Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 13, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

45:25

Ep. 365 - Did Trump Just Endorse Collusion?

Oil tankers go up in flames in the Middle East, a million people take to the streets in Hong Kong as China tightens its grip over the formerly westernized city, and President Trump appears to endorse foreign election interference. Then, Jordan Peterson launches a new social media platform, deep fakes blur fiction and reality, and finally the Mailbag! Date: 06-13-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oil tankers go up in flames in the Middle East.
	A million people take to the streets in Hong Kong as China tightens its grip over the formerly westernized region.
	And President Trump appears to endorse campaign collusion and foreign election interference in an interview with George Stepanopoulos.
	We will examine foreign policy threats and faux pas.
	Then Jordan Peterson launches a new social media platform.
	Deep fakes blur the distinction between fiction and reality with serious implications for 2020.
	And finally, after all that, the mailbag.
	I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Do we have a busy show today?
	But first, Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
	You know about Ring.
	I've been telling you about Ring for a long time.
	They have their smart video doorbells.
	They have their cameras that protect millions of people everywhere in the world.
	And most importantly, they let you feel like you're living in the future or the Jetsons or something.
	Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
	So if there's a package delivery or if there's a surprise visitor, you know, anything from your mother-in-law to a burglar, I don't know which one you'd be happier to see, you will get an alert and be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone because of the amazing HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
	The thing I really like about this, too, is that Ring uploads all the video to the cloud.
	So even if you've got a really smart robber who realizes he can just steal your ring device, he like rips it out of the wall or something, you already got the video so you can catch the guy.
	Our senior producer, Jonathan Hay, just the other day, this was a couple months ago now, he was sleeping, it's three in the morning in his lovely home, and he gets a ring on his bell.
	It's these drug-addled wackos who are casing the joint trying to rob him.
	He responds to them, he could have been anywhere in the world, but he was in his bed, and he chases them away, they run away.
	As a listener, right now you have a special offer on a ring starter kit available with a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight camera.
	The Starter Kit has everything you need to start building a Ring of Security around your home, and it's just super cool.
	This is why I give it to my friends as a housewarming gift.
	Go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, ring.com slash Knowles.
	Now, before we get to foreign threats in Asia and the Middle East, we have to turn our attention to a foreign threat that has already invaded our country by checking in on the Women's World Cup with our Daily Wire 2 sports correspondent, Jeremy the God King Boring.
	Yowza, Michael!
	It's that time of year again, time for the Federacion of Something Something Soccer of America World Cup.
	And this time, Michael, there's ladies.
	- Mmm. - For those of you who don't remember, because you're American, the World Cup is that special tournament wherein grown adult athletes from every corner of the earth, even terribly poor countries and oppressive countries, gather once a year to determine who has taken soccer,
	that cute game beloved by toddlers and elementary school children everywhere, and have that cute game beloved by toddlers and elementary school children everywhere, and have managed somehow, against all odds, to build a team that can score one to possibly two points more than all of the other teams, and thus be declared the very best at something, which for women's teams means being just slightly worse than an above average troop That's not an exaggeration, Michael.
	Look it up.
	It's also that special time of year when Democrats and the news media collude with one another to obstruct justice, that sacred state in which individuals receive exactly that to which they are entitled, by demanding that female soccer players be paid the same as their male counterparts.
	This despite the fact that no one watches them, buys their products, attends their events, or even knew their silly little sport existed until they made headlines for whining about their pay and disrespecting our nation's flag.
	Female soccer players work just as hard as male soccer players, the pundits shriek, as though the level of effort one puts into a task determines the amount other people are willing to trade in return for the service, and as if male soccer players actually work harder than America's blue-collar laborers who toil in obscurity for less than 75K and just want to watch baseball and be left to hell alone.
	Of course, in the interest of true justice, Michael, we here at The Daily Wire 2 looked into the accusations that there is indeed unfairness in the system, and we have discovered this shocking truth.
	According to a reporter at our sister network, The Daily Wire, women's soccer brought in $17 million in ad revenue in 2015.
	Men's soccer, by contrast, generated 31 times that amount.
	The previous Women's World Cup, which America's ladies won, generated $73 million in revenue worldwide.
	The Men's World Cup, also known as the World Cup, grossed upwards of $6.
	Billion.
	Yes, Michael, that's billion, with a B, a full 82 times more than the more comely female counterparts.
	And yet, the women's team received $10 million for their trouble, 13%, Michael, of the total haul, whereas the men's team only received 6% of the $6 billion haul from the Men's World Cup.
	So you can see, Michael, it's true, foul injustice has occurred.
	The men are clearly paid less than they deserve.
	Somebody get me a penis hat.
	Hey, Michael.
	Hey, Michael.
