.
We saw this with Gillette.
We've seen this with Nike.
We've seen corporate America leading the way on liberalism and leftism.
No free market is going to change the fact that this guy is a guy.
And it's where we have to appeal to something deeper, more profound, more transcendent rather, than the individual or the free market.
Or certain documents, the constitution or state constitutions or laws or whatever.
We have to appeal to something which is transcendent, which is the natural law.
And the natural law maker, the natural law giver.
and the institutions and the traditions that have transported these metaphysical realities into our modern age.
That is what we've got to talk about.
The question is not about rights.
It's not about the rights of the guy who thinks he's a woman.
It's not about the rights of the guy working at the store.
It's not about the rights of a democratic republic to pass laws changing the definition of men and women.
It's about reality.
And we have to recognize reality.
We have to prioritize reality above any of the various ideologies, left wing or right wing, that everybody is so crazy about today.
We've got to talk about Steve King, We've run out of time the last few days.
We've got to talk about him.
We've got to talk about those cackling hens on The View, to quote Norm MacDonald.
We've got to talk about different kinds of bigotry, not just racial bigotry, but also religious bigotry.
And if we have time...
We'll talk about why we can't run our own countries after the British Parliament runs train on Theresa May's Brexit deal.
But first, go to dailywire.com.
If you're already there, thank you very much.
You help keep the lights on.
You keep covfefe in my cup.
If you're not, it's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
But Michael, what do I get?
What do you get?
What don't you get?
You get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan show.
Ben Shapiro show.
Matt Walsh show.
You get to ask questions backstage.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
Get them in.
That'll be tomorrow.
You get to ask questions.
You get to watch all the backstage that are coming up now.
You get to see another kingdom.
We've got two seasons up there now, and none of that matters because you get me.
This, you get the leftist tears tumbler.
This is very important because, you know, now when you take airplanes, when you get on modes of transportation, you're not always allowed to take water bottles or certain little bottles of perfume or whatever.
But when you are running train on the progressive agenda, you are allowed, the FDA, the FAA, the FDA, The FAT, the FTA, I don't know.
They allow you to bring on the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
That's the only way to do it, because when you're running train on the progressive agenda, there are going to be a lot of Leftist Tears, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was describing today.
You're going to want this.
It is the only safe way to dispose of those Leftist Tears, to hold them, and then obviously dispose of them down your gullet.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back with Steve King.
Steve King.
We've all talked about it, but we haven't had time to address it fully on this show, which is Steve King, longtime congressman.
He made these comments, allegedly, though he hasn't really denied them, in an interview with the New York Times where he said white nationalism, white supremacy, western civilization.
When did these things become offensive?
Now obviously, that is offensive to a great many people.
And just as a simple matter of...
Just as a simple matter of language being offensive, white supremacy has always been offensive to a very large number of people.
Some people didn't find it offensive in the past.
Now more people find it offensive.
But it has always been offensive to some people.
I think we can safely say white supremacy has always carried offense to some people.
Now, he...
Has apologized for this.
There were calls for him to step down from Congress.
He looks like he's certainly going to be primaried.
He looks very politically weak.
He'll probably be beaten next election.
But there were calls to do this, to do that.
He came out and apologized immediately, and he condemned white supremacy as an evil ideology.
Here's that.
I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define.
Under any fair political definition, I am simply an American nationalist.
Okay.
The evil ideology.
He rejects them.
He disavows them.
Okay.
Good.
I'm glad he did that.
I think he felt that was the right thing to do.
A lot of his colleagues felt that was the right thing to do.
Then the Congress went out and they voted to condemn or rebuke Steve King.
It's a little unclear what the effect of this is as a matter of terminology.
Was it a rebuke?
Was it a condemnation?
Was it a...
The effect of it, though, is he's already been stripped of his committee assignments.
He won't sit on any committees.
He's basically powerless in the Congress now.
Pretty harsh action was taken against him.
And I'll point out, harsh action was taken against him for speaking to a reporter.
Nobody's defending the things he said.
I haven't seen one conservative defend the things that he said.
But it is a little scary as far as a precedent goes.
That when you say things to a reporter, you can lose everything in your political career, not by the people who elect you, but from other people in the government.
