Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 4, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

44:57

Ep. 359 - When Everything Is Racist, Nothing Is Racist

The NBA looks to drop the term “owner," a Grindr hookup turns into assault and robbery, the Pope has rewritten the Lord’s prayer, and we look back on 100 years of female suffrage. Date: 6-04-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The NBA is looking to drop the term owner for team owners because the term owner is now apparently racist.
	We will examine the ramifications of this new change from owning small businesses to owning the libs.
	Then a grinder hookup goes horribly wrong when a kinky fantasy turns into assault and robbery.
	That's the sexual revolution for you.
	The Pope has rewritten the Lord's Prayer, and we look back on 100 years of female suffrage.
	I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	So much suffrage.
	I hope we have time to get to it at the end of the show because everyone argues over Susan B. Anthony's legacy.
	Susan B. Anthony, more than any other woman, gave women the right to vote.
	She was the leading suffragette.
	And there's a major debate on the right and the left on who gets to own Susan B. Anthony.
	And I will give you the true answer to that.
	But first, losing your hair is terrible.
	Did you know that?
	Two out of three guys will experience hair loss by the time they are 35.
	And this is something that really terrifies me, because I'm not a huge hulking Adonis of a man.
	My poofy hair is one of my real perks, you know, to keep sweet little Elisa interested in me.
	This brings us to Keeps, the easiest and most affordable way to keep the hair that you have.
	The FDA-approved products used to cost so much money, but now, thanks to Keeps, they are finally inexpensive and easy to obtain.
	For five minutes now, and starting at just $10 per month, you will never have to worry about hair loss again.
	Getting started is super easy.
	Signing up takes less than five minutes.
	I know guys just want to put off everything and procrastinate, not do it.
	Don't lose your hair.
	You can stop the process of hair loss, but you got to act now.
	Answer a few simple questions, snap some photos to complete your online doctor consultation.
	A licensed physician will review your information online and recommend the right treatment for you.
	Then it is shipped right to your door every three months.
	Keeps offers generic versions of the only two FDA-approved hair loss products out there.
	You may have tried them before, but never for this price.
	$10 to $35 a month, plus now you can get your first month free.
	One hell of a deal for keeping your hair.
	Guys, this is all about peace of mind.
	I have great peace of mind because I have Keeps, so I know that my hair is not going to just all fall out one day, and then I'm going to lose my show and lose my wife and have a terrible life.
	If you suffer from hair loss, the last thing you need is to wait to see a doctor.
	With Keeps, there's finally a way to get the help that you need when you need it.
	For a limited time, receive your first month of treatment for free.
	Go to keeps.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. That is to receive your first month of treatment for free.
	Go to keeps.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. We will get to women's suffrage later.
	Right now, we need to talk about a whole other class of victim group.
	A major change happening in the NBA. A number of NBA teams are trying to drop the word owner from the phrase team owner.
	You know, if you own an NBA team, you're an owner of an NBA team, right?
	But apparently, no, that's wrong.
	That's racist.
	You're not allowed to be that anymore.
	So the Philadelphia 76ers rebranded their owners as managing partners.
	Why are they doing this?
	Because they say owner is racist because slave owners owned slaves.
	So therefore the word owner is ruined forever.
	You can't use the word owner.
	So they're managing partners.
	The trouble is managing partner doesn't mean the same thing as owner.
	Businesses have managing partners who are not owners and owners who are not managing partners.
	The LA Clippers are calling their owners the chairman.
	So the majority stakeholder in the LA Clippers now is chairman.
	The reason that this is happening, one of the big causes of this, is Draymond Green of the Golden State Warriors told the HBO sports show, The Shop, that he found the term racially insensitive, and it's gotta go.
	Here's the interview.
	When your product is purely the labor of people, then owner sounds like something that is of a feudal nature.
	You shouldn't say owner.
	I agree.
	When you think...
	What do you think you should say, Draymond?
	CEO or chairman.
	So, if that voice sounded familiar, by the way, from the interviewer, that was Jon Stewart.
	He has come out of his cabin in the woods from Daily Show Retirement, and he's doing this interview.
	And he brings up the question.
	He says, the term owner is racist.
	So they bat around a few different ideas.
	They say, well, how about majority shareholder?
	Okay, I mean, a majority shareholder in a slave plantation is also pretty bad, too, right?
	Is that term unacceptable?
	It's all about the term owner.
	And John Stewart's point is, if a business is only about someone else's labor, you shouldn't be an owner, because then it's like you own that person.
	So can a restaurant have an owner?
	A restaurant is primarily about other people's labor.