	You want a penis hat?
	Yeah.
	Anyway, it probably won't matter much longer, as this is likely the last World Cup in which players who were born biologically female will ever win the sport, since they're being replaced, as in all other women's sports, by mediocre male athletes looking for an easy win and willing to suffer for their craft.
	This, because not a single left-wing politician, media figure, or academic can produce a working definition of the word woman.
	But how overpaid female athletes are isn't the only controversy from women's soccer, Michael.
	Mary Robespierre or something, captain of the American national team, has decided to forego the entire premise of a national team, a team that represents a nation in an international competition, and refuses to participate in the national anthem of the nation that her national team represents, which is this nation.
	With a well-practiced resting bitch face that would be a terrible cliché if she were a lesbian, Mary Rorschach tests proved that there is, in fact, an I in team.
	And a couple of other letters to boot.
	By glaring into the middle distance while a 96-year-old veteran of World War II, Hermanica Peet, played the star-spangled banner from his wheelchair.
	Of course, the right of dour, entitled white women to virtue signal by shunning their nation's banner and heroes before they engage in a children's sport for money and fame is exactly what the heroes of World War II were fighting for.
	Right, Michael?
	Right?
	Of course it wasn't, Michael!
	They were fighting for national pride, to avenge those murdered in the vicious sneak attack on our forces at Pearl Harbor, to preserve their uniquely Christian and unregulated and free way of life, to defend our allies, to stop the Germans from their second attempt in half a century to dominate the entire globe, and for their brothers beside them doing the same.
	Are you kidding?
	If these guys could have seen the disgrace that is Mary Robocop...
	Snarling at Harmonica Pete 75 years after they stormed the beaches of Normandy and the praise she received from our national media for the insult to their honor, they probably would have called the whole thing off and told us, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, enjoy speaking German, kids, and playing soccer like the Germans.
	The Nazis love soccer.
	Yowza, Michael!
	Back to you!
	Jeremy, a very thorough report.
	I have only one question that you didn't cover.
	When it is the ladies who are playing the soccer game themselves, who drives the minivans to pick them up when the practice and the games are over?
	Michael, in this day and age in which men have completely forfeited their role in society and in the family, you can bet that beta men all over this country will happily pick up their ladies in minivans and SUVs.
	I look forward to going out and buying the juice boxes later.
	Jeremy the God King Boring, the sports correspondent for our sister network Daily Watch.
	A really thorough report.
	That was, that was terrific.
	I can't wait for the World Cup to happen again next year.
	This is going to be just terrific.
	We've got to talk about less dangerous threats from abroad to our country.
	I speak, of course, of oil tankers blowing up in the Middle East and riots happening in Hong Kong.
	In the Middle East right now, two oil tankers have been hit by shells or torpedoes.
	We don't know which.
	This left one of the tankers on fire.
	This left one of them just sort of floating adrift.
	This is one month after four oil tankers in the region were sabotaged in Florida.
	And this attack today happened in the Gulf of Oman, which I've actually visited.
	I was seeing a friend in Dubai and we rented a car and drove down to Muscat, Oman, which is right on the Gulf of Oman.
	And I can tell you from just firsthand experience, this is not a place that you want to be.
	It's a very nice country, Oman, but it's surrounded by very dangerous countries.
	You have, on the one side, Saudi Arabia, which is a U.S. ally.
	On the other side, you have the United Arab Emirates, which is another U.S. ally.
	Across the water, you've got Iran.
	That is not a U.S. ally.
	That's a U.S. foe.
	And then on the last part of the border with Oman, you have Yemen, which is now in a civil war.
	And the civil war is actually just a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran backing a different side.
	This is where Oman is smushed in the world.
	And so everyone is suspecting that this oil tanker was blown up by Iran.
	We don't know.
	We're not sure.
	The foreign minister of Iran, John Kerry's good buddy, Javad Sharif, I think his name is, something like that.
	He says it's very suspicious.
	It's very curious.
	Of course it is.
	Uh, If it were Iran, that wouldn't make a ton of sense right now.
	The reason for that is that one of the tankers that got blown up was a Japanese tanker, and the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, just landed in Iran.
	It's the first time a Japanese Prime Minister has gone to Iran since 1979.
	So this is supposed to be a big moment for peace and progress in the region.
	Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for Iran to do it.
	However, on the other hand, it maybe would make the most sense because it gives Iran a lot of cover.
	No one would be expecting them to do that at this time, so perhaps that's exactly when they would strike.
	So you have Iran saying that the timing benefits us, the United States and Saudi Arabia and the American allies, because it, it, uh, uh, gives us leverage in these heightened, uh, tensions in the region.
	Then you have, on the other hand, we say the timing benefits Iran because it gives them cover.
