Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 12, 2021 - The Michael Knowles Show

46:22

Ep. 803 - Culture Wars: The Phantom Menace

Prominent leftists label all whites “racist,” the feds harass more conservatives, and Chicago gives condoms to ten-year-olds. My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	To be branded a racist is the worst possible label that you can be stuck with in America in 2021.
	And I've got bad news for my paler listeners.
	If you are a white person, you are a racist.
	So pronounceth the left-wing commentator Mark Lamont Hill to my friend Liz Wheeler.
	Do you believe that?
	Do you believe all white people are inherently racist?
	So, I don't know if you're backing me into a corner with that question, but yes, I do.
	Yes, yes, I do.
	And Hill is not alone in calling all white people racist.
	This sort of a smear is accepted as common knowledge in classrooms, in corporations, in just about every other institution in this country.
	Meanwhile, a former DOJ official accidentally admits that the federal bureaucracy has a lot more power to spy on you than it has acknowledged and uses that power.
	The FBI arrests LARPers with Lego sets.
	And still, the liberal establishment wants you to believe that the greatest threat to our country is coming from the right.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	My favorite comment Friday comes from the Spanish Inquisition.
	The Inquisition states, Speechless is like the illegitimate child of the New York Times.
	Their actions have brought it about, and now they refuse to acknowledge it.
	That is true.
	The book is in no small part about the New York Times, and the sort of way that they manipulate language, and the Times is just a stand-in for all of these other leftist institutions.
	So no wonder they don't want to put it on the list, but I really appreciate all of you who have sent...
	Speechless to the top spot on the actual bestseller list.
	Appreciate that.
	You know, a lot of people are trying to spy on you to get your data in and out of the government.
	So if you want to avoid that sort of unpleasantness, I'd recommend Startmail.
	Free email services like big tech email providers are not really free.
	You pay with your privacy.
	And since those companies have access to every email you send and receive, big tech can sell your data to the highest bidder, which is why I would strongly recommend Startmail to secure your email.
	Startmail keeps my email private.
	Every email is encrypted even if the recipient doesn't use encryption, which means big tech cannot read or scan or analyze or sell my personal information ever.
	With Startmail, deleted means deleted.
	When you delete an email, it's gone forever.
	And Startmail uses their own servers, not big tech servers, which means they can't be put out of business.
	Startmail is also backed by the most stringent privacy laws in the world.
	You get unlimited anonymous aliases.
	So, when you're giving your email to a company but you want to protect your identity, Startmail can generate a shareable alias email so people can't sell your information.
	And they can be deleted any time.
	I would not recommend that you trust big tech.
	You should not do that.
	Start securing your email privacy with StartMail.
	Sign up today.
	You get 50% off your first year.
	Go to StartMail.com slash Knowles.
	That is StartMail with a T. S-T-A-R-T. Mail.com slash Knowles.
	50% off your first year.
	StartMail.com slash Knowles.
	All whites are racist.
	Not just Mark Lamont Hill, but virtually every major power center in our society is pushing, to some degree, this kind of a lie.
	The way they do it, by the way, there is a very clever way that they do it, and it actually does tie in with Speechless, which is the left has just redefined racism.
	So a definition of racism that we would all probably accept is if you hate other people, You just hate blacks.
	You just hate Italians.
	You just hate whatever.
	The left has redefined racism.
	They have first redefined racism such that black people cannot be racist.
	By their new definition.
	So they'll say, racism is racial hatred combined with power.
	And they define power as only being held by white people.
	So by definition, then black people can't be racist.
	But then, they'll go even further.
	This was one of the innovations of this guy, Ibram Kendi, who is a total huckster.
	He's a pseudo-academic who has fake degrees in fake disciplines.
	I guess they're real degrees in fake academic disciplines, who has become very wealthy and very prominent by selling this lie Of the difference between racism and anti-racism and not racism.
	He's just a race hustler.
	But what he is saying is, if you admit that you're a racist, you're a racist.
	But if you do not admit that you're a racist, then you're definitely a racist.
	The very heartbeat of racism is denial, and the sound of that heartbeat that the individual makes is, I'm not racist.
	That's the sound of that heartbeat, which is denial, which is the very heart of racism.
	This is an effective rhetorical trick.
	I don't want to say that it's clever, because I don't think it's that clever.
	I think in a prior age when people were less stupid and more educated, better educated, they would have been able to see through this kind of a rhetorical trick, but today we can't really.
	What Ibram Kendi is doing...
	It's called begging the question.
	Sometimes people use that phrase, beg the question, as if it means to raise a question.
	That's not what it means.
	It's a technical term.
	It means to assume your own conclusion.
	And so what Ibram Kendi is doing is he's saying that all white people are racist, That's where he's ending and that's where he's beginning.