	It's about the waiters and the busboys and the kitchen runners and the cooks and the chef and the manager and the hostess.
	And the cleaning crew.
	So are restaurants allowed to have owners now?
	Or no, that's not anymore.
	Now you might say, well a restaurant provides a physical product too.
	They provide food.
	So therefore it's not only about somebody else's labor.
	And basketball, you know, basketball is just about the labor of the basketball players.
	Also, that isn't true.
	So basketball is primarily about entertainment.
	It's primarily about what the basketball players are doing.
	But there are a ton of tangibles that go along with it.
	You buy the jersey.
	You buy the sneakers.
	You buy the hot dogs at the stadium.
	You buy the beers.
	You buy the trading cards.
	There are a lot of very physical objects that go along with it that are, at least in part, owned by the owners of these teams.
	Even if it were true, though, let's say that basketball were only about the physical labor of others, and so you've got these team owners and they just own these basketball players.
	What about Hollywood?
	What about any other sort of entertainment field?
	Basketball is primarily about entertainment.
	You sit down and you watch a basketball game to be entertained.
	TV shows are also about entertainment.
	Movies are also about entertainment.
	Concerts are also about entertainment.
	Is it racist to call movie studio owners owners?
	Is it racist to call record label owners owners?
	No, obviously not.
	There are two issues that are at play here.
	There is one, historical ignorance, and two, creeping socialism.
	The historical ignorance is just over what the term owner means.
	Obviously, it's true.
	Slave owners were referred to as owners.
	People who owned anything else for all of the history of mankind are also referred to as owners.
	It's not explicitly or even primarily or even frequently or really even ever used to refer to slave owners.
	This happened at Harvard and Yale just a few years ago.
	At Harvard and Yale, the earliest American colleges, they inherited from Oxford and Cambridge the term master to refer to the head of the residential colleges.
	So you have some deans and you have a master of the college, and that's sort of like the social head of the college.
	The term master comes from Oxford, from Cambridge.
	We use the term master all the time when we use the word mister to refer to a stranger on the street.
	Hello, Mr.
	Smith.
	Mister is just a form of master.
	So, we use that term.
	It has nothing to do with slavery.
	It predates slavery by centuries in the Oxford and Cambridge tradition, and yet student activists and political activists at Harvard and Yale said, no, the word master, it sounds kind of slave-y.
	I know it has no relation to slavery whatsoever, but it just kind of sounds, it's the feels, like all my feels make it sound really slave-y, so we have to get rid of it.
	And they did.
	They dropped those terms.
	So now they use the phrase head of college.
	I'm sure they're going to find some way to be offended by head of college, too, and then they're going to change it again.
	That's the ignorance part.
	People don't really get what the word owner means, that the word owner doesn't come from slavery.
	But the other side of it, I think, is even more important, which is creeping socialism.
	It's not about...
	The racism, it's about ownership itself.
	We're uncomfortable in this egalitarian society where socialism is becoming much more popular where the majority of young Americans now are identifying as socialist.
	We're uncomfortable with private ownership itself.
	Just as a rule, whenever someone accuses you of racism, they're probably not talking about racism.
	Racism has become a tool of the left to silence people and to push forward their other ideas.
	Racism is rarely, if ever, actually about racism.
	So the question of whether owner is racist is not about racism.
	It's about ownerships.
	You have got people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders and I guess now the entire...
	Democrat field just about telling us that private property is bad.
	It's wrong.
	We need to take away private property.
	In the extreme case, we need socialism.
	We need socialist programs.
	That is the line.
	So people feel shame for owning private property.
	Why do you have the right to own something if that guy on the street doesn't have the right to own it?
	Why do I have the right to own my car when the bum drinking booze out of a plastic bottle on the street doesn't own a car?
	According to the radical egalitarians, there's something unfair about that.
	That's an example of social injustice.
	Actually, though, private property is great.
	Private property is one of the best things ever.
	And shared property is not that great.
	We are told in this culture that private property is bad and primitive.
	That in an advanced society, we will give up some of our private ownership of property, and then we'll all just hold things in common, like the mythical...
	People and the beautiful paradise that we envisioned before the social contract.
	That's what we're being told.
	Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, gave a speech at Tulane University where he said that in the beginning we all just kept our property to ourselves and we all just did things for ourselves, but then when we became civilized, we realized we needed to do everything together.
	And we needed to surrender our ownership and we needed to just kumbaya altogether.
	The actual history of civilization is exactly the opposite.
	Primitive tribes are not the most selfish.
	They don't have the most private ownership.
	They're not the most capitalistic.
	Primitive tribes are the most socialistic.