	The broader context of this is there's been talk of the United States going to war with Iran for some months now.
	There's been talk about this for years because Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
	And the national security advisor to Donald Trump has advocated war with Iran for a long time.
	I love the guy, John Bolton.
	But when they were negotiating the so-called Iran deal, John Bolton had an op-ed, I think in the New York Times, that said, to stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran.
	And so every aspect of this looks suspicious.
	This is...
	There is no conclusion.
	Anyone who tells you there's an easy conclusion from what's going on right now in the Middle East is lying to you.
	We don't know what's happening.
	We don't know the prospect of war with Iran.
	We know that President Trump ran as an anti-war candidate.
	He doesn't want to go to war with Iran.
	He's been resisting advisers who have been trying to get him to go to war with Iran and...
	So we'll see if this puts him over the edge or if he's going to stick to his guns here.
	On the other side of the world, we've got some trouble in Hong Kong.
	But first, let me tell you why I feel so good and rested.
	You know why it is.
	It's because of Purple Mattress, the greatest bed I've ever slept in that you need to go get right now.
	It will feel different than anything you have ever experienced because it's this brand new material.
	It was developed by rocket scientists.
	It's not an inner spring like an old mattress.
	It's not quite a memory foam like some of those newer, cheaper mattresses.
	This thing is unbelievable.
	I was super skeptical of it because they say it's firm and soft at the same time.
	How is that possible?
	I don't know, but it is.
	They say it sleeps cool.
	It doesn't get you too hot at night.
	How is that possible?
	I don't know, but that's true.
	So I get this bed.
	I almost didn't want to move out my old innerspring bed.
	I said, I don't know, maybe, I don't know if I want to try that.
	I'm very particular about my bed.
	I spend 19 to 24 hours a day in it.
	So I tried out for one night.
	I was immediately sold.
	I threw out my old bed.
	I have not looked back.
	I'm recommending this to all of my friends.
	You are going to love it.
	You get a 100-night risk-free trial.
	If you're not fully satisfied, you can return your mattress for a full refund, but you won't want to do that.
	It's backed by a 10-year warranty, free shipping and returns, free in-home setup and old mattress removal.
	The thing is just great.
	I kid you not, I wake up in the morning and I tell sweet little Elisa, ah...
	I feel so good on my purple mattress.
	What did we do before the purple mattress?
	It's that good.
	I don't know how else to convey it to you.
	You've got to try it yourself.
	Right now, my listeners, rather, will get a free purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress.
	That's in addition to the great free gifts that they're offering site-wide.
	How do you do it?
	Pull out your phone.
	If you're driving, pull over.
	Pull out your phone.
	Text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 84888.
	That is the only way to get this free purple pillow.
	Text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 84888.
	K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 84888.
	Message and data rates may apply.
	On the other side of the world right now, Over in Hong Kong, upwards of a million people have taken to the streets to protest a new bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China.
	So, ostensibly what this is about is if someone commits a crime in China, they can go away to run to Hong Kong, and then they won't be extradited.
	That's not really what this is about.
	What this is really about is China tightening its grip over a semi-autonomous region known as Hong Kong.
	Hong Kong is the fourth most densely populated region in the world.
	This is an international city, a center of global finance, very westernized city, and it's separate.
	It's a separate administrative region of China, which has its own governing and economic systems.
	For now, but China is encroaching on that.
	The people there don't identify as Chinese, they identify as Hong Kongers.
	And how did Hong Kong get to be so great?
	While China is a terrible country, it got to be so great because the British ruled it for 150 years.
	So this was from the end of the first Opian War in 1842 through 1997, not that long ago, Britain controlled Hong Kong.
	And it was great.
	It was awesome.
	By the end of the 19th century, I guess 1898, Britain signed a 99-year lease with China for Hong Kong.
	So they said, in 99 years, we're going to give this region back.
	Unfortunately, during that time period, you had the Communist Revolution, you had Mao destroy the entire country, and for some reason, Britain still honored the treaty and gave Hong Kong back.
	Which it probably shouldn't have done.
	So you have this essentially western city that is crumbling under Chinese rule.
	Now China is clamping down even more on this.
	And obviously this has a lot to do with the United States trade war.
	With China.
	I mean, you can't take out this fully, largely westernized global financial center right there in China.
	It's kind of between the east and the west.
	China tightening its grip.
	You can't take that out of the context of the major trade war that the United States is finally admitting we're already in with China.
	China stealing our IP, illegally subsidizing steel and aluminum, violating WTO treaties, spying on us, putting spyware in the technology that they produce for us.
	This is a major issue, and so they're clamping down on Hong Kong.
	What does this have to do with the United States?