Nevertheless, okay, that's fine.
They took a vote to condemn King and his remarks, and Steve King actually voted in favor of that bill.
Here is King on his own condemnation.
So I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for bringing this resolution.
And I've carefully studied every word in this resolution.
And even though I'd add some more that are stronger language, I agree with the language in it.
So I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's vote for this resolution.
I'm putting up a yes on the board here because what you stay here is right and it's true and it's just.
And so is what I have stated here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Okay, so he's stripped of his committee seats, which means he's doing nothing in Congress, essentially.
He is condemned by the Congress.
He voted for his own condemnation.
He's called those remarks, which he says were misinterpreted, he's called them an evil ideology, which he disavows.
What more do they want from him is the question.
Here is his defense of the remarks that he made, or rather, he's not defending them, but he is excusing them because he says that they were misinterpreted.
So I'm going to tell you that the words are likely what I said, but I want to read it to you the way I believe I said it.
And that's this.
White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization.
How did that language become offensive?
Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and civilization?
That's the end of the quote.
Just to watch Western civilization become a derogatory term in political discourse today.
Okay, so do you buy it?
Do you buy that they were separate thoughts?
He said, white supremacist, white nationalist.
Beat, beat, beat, beat.
Western civilization, how did that become offensive?
Because, of course, the phrase Western civilization is not offensive.
The left finds it offensive, but there's nothing wrong.
Western civilization is the greatest political achievement in the history of the world.
Now...
Do you buy that excuse?
I don't really buy it.
Even the way he's describing it, it's a little mealy-mouthed.
I don't know.
It's a little too clever by half.
So let's say that Steve King said it.
He conflated Western civilization with white supremacy.
He said remarks that had been universally condemned across the political aisle by his own party, by his own colleagues.
He's been condemned, rebuked, reprimanded.
He voted for his own condemnation.
He's off of all the committees.
Okay.
Okay, that's all fine.
I'm with you so far.
But what about the Democrats?
What about, what about, what about?
Michigan first-term representative Rashida Tlaib was pictured just recently, just within the last couple weeks, with a Palestinian activist named Abbas Hamideh, who regularly praises Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, and has called Jews Zionist terrorists.
Rashida Tlaib, that same person, right when she got into the Congress, She took a sticky note to the map of the world in her office, wrote in Palestine, and covered up Israel.
Israel, the only state for Jews in the world, plenty of states for Arabs, plenty of states for Muslims, one state in the entire world and all of history for Jews.
She symbolically wipes it off the face of the map.
Where is her condemnation?
Where is her apology?
I never saw her apology.
Steve King apologized.
He called it an evil ideology.
Where's her calling it an evil ideology?
Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, another Democrat freshman, wrote on Twitter, quote, Israel has hypnotized the world.
May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.
Hashtag Gaza, hashtag Palestine, hashtag Israel.
Now, Steve King referred to white supremacy.
He was conflated with neo-Nazis, these types.
In his speech condemning that evil ideology, he said it was the evil ideology that led Hitler to wipe six million Jews off of the face of the earth.
That anti-Jewish ideology is an ideology being embraced by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
Openly embraced, not in an unrecorded interview with the New York Times where we don't have the tape to listen to it, but publicly.
On Twitter, they defend it still and the Democrats defend it still.
Where is that apology?
Where is that vote of condemnation?
Barack Obama, former president, two-term president, hope and change, took a smiling photo with Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam.
He's called Jews Termites.
He refers to every other race as awful and terrible white devils, a minister, truly a minister of racial bigotry and hatred.
And there's Barack Obama smiling with him.
Couldn't be happier.
And you know what happened?
The mainstream media had that Photo, before the 2008 election, they hid it.
They didn't want it to come out.
It has since come out.
Where's Barack Obama's apology?
Where's Barack Obama calling that an evil ideology?
I just see smiles.
I don't see him calling it an evil ideology.
Where is the vote to condemn and rebuke and reprimand Barack Obama?
You might say, Michael, this is whataboutism.
Whataboutism is when we're talking about one topic, one person, one act, and then you point out hypocrisy by saying, well, whataboutism?
This other person, or this other act, that hasn't been equally condemned.