	They don't really have concepts of private property.
	When you look at primitive tribes in Papua New Guinea or in the Amazon jungle or in historical examples, they don't really hold private property.
	They hold all the goods in common and their economies don't really take off.
	They don't really produce very much.
	They don't enter into a state of advanced civilization.
	It doesn't grow society.
	Societies only begin to advance when they develop concepts of private property and when they develop concepts of government and law to protect that private property.
	And the reason for that is only when you have private property do you have any incentive to work, to produce, to till the land.
	This is true not just in the ancient civilizations or in the remote tribes in Papua New Guinea.
	This is true in American history.
	When the Mayflower sailed to America in 1620, And those early pilgrims got off the ship.
	They held their property in common.
	And you know what happened?
	They starved.
	They had a very terrible first winter.
	They had a very terrible second winter.
	It was only after they started to institute capitalist reforms that they had abundance.
	This is well attested to in the diaries of the governor of Plymouth, Governor Bradford.
	They decided instead of holding everything in common and trying to get Everyone else to work for everyone else.
	They would divvy up the property.
	Governor Bradford wrote that at that time, when they were sharing all of the property, the young men felt that they had no reason to go out there and work for some other man's wife to be able to eat.
	They would just sit at home and everyone else would do the work, and then they would hopefully enjoy some of the fruits of the other person's labor.
	This is what happens in communist governments.
	Perhaps it starts out with good intentions.
	Usually it doesn't, but let's say that it did start out with good intentions.
	The trouble is in the system itself.
	In the system itself, if I'm just gonna get the fruits of someone's labor, if we're all gonna get the average, why would I ever work above the average?
	In fact, why would I ever work at the average amount of productivity?
	I'm going to try to work below the average amount of productivity so that I'm really profiting from somebody else's labor because that's much easier and there's no difference in what I get to eat or the goods that I get to enjoy.
	So Governor Bradford then divided up all the property and guess what happened?
	Plymouth Plantation flourished and New England flourished and America learned a very important lesson in those early years.
	The other side of private property is that it is implied by natural rights and natural law.
	So all the time now, when socialists are ranting about social justice and how we need to give up private property ownership, and we need to...
	I mean, socialism is literally when the government takes control of the means of production and distribution in an economy.
	It's when they take away private property and private ownership.
	What we are told is that really it's a higher justice, it's human rights that call for us to take other people's property for ourselves.
	Actually, the opposite is true.
	Private property is a concept of the natural law and of natural rights.
	Our country is grounded in the idea of natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which John Locke described as the pursuit of property.
	Why is private property implied by natural rights and natural law?
	It's because it is a consequence of my liberty.
	So I have life, I have this life that I was given, and I can act freely in it.
	So I act freely and I work and I occupy certain places.
	And as a result of this, I have to be entitled to some profit for my work, my liberty.
	I have to be entitled to some of the fruits of my liberty.
	And this implies private property.
	What is the argument for taking away someone else's private property?
	That Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez really wants it?
	That's not a great argument.
	That the world will end if we don't take away a lot of people's private property in 12 years?
	Not really backed by science like AOC wants it to be.
	They have no argument for this.
	When the left can't make an argument against this, they have to revert to what they always do, which is they cry racism.
	They say, you're a bigot, you're a racist, you're selfish.
	Gimme, gimme, gimme.
	That's what's really going on here in this debate.
	And by the way, we saw this in action yesterday, this concept that We saw it in an interview that Jared Kushner did on HBO over the question of whether birtherism, the idea that Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S., whether birtherism is racist, and he totally bungled the answer.
	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she has called President Trump a racist.
	Have you ever seen him say or do anything that you would describe as racist or bigoted?
	So, the answer is no, absolutely not.
	You can't not be a racist for 69 years, then run for president and be a racist.
	And what I'll say is that when a lot of the Democrats call the president a racist, I think they're doing a disservice to people who suffer because of real racism in this country.
	Was birtherism racist?
	Look, I wasn't really involved in that.
	I know you weren't.
	Was it racist?
	Like I said, I wasn't involved in that.
	I know you weren't.
	Was it racist?
	Look, I know who the president is and I have not seen anything in him that is racist.
	So again, I was not involved in that.
	Did you wish he didn't do that?
	Like I said, I was not involved in that.
	That was a long time ago.
	The other issue that often gets brought up in this conversation is that he campaigned on banning Muslims.
	Would you describe that as religiously bigoted?
	Look, I think that the president did his campaign the way he did his campaign.
	He did.
	But do you wish he didn't?
	Do you wish he didn't make that speech?