	What this has to do with the United States is that you've got tankers going up in flames in the Middle East.
	You've got a clamping down on a westernized and important financial city just outside of China, outside of mainland China.
	And then you've got President Trump for some reason agreeing to do an interview with former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office, and he totally puts his foot in his mouth on foreign policy.
	Here's what he said.
	Don Jr.
	is up before the Senate Intelligence Committee today, and again, he was not charged with anything.
	In retrospect, though...
	By the way, not only wasn't he charged, if you read it, with all of the horrible fake news, I mean, I was reading that my son was going to go to jail.
	This is a good young man, that he was going to go to jail.
	Don Jr.
	had been caught up in the Russia investigation because of that Trump Tower meeting in 2016, which he set up expecting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.
	Okay, let's put yourself in a position.
	You're a congressman.
	Somebody comes up and says, hey, I have information on your opponent.
	Do you call the FBI? It's coming from Russia, you do?
	I've seen a lot of things over my life.
	I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life.
	You don't call the FBI. Life doesn't work that way.
	The FBI director says that's what should happen.
	The FBI director is wrong because, frankly, it doesn't happen like that.
	Okay, so, so far you see what Stephanopoulos is doing.
	He's setting it up and he's getting Donald Trump into this personal territory because Don Jr.
	ostensibly set up that Russia meeting at Trump Tower.
	And so there were all these threats that they're going to throw Don Jr.
	in prison.
	So Stephanopoulos gets Trump on this very defensive, very personal ground.
	Should your son go to prison?
	Did your son break the law?
	Did he do something wrong?
	So Trump, obviously, very loyal especially to his kids, he says...
	No way.
	They didn't do anything wrong.
	This is completely fine.
	If someone came up to you and said, we've got dirt on your opponent, obviously you'd take the meeting.
	And by the way, everybody in the country would take that meeting.
	It's not just Donald Trump.
	If someone says, I've got dirt on your opponent, you're running for office, you take it.
	Of course you take the meeting.
	Now...
	He veers off into bad territory when he says the FBI director is wrong.
	No, I wouldn't have called the FBI. Maybe you need a more delicate answer here.
	He's saying no campaign would have called the FBI. Maybe that's true.
	I mean, in the case of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, it's not that she was offered dirt and she called the FBI to report it.
	The Clinton campaign worked with the FBI through proxies to spy on the Trump campaign.
	The Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the Steele dossier, which was used as the bogus evidence to get the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign.
	It's almost like an inverse of what they're accusing Trump of doing here.
	But even so far, what Trump is saying is sort of defensible.
	Then he goes too far.
	Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI? I think maybe you do both.
	I think you might want to listen.
	There's nothing wrong with listening.
	If somebody called from a country, Norway, we have information on your opponent.
	Oh, I think I'd want to hear it.
	You want that kind of interference in our elections?
	It's not an interference.
	They have information.
	I think I'd take it.
	This was a total setup question.
	I mean, a really tough question to be in from Stephanopoulos.
	And President Trump blew it.
	It's a bad look to say, yeah, I want foreign governments to give me dirt on my opponents.
	You don't want to encourage them to give you dirt on your opponents because then you owe the foreign governments.
	And by the way, Trump didn't do this.
	He's putting himself into this hypothetical situation that he's going to be criticized for that he didn't even do.
	It's just a bad political look because now the left and the anti-Trump right are in hysterics and they're saying he's not a patriot and he's a traitor to his country.
	That's not the issue.
	The actual thing he's talking about isn't even the issue.
	Every country interferes in every other country's elections.
	Countries interfere with each other.
	They do it all the time.
	During the Obama administration, Barack Obama sent his senior campaign aides to Israel to try to oust Benjamin Netanyahu from power.
	He sent $350,000 of US taxpayer money to a front organization to oust Bibi Netanyahu from power in Israel.
	We all interfere in each other's elections.
	Still, What you don't want is for the President of the United States to accept this sort of thing publicly, to accept these premises publicly, because what it does, invariably, is create the impression of disloyalty to your country.
	That's the impression that President Trump is giving off.
	He's saying, yeah, I would totally accept the help of foreign governments.
	I would incentivize foreign governments to give me dirt on American politicians.
	Now, he's not actually doing it.
	And actually, Democrat politicians have done this.
	They have gone and colluded with foreign governments to try to win elections.
	Ted Kennedy colluded with the Soviet Union to try to win the presidency.
	This is how he was negotiating with the Soviet Union to help him get elected.
	So it does happen.
	So why don't you say it?
	You don't say it because hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
	Because you also don't want to create incentives, publicly speaking.
	You don't want to put out on your bullhorn and say, hey, foreign governments of the world, give me dirt on my opponents.
	Please, spy on American citizens, spy on American politicians.