	And the evidence of this, because the counter example would be, well, what about the white people who say they're not racist?
	He says, to say that you're not racist is even further proof that you are a racist.
	Because admission means you're racist and denial also means you're racist.
	So it's completely unfalsifiable.
	There's no way to get around it.
	I mention all these guys, Mark Lamont Hill, Ibram Kendi, and the countless blue checkmarks and establishmentarians who espouse this kind of vile stuff that all whites are racist.
	And don't forget, racist is the worst thing you can be called.
	So what they're really saying is whites are just all terrible, terrible people.
	Because all those guys are on Twitter.
	All of them are permitted on Twitter.
	They are permitted in the mainstream discourse.
	Which brings me to Twitter's decision last week to ban this right-wing 22-year-old Nick Fuentes.
	Nick Fuentes was banned.
	By the way, I should point out, I don't call the guy a conservative, this guy Fuentes.
	Fuentes himself says, I'm not a conservative, I'm much more radical than that, and he engages more in identitarian type of politics.
	Doesn't really matter.
	Twitter bans this guy because a left-wing group pressures him to.
	And there are currently two opinions about this that are really mainstream.
	The first opinion is, Nick Fuentes has said terrible things, and as a matter of principle, he should be kicked off of Twitter.
	And all the rest of the platforms.
	That's the first opinion.
	The second opinion is Nick Fuentes has said terrible things, but as a matter of principle, anyone should be able to say whatever they want and he shouldn't have been kicked off of Twitter or any other platform.
	I do not agree with either of those views.
	What worries me about the Nick Fuentes ban...
	It has very little to do with him.
	It has to do with the sort of actions that our establishment, our institutions, and our government is taking.
	This guy, he is a 22-year-old who has said lots of things that lots and lots of people object to.
	He has been kicked off of every social media platform, every major social media platform.
	He has reportedly been banned from every major financial institution.
	And he's been placed on the no-fly list without being charged with a crime.
	No one has ever charged this guy with a crime.
	That is scary.
	That's a scary situation in America.
	Not even because I think people ought to be able to say whatever they want.
	Not because I don't object to things that he has said.
	But because of the rank hypocrisy and double standard.
	Anything that you can accuse that guy of, this fringe 22-year-old right-winger who has absolutely no power whatsoever, who has been as ostracized in society as you possibly can be, without going to Guantanamo Bay, anything you can accuse him of, you can just as easily accuse the mainstream left of.
	Nick Fuentes is racist.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	He's no more racist than Mark Lamont Hill.
	He's no more racist than Ibram Kendi, who make these blanket, hideous assertions about white people.
	He's no more racist than virtually any mainstream liberal.
	Nick Fuentes is dangerous.
	Yeah, maybe.
	He's no more dangerous than the mainstream left, which is abusing its power tremendously.
	So much so that it can place people on the no-fly list and utterly ostracize them from society without ever charging them with a crime.
	I'm not in any way defending Fuentes, and I'm not in any way defending this kind of free speech absolutist idea that you ought to be able to say what you want without consequences.
	I'm actually pointing out as a tactical and practical matter the way that this is such a disingenuous argument.
	I do not think for one second that the libs are enforcing any kind of anti-racist standard, any anti-violence standard.
	I don't think that's it at all.
	I don't think that's it at all, because I think that they're perfectly fine when people on the left make hideous racial remarks, when people on the left not only threaten violence, but commit violence and defend violence.
	Like the sitting vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, who used social media platforms to bail out violent rioters during the BLM riots.
	I don't think the left has a standard at all here.
	So that part of it goes away.
	And by the way, I don't think the left sees much of a distinction between people like Nick Fuentes and any other mainstream conservative.
	I don't think they make any distinction at all.
	This banning of this guy is not a matter of principle.
	It's a very cynical tactic.
	It's going to be used on the rest of us.
	And so my reaction to it is really not reacting as though it were a question of principle.
	It's a question of practical politics and tactics.
	What is this really, really about?
	I think if the liberal establishment has shown us anything in the past few years, even the past few weeks, it's that they're not just after fringe figures, people who have been marginalized, who are really out there and radical.
	They're after mainstream right-wingers, people like Donald Trump, people like Tucker Carlson, very possibly people like you and me.
	The liberal establishment has gone after Tucker Carlson through the NSA, which is one, there's no such agency as it used to be called.
	It's one of the more secretive agencies of the federal government.
	And Tucker on his show a couple of weeks ago came out and he said, I've gotten a tip off that the NSA is spying on me and they're planning to leak my communications to the press in an effort to take down this show.
	And then the NSA put out a non-denial denial.
	They put out a denial that They actually didn't deny any of the things that Tucker...