	I think he's here today, and I think he's doing a lot of great things for the country, and that's what I'm proud of.
	I totally bungled it.
	I like Jared Kushner, but this was not a good answer in any case.
	The answer to the question, is birtherism racist, is obviously no.
	It's not racist.
	The answer on the Muslim ban, by the way, is that Barack Obama limited travel from many of the countries that Donald Trump did, and his ban, the travel restrictions, were not exclusively against Muslim-majority countries, and also it was a ban against countries that were failed states that we couldn't ensure the legitimacy of the people who were coming over here.
	So that's simply answered.
	And the question of birtherism is simply answered, too.
	Birtherism is not racist.
	Where does birtherism come from, the idea that Barack Obama wasn't born here?
	It comes from Barack Obama himself.
	Barack Obama's literary agent wrote in one of the early promotions for Barack Obama as a published writer that he was born in Kenya.
	This is what he wrote.
	Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.
	The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for a business international corporation.
	And then it goes on.
	It says it very clearly.
	He was born in Kenya.
	Now, the guy says this was a mistake.
	We have every reason to believe it was a mistake.
	But it was a mistake that came from Barack Obama and his literary agent, and it was distributed widely.
	Why else did people think Barack Obama wasn't born here?
	They thought that because he doesn't speak like an American.
	He doesn't speak in the sort of ideas that are traditionally American ideas.
	He very publicly rejected American exceptionalism.
	He was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, and he said, yeah, sure, I believe in it, just the way that the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism, which belies a fundamental understanding of American exceptionalism.
	If every country is exceptional, then no country is exceptional.
	And the idea of American exceptionalism is that America, by virtue of her unique development and foundation and role in the world, is unique.
	It's almost tautological.
	It's just a very basic observation that America, unlike every other country on earth, is exceptional.
	Not to say it's the greatest thing in the whole history of the world, though it is the greatest nation in the history of the world.
	It simply says it is the exception to nations, not the rule.
	And when you look at the unique founding of America, the unique development, obviously that is true.
	I think he was probably the first major presidential candidate ever to reject American exceptionalism.
	He also described Muslim prayers in the evening as one of the prettiest sounds on earth.
	That's a little strange.
	That's not totally in keeping with traditional American views of religion and religion.
	It's a foreign idea.
	Why else?
	He grew up abroad.
	He did grow up largely in Indonesia.
	Why else?
	He palled around with Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis and he credited those Marxists as his mentors.
	Why else?
	He palled around with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers.
	He launched his political campaign in the living room of Bill Ayers.
	Why else?
	Because his ideas were un-American.
	Also, it doesn't even make sense that birtherism would be racist.
	The idea that Barack Obama wasn't born in this country because he was black, is that what birtherism is?
	Because there are a lot of black people in America.
	Black people have been in America for centuries.
	That part wouldn't even, because somebody's black, they wouldn't be born in America?
	Black people are 12% of the American population.
	No, it was because he seemed foreign and because when he was young, his literary agent said that he was not born in America and because he spoke like someone who was not American.
	Birthism had other problems than this.
	First of all, there's not much evidence for it other than what his literary agent said decades ago.
	And the other major problem with birthism, which is why I never took the controversy seriously at all, is that even if Barack Obama had been born in some other place, he still would be a natural-born citizen.
	Because he was a citizen upon his birth.
	Natural just means from birth.
	So because his mother was a U.S. citizen, he was naturally born a U.S. citizen.
	So it didn't even really matter.
	Kushner should have just said this.
	Yeah, birtherism wasn't racist.
	Might have been stupid.
	It might have been foolish.
	It was, by the way, based on Barack Obama's own literary agent.
	But sure, it turned out it wasn't true.
	Okay.
	It's not racist.
	None of that shows that it's racist.
	If everything is racist, nothing is racist.
	We should not give the left an inch.
	We should not accept their premises.
	A good example of how Kushner should have responded to this came by way of Stephen Crowder yesterday because, you know, there's this Vox journalist who's trying to get Crowder banned from YouTube for making jokes, and YouTube is taking this apparently seriously.
	They are actively investigating Crowder.
	They want to get rid of his channel.
	I think his channel has like 4 million subscribers or something.
	And this jerk from Vox, this total fake victim punk named Carlos Maza, made a video yesterday explaining why we need to censor Crowder.
	Here he is.
	A ton of people have talked about this way before I did, and I've experienced it way worse than I have.
	YouTube is dominated by alt-right monsters who use the platform to target their critics and make their lives miserable.
	It's been happening for a long time.
	It's been happening since way before me.
	The response from people who've experienced this is, yeah, I agree.