	It's just a bad look.
	The good thing you can say for President Trump in this interaction is something that I've said for a long time, which is that President Trump is the most honest president that we've ever had.
	He is.
	Call him Honest Donald.
	You have Honest Abe, now you can have Honest Donald.
	Why is he the most honest president?
	Because President Trump brags about doing all the bad things and thinking all the bad things that all the other presidents have also done, but they've hidden.
	He's open about it.
	He's honest about it.
	Obviously, any politician, what he said is practically true.
	If you're even the president or you're running a campaign and someone comes up to you and says, we got dirt on your opponent.
	Let's say it's some Norwegian lawyer.
	Maybe he's got ties to the Norwegian government.
	He says, I got a ton of dirt on your opponent.
	100% of political campaigns take that meeting and take the dirt.
	They hear them out.
	As Trump said, maybe they call the FBI after, maybe they don't, who knows.
	100% of campaigns do it.
	Only this guy would actually admit to wanting to do that or to actually doing that.
	In some ways, this is refreshing.
	I actually do think this has some positive effect on our political discourse because it just knocks away so much BS, so much preening falsehood.
	However, what this also means is then we need to articulate that it's bad.
	You don't want to incentivize foreign governments to spy on American citizens, even if they're awful American citizens like Hillary Clinton.
	You don't want to incentivize that.
	You don't want it to seem like the president of the United States is encouraging you to do that or offering you something in return.
	That's not a good idea.
	It's refreshing to hear a guy speak honestly, but then it's incumbent on all the rest of us to say, right, true, that is honest, we shouldn't do that.
	Don't do it.
	Moving on to some good news happening domestically.
	Jordan B. Peterson, you know, the lobster king himself, is announcing a new social media platform.
	This is going to be a censorship-free platform.
	This is going to be a platform that conservatives are welcome to.
	He announced the name of it.
	It is called ThinkSpot.
	What does it do?
	It will allow creators to monetize their content.
	It will be radically pro-free speech.
	They say the only way they're going to take someone off is if a court orders them to.
	This creates some problems.
	Because the trouble with these is, the minute that you set up a social media platform, a new one, and you say it's going to be pro-free speech, you just get flooded with the Nazis.
	And so it becomes the Nazi platform.
	Now, one way they're working on this is the platform is going to require a minimum of 50 words per post.
	And I love this idea.
	Because what that means is, even if you're just going to troll...
	In Jordan Peterson's words, you have to be a witty troll.
	You have to use your brain.
	You have to use words.
	You have to offer some even sort of vaguely substantive idea.
	I like that.
	So is it going to work?
	If anybody can make this work, it's Jordan Peterson, because he's just a superstar right now.
	He is acceptable to conservatives and liberals, not the hard left, but some liberals.
	He's acceptable to religious people and secular people.
	I mean, he's embraced by Bishop Barron, a Catholic bishop.
	He's also embraced by the whole materialist, new agey, secular crowd.
	And he infuriates the censorship crowd, so he's got the right enemies.
	For that big problem that we mentioned, Nazis, he does have a system for this, the The system is that basically if you get ratioed, then your posts are hidden.
	And people can click on it and see them, but they don't automatically pop up.
	And so the New York Magazine is referring to this as shadow banning.
	They say Jordan Peterson's pro-free speech platform is going to be just as bad on shadow banning as Twitter and all the others are.
	That's not true.
	That's completely dishonest.
	What Jordan is describing is not shadow banning.
	What he's saying is if you get downvoted too many times, more than 50% of the time, your post isn't going to show up.
	That's kind of like Reddit.
	That's not shadow banning.
	We all know the rules.
	We all know what's happening.
	You, the user, you, the content creator, can see that.
	What shadow banning is, is when they don't tell you that you're not showing up in timelines.
	When some arbitrary editor over at Twitter just says, we don't really like Ted Cruz.
	We don't really like Michael.
	We don't like...
	And so they reduce our reach without telling us how to do it.
	Totally arbitrary.
	This, as Jordan has presented it, is totally transparent.
	Seems like a good idea.
	We'll see if it works.
	I'm hoping that it works.
	I'm skeptical that it will because you need a lot of people there.
	And the fact that it has any political agenda, even if it's pro-free speech, even if it's pro-First Amendment...
	We very possibly could ghettoize this platform, but if anyone can do it, it's Jordan, so let's hope that it works.
	Other great news in social media.
	There is a story that people are reporting as bad news.
	For our politics and culture and social media, I think this is great news.
	And it is the rise of deep, fake videos.
	This is videos that look like somebody who's recognizable as speaking, but it's just totally made on a computer.
	Listen to this video that looks exactly like Mark Zuckerberg.
	Imagine this for a second.