And really, whataboutism compares apples to oranges?
When the phrase became popular during the Cold War, it was about comparing apples to oranges.
I'm comparing apples to apples here.
I'm comparing contemporary politician to contemporary politician on both sides of the aisle.
The only difference, of course, is that Steve King has been remorseful and has apologized And Democrats are still proud of it all.
They're still smiling and they're still championing these almost identical ideologies.
And if it's whataboutism, well, what about whataboutism?
What about it?
I would vote, along with Steve King, for that rebuke, for that condemnation of Steve King and his remarks.
But before I did that, I would insert an amendment if I were in Congress, and I would also include a rebuke of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and Barack Obama for smiling with Louis Farrakhan.
I would insist on that being included in the condemnation and the rebuke, and we should have done that as well.
I think Republicans, they want to get rid of Steve King because he's politically poisonous at this point, and he's passed his...
Political usefulness, and he's been in the career for a long time, and he's probably going to lose his primary next go-around.
They just want to stop talking about him.
Fine, I get the political expedience of that.
But I would insist on including those condemnations of Omar Tlaib and Barack Obama because Without those condemnations, also in the condemnation of Steve King, it is very clear that Democrats have no interest whatsoever in condemning racial bigotry.
They're only interested in attacking the GOP. And they're not even just interested in attacking the GOP. They're interested in using Steve King as a proxy to attack Donald Trump.
They don't care about Steve King.
Steve King is just some congressman, one of over 400 people.
Who cares?
He doesn't affect the country in the way that the president does.
And they want to call the president racist and bigoted and this-ist and that-ist.
They want to tie the issue of illegal immigration to racism somehow.
That's all they want to do.
And they are unwilling to deal with it in their own party.
Linda Sarsour, another anti-Semite, was given an award by Barack Obama in the White House.
She has had close ties to the Democratic Party and to the Women's March.
The list goes on and on and on.
If they want to...
Condemn Steve King.
By all means, go for it.
If they want to condemn racial bigotry and hatred, please, great.
More power to you.
But do it on both sides.
Otherwise, you're a fake, you're a fraud, you're a cynical politician.
That's what the Democrats are on this issue.
Let's see what those cackling hens, to use Norm MacDonald's phrase, had to say at The View about this issue.
Will Republicans now step up to the plate with Donald Trump?
Because he has been using, I think, the border wall as sort of this dog whistle for racism.
The government is still shut down, and I think it's all about, let's not let all these brown people in, right?
Unless they're working for farmers, unless they're working in agriculture.
So now will the Republican Party step up to him and say, we don't want this anymore?
There's 42% of this country that support the wall.
Are they all racist?
That's a good question.
I'm asking you that.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I think there are a lot of people that believe in security.
I don't know.
Okay, so it goes on.
Gotta love Abby Huntsman, my old pal.
She just is right there.
She says, do you think half the country is racist?
And this woman whose name I don't know says, well, that's a good question.
And whenever someone says, well, that's a good question, it means they just have no idea what they're going to say.
They have nothing to say.
Whether I'm conducting an interview or I'm on a panel with somebody and we're doing interviews, you say, what do you think about this?
They'll say, that's a good question.
I know it's a good question.
I thought it up.
Thank you for the compliment.
Answer the question.
But she thinks so.
This woman clearly thinks that half of the country is racist and Republicans are.
Is Steve King racist?
Is the wall racist, they ask.
Are Barack Obama and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib racist?
Are Democrat analysts on CNN racist for trying to shut up white people by using these ad hominem attacks, white privilege, ironically against a black guy?
Doesn't work every time, but do your research next time.
What about other kinds of bigotry?
Because we're just focusing on racism, but I don't only want to run train on racism, I want to run train on all sorts of bigotry.
And the biggest one that's cropping up in the news cycle is religious bigotry.
This is far more prevalent today.
Obviously, Christians around the world are the most persecuted religious group on earth right now, and it's reached record highs, certainly in modern history.
The left doesn't get this.
The left doesn't get religious bigotry, whether it's Islamic militants abusing Christians in the Middle East, or whether it's leftists abusing In a different way, in a more legal way, or rather a legislative way, or a regulative way, trying to attack Christians in the United States.