	To hell with YouTube.
	I can't believe they're branding themselves as Pride allies, and I I heard you have Raymond Brown coming up later on the show.
	I hope you ask him what it's like to make basically corporate propaganda for a company that doesn't care about queer people.
	I want to stop it right there because did you hear the word he said at the end?
	He said that YouTube doesn't care about people who are making fun of queer people.
	And he's using the word queer people as his own identity.
	I mean, the guy's Twitter handle is Gay Wonk.
	So he's saying, we are queer people and it's wrong to make fun of us.
	Well, how did Stephen Crowder make fun of queer people?
	He called them queer.
	He used the very word that they used to describe themselves.
	He used the very word that this guy used to describe himself.
	But I guess when he says it, it's okay.
	And when Stephen Crowder says it, it's not okay.
	And why is that?
	Because he doesn't like Stephen Crowder and he wants Stephen Crowder to shut up because Stephen Crowder is a conservative.
	So he will baselessly smear Stephen Crowder as some sort of neo-Nazi.
	He's using the term alt-right.
	Alt-right used to have a meaning.
	Alt-right referred to a political movement, a very small political movement, that is racially essential, racially essentialist.
	And so it prioritizes race above all other political questions and concerns.
	It is largely materialist.
	It's a largely atheistic movement.
	Conservatives, mainstream conservatives, reject the premises of that movement entirely.
	This guy, totally baselessly smearing Crowder is that.
	Now, then he goes on with his suggestions for YouTube.
	The response from critics, people who love Steven Crowder, have been that I'm a fascist and I'm an NBC plant trying to take down a competitor, which is so dumb, I don't know what to say to it.
	But it's meant to distract from the reality, which is that Steven Crowder is not the problem.
	Alex Jones isn't the problem.
	These individual actors are not the problem.
	They are symptoms and the product of YouTube's design, which is meant to reward the most inflammatory, bigoted, and engaging performers.
	Steven Crowder is YouTube's ideal creator.
	He makes cheap, long content that tons of people want to subscribe to.
	He sells shirts on the platform that say socialism is for fags, so YouTube continues to allow.
	He is what an ideal YouTube creator looks like, and YouTube's branding about caring about queer people is meant to distract advertisers from the fact that they have no handle on their platform, and that people who run ads on YouTube are going to end up having their ads appear on videos with hate speech and bigoted harassment of queer people and marginalized communities.
	So what he just said about Stephen Crowder's shirts is also technically not true, because the shirt says that socialism is for figs.
	And instead of an A, it's a little picture of a fig.
	And coincidentally, Che Guevara, who's pictured on the shirt, was killed in a town called Higuero, which means the fig tree.
	So anyway, I'm quibbling over a minor point here.
	But the long story short is this guy's a whiny little liar, and he's a fake...
	Because he refers to marginalized communities.
	There's no more marginalized community on social media than conservatives.
	Conservatives are regularly demonetized, shut down, censored, deplatformed, kicked off their end.
	And by the way, if we're trying to compare the marginalization of conservatives on social media to queer people, to use Carlos Maz's term, conservatives regularly being deplatformed, regularly being kicked off social media, this very show gets censored not infrequently.
	I have been kicked off of Twitter for various periods of time.
	That's conservatives.
	In terms of gay people and LGBT, LMNOP, the term Pride Month has been trending for three consecutive days on Twitter.
	Not only are queer people, to use this term, not marginalized on social media, they are celebrated every day.
	Fine by me, but there's no comparison here.
	Now, we'll get to Crowder's apology in a second, but first I've got to say about Facebook and YouTube.
	And we've got a whole lot more to get to.
	We've got to get to the funniest story that I've read in the news in many months about how a weird, kinky, sexual meetup turned into assault and robbery.
	And we will have to get to Susan B. Anthony and...
	I'm uncovering whether the left or right can accurately claim her.
	But go to dailywire.com if you want.
	At $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
	You get me, you get the Andrew Klavan show, you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get the Matt Walsh show.
	You get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up on Thursday.
	You get to ask questions backstage.
	You get everything, but you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	And this is very, very important.
	You're going to...
	That's really good.
	I'm really proud of how delicious the Leftist Tears Tumblr tastes.
	I just take a lot of pride in it.
	I think we should all be proud of how delicious Leftist Tears Tumblrs are.
	If you want to be proud of salty Leftist Tears, go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back.
	So Crowder issued an apology.
	He's under a lot of pressure.
	They're threatening to take away his entire business from him.
	They're threatening to take away his entire show for him because some whiny little leftist punk doesn't like him.