	One man with total control of billions of people's stolen data.
	All their secrets, their lives, their futures.
	I owe it all to Spectre.
	Spectre showed me that whoever controls the data, controls the future.
	So Spectre is the James Bond villainous criminal organization.
	Obviously that's not Mark Zuckerberg, but if you haven't seen this video, it looks exactly like him.
	And so people are saying this is so dangerous, this is going to totally lead to all this deception and all of this awful stuff.
	I think it's exactly the opposite.
	I think that this is going to force people to not believe everything they see on the internet.
	Because the left already twists video on the internet.
	They twist it outrageously.
	You remember those Covington kids?
	The nice kid with the MAGA hat on, and he was standing at the memorials in D.C., and the media played a 20-second clip of it, and they said these kids were attacking an elderly Indian.
	They were accosting him.
	They were accosting black demonstrators, civil rights demonstrators.
	And then what happened?
	We saw the whole video, and it was exactly the opposite.
	But the media used that video and spun a narrative.
	That's how the media can do that.
	How about Planned Parenthood videos?
	Not only do the media and the left take a video and twist it to say that it's the opposite of what it is, they'll take a video where we can see exactly what's happening and tell us that we can't believe our own lying eyes.
	They did this with an investigation into Planned Parenthood that showed Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts.
	Here's the video.
	A lot of people want to attack hearts these days because they're looking for specific nodes, maybe nodes.
	I was like, wow, I didn't even know.
	Good for them.
	Yesterday was the first time you said people wanted lungs.
	And then, like I said, always as many attack livers as possible.
	People just want lungs.
	Yeah, livers.
	Some people want lower extremities, too.
	That's simple.
	I mean, that's easy.
	I don't know what they're doing with it.
	I guess they want muscle.
	Yeah, that diamond doesn't...
	What would you expect for intact tissue?
	What sort of compensation?
	What sort of...
	Well, why don't you start by telling me what you're used to paying?
	It's been years since I've talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then that's fine.
	If it's still low, then we can talk about that.
	I want a Lamborghini.
	I thought I want a Lamborghini.
	Don't we all?
	They're all haggling over the price of dead baby organs that they've butchered.
	And then she jokes, I want a Lamborghini.
	Ha ha ha.
	You can see it.
	You can see hours of this video.
	The mainstream media on the left said it was selectively edited.
	It's don't believe your eyes.
	Don't believe your lying eyes.
	I think deep fakes are great.
	It will refocus people away from scandal.
	It will make you more skeptical.
	It will refocus people away from scandal.
	I mean, a good example is with Trump.
	You catch a politician in some decade old video doing or saying something that he shouldn't be doing, and this is supposed to end his career.
	No one cares about that.
	No one cares what Trump said on a bus to Billy Bush when he thought he was having a private conversation and having locker room talk with a guy off, you know, without being mic'd up.
	That doesn't affect the presidential administration.
	Now, with deepfakes, what's going to happen is everyone's going to say this isn't real or you can't believe that it's real.
	What it actually does by taking away the credibility of video We're in this video culture where everyone's being videoed all the time.
	By taking away the hardened credibility of that, it focuses you on issues, on the present, on what's happening now.
	What effect will this have on 2020?
	Clearly the technology's already pretty good, so we'll have to see.
	And I can't wait for deepfake videos of Eric Swalwell.
	Something tells me they couldn't be more ridiculous than Eric Swalwell himself.
	We'll see about that.
	Got more to get to, but we gotta get to the mailbag.
	So go to dailywire.com.
	Ten bucks a month, hundred dollars for an annual membership.
	You know, you get everything.
	You get all the shows...
	You get another kingdom.
	You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	I can't wait to have a deepfake of Joe Biden sipping out of a delicious Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Ooh, they'll be his own tears.
	They'll be his own tears when that commanding lead he has starts to slip and candidates like Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders jump above him.
	But we'll see.
	We'll have to see what happens.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with the mailbag.
	The first question from Joshua.
	Bye.
	Michael, why do some churches refer to God as a she or it when he has clearly stated his preferred pronouns are he, him, and his?
	What are your thoughts on suing those churches and other organizations for purposefully misgendering God?
	This is a great point.
	There are some places now, Canada I think is one of these places, where you can be punished.
	For not using someone's preferred pronoun.
	So even if a man, it's a man, and the man dresses up like a woman, if you don't call him a her, you can be punished for that.
	In some companies and universities, this is true as well.
	So why doesn't this apply to God?
	That's a great question.
	Intersectionality has all of these contradictions within it.
	You have homosexuality and transgenderism.
	Homosexuality relies on the belief that there is such a thing as biological sex.
	And men are attracted to men and women are attracted to women.
	Transgenderism says sex doesn't really mean anything.