	There's a very cleverly worded fake denial.
	And then what happened?
	Tucker's communications got leaked to the press.
	And they tried to pull the same Russian collusion nonsense that they pulled on Donald Trump.
	Also to no ultimate effect, but it held him up for a long time.
	Now, Andrew Weissman is a former lawyer with the Department of Justice.
	He worked on the Mueller witch hunt.
	He's pretty familiar with the way these sorts of operations go down.
	Andrew Weissman appeared on MSNBC, and I think he accidentally gave away a little glimpse into the kind of corruption that we're talking about at the federal government.
	Take a listen.
	See if you can find out where he gives it away.
	You know, if you think about what Tucker Carlson could have done here is he could have followed the same route that the New York Times and other respected journalists did when they were incidentally overheard and may have, in fact, been not incidentally if you think about what Tucker Carlson could have done here is he could have followed the same route that
	They could have gone to the attorney general and Tucker Carlson could have joined them to say, you know, what I'm concerned about here is not that there was incidental collection when I am calling a foreigner, including, of course, if you try and reach out to Vladimir Putin, you can pretty much be sure that you're going if you try and reach out to Vladimir Putin, you can pretty much be sure that you're going He could have said, look, there's a First Amendment issue here and I want to make sure that there are safeguards at the Department of Justice.
	But he didn't take that route here.
	He did, as you said, and as Frank pointed out, he wanted to use this really for his own purposes and to sow distrust, which is so anti-American.
	It's so anti-American to question the NSA. It's so anti-American to air some of the corruption that's going on in the federal government through a free press.
	That's so anti-American, is what the left believes now.
	The trick here, the unwitting admission, I think, comes down to this question.
	Why would Tucker Carlson go to the Department of Justice?
	Forget for a second that the Department of Justice has had a lot of scandals going back to Obama, going back to Loretta Lynch, who meets on the tarmac with Bill Clinton while Bill Clinton's wife is under investigation.
	Forget about some of the abuses during the Trump era when the DOJ was going after the duly elected president.
	Forget about that for a second.
	The NSA, the National Security Agency, has a foreign intelligence mission The DOJ has a domestic law enforcement mission.
	Why does the DOJ just have ready access to all of the NSA records?
	Why are these two groups apparently synonymous?
	Why are they being conflated?
	Well, the reason for this, simple enough answer, is that the DOJ or the DOJ National Security Division It has some crossover with the NSA, but it's not supposed to just have simple access.
	Like, you just go in, you log into a computer, okay, well, let's see, what's going on with all of these countless records that we've intercepted?
	The only reason they intercept the data, their argument for intercepting the data, is that it has to do with foreigners.
	The DOJ is going in, the Federal Domestic Law Enforcement Agency, going in, oh, there we go, there's Tucker.
	Under the process that Andrew Weissman is describing, apparently the DOJ just has totally unlimited access to whatever the NSA is capturing.
	But I don't think, is that legal?
	I don't think that should be legal.
	Now, the DOJ National Security Division, the DOJ NSD, is a relatively recent creation of the federal government.
	It was created in 2005 with the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
	And it has access to the NSA data.
	Don't forget, the NSA is just gathering tons and tons of data.
	And sometimes they'll say, well, occasionally you might be accidentally intercepted, but only if you're talking in some way to a foreigner.
	This is the same bogus excuse that they used for spying on the Trump campaign.
	So the DOJ, National Security Division, has access to the NSA data, and crucially, it is not subject to the DOJ Inspector General.
	So no oversight at all.
	Obviously, totally wide open for abuse.
	And then Andrew Weissman goes on the show and he says, come on, Tucker should have just trusted the government.
	Don't worry, the government that has virtually unlimited power to spy on any American citizen that is obviously being used for domestic surveillance purposes of political dissidents, even very mainstream dissidents like Tucker Carlson, yeah, just go to the DOJ. Just trust the DOJ. What could go wrong?
	What could go wrong?
	Some more evidence that our federal law enforcement has been rotted out from the core.
	FBI tweets out just this weekend that you should rat on your family if you think they're becoming politically extreme.
	Quote, family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence.
	Help prevent homegrown violent extremism.
	Visit blah, blah, blah website to learn how to spot suspicious behaviors and report them to the FBI.
	Hashtag national security.
	This is the sort of thing that you read about in dystopian novels.
	This is the sort of thing that you read about in communist China.
	And yet this sort of thing is not only going on in the United States, it's being encouraged by the most mainstream federal law enforcement agencies.
	Rat on your family.
	Rat on your family.
	Do you think that your family, are they wearing too many MAGA hats?
	Does your family own any American flags?
	That could be a sign of extremism.
	Go, make sure you rat them out to the feds.