	And so Crowder, understandably, he just published a video that said, I'm sorry.
	Let's hear what he had to say.
	It's been brought to my attention that many of the comments, videos, and overall tenor and tone of this program have been considered hurtful and offensive to many.
	And while not in violation of policy guidelines, certainly skirted the line of human decency.
	I, along with everyone here at Loudworth Crowder, am not above recognizing my mistakes and attempting to rectify them.
	So I'd like to take this opportunity to formally apologize to all parties involved.
	Firstly, my heartfelt apologies to practicing socialists offended by the Che Guevara Socialism is for Figs t-shirt.
	I know that we should fight bad ideas with good ideas and respectfully debate the merits, virtues, and shortcomings of socialism as opposed to merely mocking it with a hysterical t-shirt available at lottowithcredershop.com.
	Also, my apologies to the Nabisco Corporation and their Fig Newton subsidiary.
	I would also like to apologize to Drake, the rapper, for referring to him as a, quote, and claiming that his only redeeming quality as a performer was when he was shot into permanent paralysis on Degrassi.
	I'd also like to apologize to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for implying that she's long been deceased.
	And even though I don't have verifiable proof to the contrary, I do realize my observations were conducted in poor taste and ill-timed.
	I also apologize for Pantelis' remarks implying that she looks like a cartoon snail librarian.
	This is exactly how conservatives should respond when whiny leftist punks try to get in our face about our various opinions.
	We should reject their premises and then we should laugh at them.
	Because I think it's actually because the mainstream media is so insane.
	And I mean not just the newspapers, but Hollywood, TV, movies, all this.
	It's because the mainstream media are so insane that we sometimes forget that most people are normal.
	So, even while we're talking about 56 genders on Facebook and, you know, shrieking crazy people on college campuses, Donald Trump got elected president.
	That's one fact.
	Another fact, Fox News beats out CNN every night.
	Here's another fact.
	Last Man Standing, a totally normal sitcom about totally normal people doing totally normal things, is an extremely popular TV show.
	You could go on and on and on.
	Most people are pretty normal.
	It's just the people who control our popular culture are the ones who are totally insane.
	Don't let them scare you.
	Stand up to them, stare them in the eye, and laugh right in their face.
	Which brings us to my favorite story I've read in months, speaking of the intersection of interesting sexuality and comedy.
	There's a story that came out today.
	It's so good, I have to read it to you in its entirety.
	It so typifies what we have been talking about with our total cultural obsession about sex and casual sex and the sexual revolution and the hookup culture.
	This story from the New York Post.
	Quote.
	A Greenwich village man was allegedly robbed by a date he met on Grindr, Grindr is a gay dating app.
	But told cops he couldn't scream for help because he had a, quote, jock strap and ball gag in his mouth, police sources said Monday.
	Police responded to a call of a home invasion robbery around 3 a.m.
	Saturday at the 26-year-old victim's apartment on Greenwich Street, police said.
	The man told police he had met his date in a section of the app called Close your ears if you don't want to hear this.
	Black men love fisting, the sources said.
	He said the two men had consensual intercourse that included latex bottles, rubber gloves, a leash, and a sex swing.
	But they got into an argument over the small size of the perp's package, leading him to choke the victim and demand cash, the sources said.
	The victim told cops he thought it was part of the fantasy until his date allegedly dragged him into a closet and took $3,000.
	Sorry.
	The victim told cops he tried to scream when he realized he was being robbed, but couldn't, the sources said.
	The robber fled and the victim was treated on the scene.
	Cops took latex gloves, a sex toy, and the sex swing as evidence, the source said.
	The suspect was described as being in his 30s with a goatee and wearing a white t-shirt, black sweatpants, and a black hoodie, Police canvassed the area but didn't find the perp.
	I don't mean to laugh at this guy getting robbed.
	It's too bad for that guy.
	I feel sorry for him.
	And I also don't mean to pick on gay guys because obviously this story involved two gay guys.
	This could have involved straight people or people who have any sort of sexual preferences.
	The rule is true for everybody.
	When your sexual fantasies and desires and acts are indistinguishable from assault, battery, and robbery, you have lost the plot.
	You've lost the narrative.
	Something needs to change because the key to the story is that the guy, the victim, is kind of making fun of his partner's natural endowments.
	And then the guy starts yelling at him and getting physical and drags him into a closet and puts a ball gag on his mouth.
	And at that moment, the victim thought it was part of the fantasy.
	So he thought this was actually a moment of great pleasure, when in fact it was a moment of great pain because he was about to lose three grand and have to wait in his closet for a few hours.
	Something is wrong with our sexual culture.