	It's socially constructed.
	And men can be women and women can be men.
	Those two views don't go together.
	They don't make any sense.
	And yet they're all together in intersectionality.
	Transgenderism and feminism.
	Feminism says that women are a distinct category.
	They're oppressed by men.
	Women need to define what femininity is, and they need equality with men.
	Transgenderism says there's no such thing as men or women.
	How do those go together in the LGBTQ, LMNOP acronym, in the left gender movement?
	It doesn't make sense.
	They just unite against femininity.
	The oppressor, the straight white male, the straight white male who thinks that he's a male.
	And so you can have racial identity politics for everybody but white people.
	You can have gender politics except for straight men.
	And I think it's the same thing.
	Everyone gets to pick his own gender except for God.
	Because what this is ultimately about, I mean, when we're talking about the patriarchy, when we're talking about these kind of daddy issues, ultimately I think it redounds to religious and metaphysical questions and our big daddy up in the sky.
	Donald, I hope it's the president.
	Hello, Michael.
	I'm a big fan of the show.
	Why is it that through the eyes of the left, this country has become more intolerant, racist, and evil, in spite of all efforts on both sides of the aisle to achieve the opposite?
	When did this society of intersectional victimhood begin?
	If you look around the country...
	We no longer have whites-only water fountains.
	We no longer have segregation.
	We don't have redlining.
	We don't have Jim Crow.
	We don't have lynchings.
	And so, by every objective measure, the country is more racially tolerant, more racially equitable than it was in the past.
	And yet, people are so crazed about this, they say it's more racist now than ever.
	The way that this happened...
	Began in the 1960s, as so many evils did.
	And I think what's really to blame is not the left embracing a particular racial ideology or the left embracing some particular...
	I think it comes down to this idea that they said in the 60s, which is the personal is the political.
	So before that, you had a public realm.
	You had the political being the political, and then you had the personal realm.
	And so often the media wouldn't report on certain politicians' dalliances and extramarital affairs or whatever sort of shenanigans they were up to because they said there's a difference between the public and the private.
	You would have people who were friends with people of opposite political ideologies or of opposite political parties.
	They could go and have fun together even though they held their own different views because there was a difference between the public ideas and personalities and the personal.
	Personal was a little different.
	The left shattered that in the 60s.
	I mean, this was a slogan of theirs.
	The personal is the political.
	And so now the left is not friends with conservatives very often.
	We see this on social media.
	The left is much more likely to unfriend somebody who is of a different political point of view than conservatives are.
	Because we still believe in that distinction between the personal and the The left doesn't.
	Our country is never going to resolve its political problems if we don't reestablish that difference.
	The left isn't going to do it, and so now it's all personal.
	You're a racist, you're a bigot, you're an evil, wicked person, which you don't really see so much from the right.
	From Alan, Hey Michael, love the show.
	What do you think of the progressive infantilization in the United States of the 18 to 21-year-old age group?
	The great state of Texas, greatest perhaps, recently raised the minimum age to purchase tobacco products to 21, and this new law to current alcohol and gun laws.
	Regardless of the possible health benefits of these laws, how long until 18-year-olds are only seen as adults when referencing war or legal consequences?
	Yeah, it's ridiculous.
	I don't like cigarettes.
	I hate cigarettes, as a matter of fact.
	You know I love cigars very much.
	If you can go fight and die for your country, you ought to be able to buy a smoke.
	This is very simple.
	So it's almost become a cliche argument, but it's so simple.
	But now we want to infantilize these laws.
	Not even late teenagers, even people who are in their 20s.
	You see this in the criminal justice realm as well.
	There is a movement now among criminal psychologists to try to push up the age at which you can be tried as a child or some sort of child.
	They now call your early 20s emerging adulthood.
	They say your brain hasn't fully developed until you're 25.
	Your brain is never fully developed.
	You're always developing your own brain.
	But they say this because they don't want 25-year-olds who commit a lot of crimes to be tried as adults.
	They want them to be tried as children because ultimately they want to take away consequences.
	They don't want to be in a mean culture of justice.
	They want to infantilize you.
	They want to treat you and coddle you forever.
	And this has a lot of political consequence to it as well because the government that can I've noticed that too.
	I've been trying to figure out why, and the best I can come up with is that Ben is just jealous of your best-selling blank book.
	Care to comment?
	Thanks for all you do.
	Hashtag came for Ben, stayed for Michael.
	Thanks.
	Very nice of you to say.
	Yes, I think that is part of it.
	Ben has written about a dozen books in his life, all with words.
	I don't know what he was thinking doing that.
	And then I wrote a book without words, and I outsold most of his.
	But the other reason, I think I have it here...