The left doesn't get this because the left doesn't take religion seriously.
The left takes race very seriously.
The left takes race too seriously.
They think that everything is about race, so much so that a CNN analyst will accuse a black political commentator of having white privilege.
That's how obsessed they are about race.
They take race too seriously.
They don't take religion seriously enough.
So Karen Pence, who is the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, she was a schoolteacher.
It was just announced she's going to take a job as a schoolteacher.
She's going to teach at this Christian school and continue her career.
I think she got tired of hanging around the Naval Observatory, and so she's going to do this.
Wonderful for her, great opportunity for the students.
How did NBC News report it?
it.
They said, quote, Karen Pence to teach at school that bans LGBTQ employees and students.
What?
What school does that?
Let's look a little more closely here.
The school, which is a Christian school, in reality, this is quoting from later on in the NBC article, bars its employees from engaging in or condoning homosexual or lesbian sexual activity and transgender identity.
So it's not banning people who are attracted to members of the same sex.
It's not banning people who identify or think that they are members of the opposite sex.
It's just saying you can't What that really means is that a Christian school expects its teachers to agree with Christian sexual teaching.
Which is not just Christian sexual teaching, but it's Jewish sexual teaching.
In the extremist world, it would be Muslim sexual teaching.
Christian sexual teaching is pretty loosey-goosey compared to other religions' traditional moral teachings on sex.
The basis of a Christian education, which is what these kids are going to this school for, is to teach the Christian view of the world.
And a lot of atheist or secularist or whatever, humanist, modernist people now, they want to say, Oh, what do they want to learn?
That stupid Christian view of the world?
What do you think?
People were walking around with dinosaurs?
What are those big dumb idiots?
The Christian view of the world...
As a basis for education is the only basis for education, just historically speaking.
If you enjoy all of the advancements over the last twelve or thirteen hundred years in math or science or literature or history, historiography or philosophy or anything like that, you can thank the Christian view of the world and the Christian basis of education.
Education as we know it would not exist anywhere in the world.
If it were not invented by the Catholic Church in the mid to late Middle Ages, it would not exist.
All of the universities, all of the cathedral schools, all of the metaphysical basis of education itself that we have in our modern world, it comes from Christianity and it comes from specifically the Catholic Church.
She wants to teach at this Christian school.
That's fine.
The Christian school wants its students and employees to agree to a Christian morality.
The left, of course, hates Christianity, so is very upset about this.
What if it were announced?
What if we had a president whose first lady was Muslim?
And it was announced that this woman was going to teach at a madrasa, a Muslim school.
Do you think that madrasa would celebrate homosexual activity?
Sexual activity?
Do you think it would celebrate the transgender movement?
Transgenderism?
Ah, something tells me it wouldn't.
And what would happen then?
NBC News would be thrilled.
They would be, oh, how brave.
How brave and beautiful.
This first lady.
She's teaching because she loves children.
And she loves education.
And she, oh, she's at a Muslim school.
This is so wonderful.
But Because it's a Christian school, they hate it.
And this is why NBC News and the left, they don't care about the LGBTQ, LMNOP employees or students.
They don't care about that whatsoever.
They are using them as they always use the ever-multiplying victim groups as an instrument, as a tool with which to clobber conservatives and the tradition.
That's all it's about.
I would love it if Karen Pence went on sabbatical at the Christian school, went to teach at a madrasa.
We'd see how the news covered that.
Probably very differently.
Because they are, unlike us, they are unwilling in the progressive agenda to run train on bigotry and hatred and racism and all of those other nefarious ideologies.
That's our show.
We've got a lot more to get to, but too bad.
Get your mailbag questions in for tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
I will see you tomorrow.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Danny D'Amico.
Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.
Production assistant Nick Sheehan.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, we're going to be talking about this idea about toxic masculinity.
We hear about it a lot, but why don't we ever hear about toxic femininity?
For some reason, we never hear that phrase used.
Also, we're told that NFL coaches, or the NFL has a scandal on its hands, it's a big problem because apparently there aren't enough minority head coaches in the NFL. Well, I want to discuss why introducing racial quotas into sports, of all things, is truly insane.
▲
Export Selection