	If you...
	Not if this happens.
	Look, this...
	People get robbed.
	People...
	Domestic abuse happens.
	Violence happens.
	That's not the new thing.
	The thing that's new is that the guy thought it was pleasure.
	The guy thought it was part of the fantasy.
	The guy already had the ball gag in his mouth.
	The police had to confiscate a sex swing and a bunch of other weird stuff and latex gloves.
	It's too much, guys.
	Too much.
	Dial it back a little bit.
	All right?
	Look, I mean...
	What two people do in the privacy of their own home is of no interest to me unless it's a really funny story in the New York Post.
	But something's gone wrong here.
	And actually, this is borne out by statistics.
	Both Tinder, which is the straight version of Grindr, and Grindr are more dangerous than ever, both of them, according to a UK report.
	Crimes that have begun on Tinder and Grindr have increased nearly threefold From 2013 to 2014 and sevenfold from 2013 to 2015.
	And that was four years ago.
	Who knows how high that is now?
	You don't need to be some orthodox Christian or some Bible-belt, religious, zealot person.
	You don't need to go to church regularly.
	You don't need to take any particular view on sexual morality or any of it.
	To read that story and say, hmm, maybe something's gone a little wrong in our culture.
	We're now told we shouldn't have any shame.
	Straight, gay, asexual, bisexual, and whatever, you're not supposed to have any shame for your desires.
	Every sexual desire is supposed to be really great.
	No.
	Obviously not.
	When you're being mugged and you think being mugged is part of your sexual desire, something has gone wrong.
	Maybe you should rethink what you are engaging in and what you are doing.
	And I'm sure that I'll be labeled some kind of phobe for pointing out that sex between two loving adults should not resemble assault, battery, and robbery.
	But there it is.
	There it is.
	That's all I can say.
	Speaking of morality and religion, bad news out of the Vatican today.
	Pope Francis has just rewritten the Lord's Prayer.
	So the Our Father, the Lord's Prayer, is a very simple prayer.
	It's a prayer that Christ himself gives the apostles, and I'm sure you've heard it, but it goes, Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
	Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
	Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
	And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
	You see, lead us not into temptation is from God.
	You are asking God not to lead you into temptation.
	That is the point.
	But what Pope Francis is saying is...
	It's that God could never lead you into temptation.
	Only the devil leads you into temptation.
	Except this is contradicted in Scripture.
	Right around the time in the Gospel where Christ gives the apostles the Lord's Prayer, he is led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
	It is the Spirit that is doing the leading, the Spirit of God, and the devil is doing the tempting.
	How is that possible?
	I don't know.
	It is not for me to know.
	I don't know that.
	I don't understand all of the mind of God.
	I couldn't possibly understand the mind of God.
	That is not possible for finite creatures like human beings.
	But I likewise don't want to go in there and edit the words of Christ himself because I think I have a better idea than he did.
	This is a huge mistake and it's an example of hubris and religion.
	You see this all throughout religion.
	Really bad move from Pope Francis, and I will not be editing the words of Christ in the Lord's Prayer, and I suspect a lot of Christians around the world won't be doing it either.
	People have some difficulty with Scripture.
	We all have difficulty with Scripture.
	I think Cardinal Newman, one of the greatest theologians ever, said that 10,000 problems does not make one doubt.
	There have been cardinals who have said that they don't understand all of Scripture.
	Of course we couldn't understand all of theology.
	If we could, it wouldn't be true theology.
	We can never understand the mind of God.
	It shouldn't lead us to rewrite the Bible and to rewrite the Lord's Prayer.
	Now this brings us to the 19th Amendment.
	We have to get to it before we close today.
	Susan B. Anthony.
	100 years ago today, the Senate passed woman suffrage, gave woman the right to vote.
	This was passed largely thanks to Susan B. Anthony.
	Susan B. Anthony, the OG woman's rights activist.
	It's also worth noting that Susan B. Anthony was staunchly pro-life.
	This has become a matter of political debate in recent years.
	Was Susan B. Anthony pro-life or was she not?
	The Susan B. Anthony List, which is a pro-life organization, takes its name, obviously, from Susan B. Anthony.
	But a lot of pro-abortion groups say that she wasn't pro-life.
	There's no evidence that she personally disagreed with abortion.
	This is not true.
	So why do they make this case?
	In an A journal that Susan B. Anthony owned called The Revolution, abortion was referred to as child murder and antenatal infanticide, so before birth infanticide.
	One article in this journal read, quote, Guilty?
	Yes.
	And this was signed A. Now, we don't know what A is.
	A has been interpreted by some people to mean Anthony.