	Is that framed check because I bet, Ben, that Trump would win in 2016 and I won.
	So I think, you know, if I were Ben, I'd be pretty upset about that too.
	From Lorelei.
	Hey Michael, I love your show and listen daily.
	I'm so disgusted by the news that Pinterest has banned live action and the deceitful means by which they try to suppress its pro-life message.
	I completely deleted my account because they've made it clear that they can't be trusted to provide a simple service to me in an honest way.
	Do you think this is the best way to send a message to these companies?
	It is, you also have to call customer service.
	A lot of these companies don't have customer service lines.
	You need to write into them.
	What you need to do, not just delete your account, you need to make it public what you're doing.
	This is how the left makes boycotts work.
	No one actually boycotts anything.
	What they do, like Media Matters and other left-wing activist groups, is they get a group of 20 people to call a company, call Pepsi, and say, we're never going to drink Pepsi again because you advertised on Michael's show or something like that.
	And then they panic at Pepsi and then they pull their advertising.
	And they change their behavior.
	You're only talking about 10 or 20 people calling them, but that makes the difference.
	It makes more of a difference than if 200 people stopped drinking Pepsi.
	So I think you're right to stop using that platform.
	But Even if you keep using the platform or you go back to it sometimes or whatever, the key here is to make public how you're dropping them.
	If you drop Netflix over its abortion activism, more important than cutting Netflix, more important than deleting your account, because I think there are only seven people in America who actually pay for Netflix and all the rest of us are just stealing their passwords.
	More important than that is you have to call customer service and let them know how upset you are with how they're treating conservatives.
	From Ashley, hey Michael, on the conversation of gender equality, differences, and religion, do you think there's a moral difference between male and female promiscuity?
	A lot of people, especially parents, seem more concerned with female promiscuity.
	Thanks.
	I don't think there's a moral difference between male and female promiscuity, but there is a difference, especially in the case of...
	Cheating, for instance.
	There's a difference in the sense that men view sex differently than women.
	Men view sex in a more physical, gratifying way.
	It is certainly the case that men can have casual sex more casually than women do because women tend to attach some emotional significance to sex.
	Part of this is biological because women have a lot more to lose.
	Part of this is It's spiritual or even just practical.
	Women have a lot more to lose from sex than men do.
	Maybe men develop some sort of ailment and they need to go get a cream from their doctor or something.
	Women can become pregnant.
	Also because women are the weaker sex, physically they are weaker, there are certain protections that they need that men don't need, whether those are social or Or political or a matter of regulation.
	So I do think there is a physical difference and this is why as a society we treat male and female promiscuity differently.
	But I think when we all get up to St.
	Peter's Gate, we're probably all going to have to answer for it equally.
	From Ryan.
	Greetings, Michael.
	I hope that this message won't hurt your YouTube video.
	Do you think the reason for this crackdown on YouTube started by the Vox adpocalypse is because of how successful the Daily Wire, Louder with Crowder, Blaze TV, and PragerU have become compared to left-wing groups like the Young Turks, Vox, and Huffington Post?
	I remember Crowder saying something about how YouTube actually helps the Young Turks advertise and produce, or something along those lines, to help make their show less terrible.
	Why don't more people talk about how YouTube has tried to promote the Young Turks over the Daily Wire?
	Yes, that is largely what this is about.
	So...
	The right is just better at the internet.
	We're much better at it.
	We're more popular on the internet.
	We're funnier at it.
	The reason is we were kept out of the mainstream.
	Mainstream Hollywood, mainstream news media.
	And so you've got a whole buildup of talent and ideas and strategies.
	And we've worked and figured out how to get our message out there.
	And we're just better at it.
	The Young Turks has produced their show.
	In YouTube's own studios.
	And their show is still terrible.
	And YouTube itself is giving them support.
	And it's still absolutely terrible.
	So a lot of what you're seeing now from the left lobbying YouTube and other tech companies is they say you need to suppress provocative, unreliable, fake news sites.
	And by that they just mean conservatives.
	And you need to boost authoritative sources.
	And of course the authoritative sources are they themselves.
	So there's an ideological struggle here, but then it's just a matter of economics.
	They can't compete with us in the open market because we're much better at this than they are.
	So they're trying to get the corporations themselves to go in, suppress us, kill off their competition, and unfairly boost them.
	And that's part of the illogical.
	Part of it is cold, hard cash.
	That's our show.
	Have a good weekend.
	More to get to.
	We'll get to it on Monday.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	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.
	Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	The mainstream media and social media aren't labeling Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin alt-right extremists by accident.
	It's part of a strategy to silence conservative voices and ensure Donald Trump's 2020 defeat.
	I told you it was going to happen.
	I'm telling you it's happening, and I'll tell you more about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.

▲