	We've been told by other scholars it doesn't mean Anthony, that when Susan B. Anthony signed her name, she signed it S-B-A. And actually, A could have referred to a different writer in the publication.
	Okay, maybe.
	The journal was edited by fellow feminists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whose husband helped to found the Republican Party and founded by Parker Pillsbury, also ardently pro-life.
	And the journal included both sides of issues.
	So it could be the case, they say, that even though Susan B. Anthony was pro-abortion, the journal presented the anti-abortion side as well.
	This falls apart when we see the advertising policy in the journal.
	The journal had a very explicit advertising policy which read, Quack medicine vendors, however rich, proud, and pretentious, feticides and infanticides should be classed together and regarded with shuddering horror by the whole human race.
	So hard to argue with that.
	That advertising policy would not have gone into effect without the approval of the owner of the journal, Susan B. Anthony.
	Regardless, even of the authorship of any of those lines, we still know that Susan B. Anthony was pro-life.
	Why?
	Because she defended, quote, the unborn little ones.
	She used that phrase, the unborn little ones.
	Now, she's not referring to the unborn random clump of cells.
	She's not referring to the unborn zygote or the unborn blastula or the unborn embryo or the unborn fetus.
	She refers to the unborn little ones.
	Unborn means they're to be born.
	The suffragette, Frances Willard, who is a friend of Susan B. Anthony, recounted one time that a man said that of all women, Susan B. Anthony should have been a wife and a mother, because she wasn't a wife and a mother.
	And Susan B. Anthony's reply was, quote, I thank you, sir, but sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.
	Pretty clear.
	She also referred to infanticides and abortions as some of the greatest evils associated with alcoholism.
	So a lot of the suffragettes were involved in the temperance movement too.
	Very, very awful trying to get men to stop drinking booze and trying to push for prohibition.
	And one of the reasons for this is they said men get drunk and then they go have sex with women and then they knock them up but they're totally irresponsible rather and then the women are going compelled to have abortions.
	And she said that these abortions and these infanticides are some of the greatest evils associated with booze.
	But it's only an evil if abortion and infanticide are evil, which obviously she believed was the case.
	And the last bit of evidence we have here, I mean there's a lot more, but just the last bit that we have time for, is that Susan B. Anthony's own sister had an abortion.
	And Susan B. Anthony wrote in her private diary about this.
	She said, She will rue the day.
	Why will she rue the day that she has an abortion?
	We're told today that abortion is empowering.
	We're told that it's something you should be proud of.
	We're told that it's something you should shout from the rooftops.
	It's not something that should be safe, legal, and rare.
	It should be on demand up until the moment of birth.
	It's so good.
	It's so great to be able to have an abortion that you should shout it with joy and with pride.
	Susan B. Anthony didn't think that.
	Why?
	Because she thought it was evil, and she thought it caused regret, and she wouldn't allow quack medicine people who would kill babies and fetuses, so-called, to advertise in her journal, and she defended the unborn little ones.
	And she published people who referred very explicitly to the evils of abortion.
	It's pretty clear that the Susan B. Anthony list has it right here.
	The pro-life movement has it right.
	And you'll see trending all over the internet, the 19th Amendment, Susan B. Anthony, women's rights.
	Well, the leading women's rights activists opposed abortion.
	The top of their class women's rights activists opposed abortion.
	Today, in the abortion debate, we hear women's rights and abortion referred to synonymously.
	It's like they're the same thing.
	Women's reproductive rights, women's health care, women's health.
	The women that we credit with starting the modern feminist movement, that all of these modern feminists hold up as the forebears of their movement, the most important among them opposed abortion.
	That's an inconvenient fact.
	They probably won't be admitting it anytime soon, but we should remind them whenever the 19th Amendment is trending, whenever there are celebrations to celebrate women's suffrage, bring that up because those early suffragettes, those early feminists defended women not just when they turned 18 or 21 and they could vote, those early feminists defended women not just when they turned 18 or 21 and they could vote, but they defended them all the way before they were even All right, that's our show.
	More to get to, but, you know, that's the way it goes.
	Come back tomorrow, and we'll have a lot more.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Show.
	I'll see you then.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner, 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.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, people in this country don't seem to understand Christianity, in case you haven't noticed.
	And that's why today there's outrage, because a pastor prayed for the president, and outrage because a Catholic bishop came out against gay pride parades.
	Nobody should be shocked by either thing, and nobody would be shocked if they had a basic understanding of Christianity.
	We'll talk about that.
	Also, Texas has banned red light cameras.
	This is cause for celebration, even for a parade, maybe.

▲