	We talk a lot about the attack on the family from the radical cultural right.
	I'm sorry, from the radical cultural left.
	You know, the weird sexual revolution stuff.
	But there are attacks on the family that go on from the government.
	Even from institutions that were once considered somewhat right-wing, right?
	I'm talking about the FBI and other groups.
	They're going in and saying you need to divvy up your family.
	You need to have a closer relationship with the federal government than you do with your mother and your father and your brother and the rest of your family.
	And speaking of priorities at the FBI, this is my favorite one.
	This is just the little cherry on top of the sundae of federal law enforcement corruption.
	The FBI, you know, they're doing a really bang-up job to stop the violent insurrection!
	The coup d'etat!
	Oh my gosh, the Constitution hung in the balance in January of 2021 when some guy with horns danced on a desk at the Capitol.
	When that other smiling guy took Pelosi's lectern.
	You know, the violent...
	It was nearly a revolution.
	Forget about the BLM riots where they burn down half the country.
	Forget about that for months and months at a time.
	Burn down government buildings.
	Forget about that.
	No, no, no.
	The horn guy.
	That was the coup d'etat.
	The FBI doing a lot to try to throw these people in prison who trespassed at the Capitol.
	Meanwhile, law enforcement is letting a huge portion of the BLM rioters completely off the hook.
	But the guys who entered the Capitol, big problem.
	So, The FBI seized a piece of evidence from a Pennsylvania man who was indicted last month for his role in the insurrection.
	The piece of evidence was a Lego replica of the Capitol.
	Big government building and Lego came out with a Lego version of the Capitol.
	Daily Beast reported that Robert Morse, 27 years old, is accused of leading fellow rioters in what prosecutors say was one of the most intense and prolonged clashes with officers on January 6th.
	Don't forget, by the way, they completely lied to us about officers being killed in the riot.
	Just didn't happen.
	Even the New York Times later had to admit that it didn't happen.
	They're still insinuating it, but they can't state it outright because it's a lie.
	This is according to the Daily Beast.
	Prosecutors didn't say whether Morse used his toy to help plan the Capitol insurrection, but obviously they had to take it as evidence.
	Now, however...
	Turns out that the guy didn't even build the Lego set.
	So not only did he not use the Lego toy of the Capitol as a way to plan, oh, we're going to enter here through this block, and we're going to make a turn at this block.
	No, he didn't even open it up.
	It was just in the box.
	He didn't even build it.
	This now, quote, in original detention memoranda, the undersigned stated that law enforcement found a fully constructed U.S. Capitol Lego set.
	That statement appears to be inaccurate.
	The Lego set was in a box and not fully constructed at the time of the search.
	This according to the new filing.
	This is, to me, the worrisome thing.
	This is why I think even some radical right-winger being kicked off of Twitter is a worrisome move.
	The most radical, fringy, ostracized, low-influence right-wing is being treated as the terrorist threat to the country.
	And the things that they are doing are no worse, and often not even close to as bad, as what the mainstream left is doing.
	I guess the perfect example of this is the difference between the Capitol riot, which we're told is the worst event that ever happened.
	It's worse than Pearl Harbor.
	It's worse than 9-11.
	Versus the BLM riots, which actually killed many, many people and destroyed countless homes and stores and burned down multiple cities for months and months at a time.
	And that, we're told, is a mostly peaceful protest.
	Some radical right-wing guy who's been ostracized who has a very small following, relatively, says odious and offensive things on race and sex and whatever.
	We are told this is the greatest threat we need to kick him out of the society.
	Mark Lamont Hill says things that are just as odious, if not more odious, He has a program.
	He has got a Twitter feed.
	Ibram Kendi has given awards, undeservedly so.
	That is the fear here.
	There is no standard.
	It's not even that it's hypocrisy.
	There's a meme going around.
	It's not even that it's hypocrisy.
	It's a hierarchy.
	The leftist agenda prioritized any sort of conservative agenda, ostracized, delegitimized, and censored.
	The government is really intruding into your family, which we'll get to in a second.
	First though, you know, Dan is going to be talking today about how foreigners love the American flag, apparently much more than Americans do.
	He's going to be talking about these pro-freedom demonstrations down in Cuba.
	You can also read about this in his new book, The Authoritarian Moment.
	You can arm yourself with the knowledge you need to shut down America's tyrants, says Ben, in The Authoritarian Moment, which is now available for pre-order at Amazon, Barnes& Noble, or any other major bookseller.
	It's a great book to pre-order after you order Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
	It's also great because Ben named his book after my future campaign slogan, Knowles 2028, The Authoritarian Moment.
	So go check out his book today.
	Today, we'll be right back with a lot more.
	The government is intruding into your family, and it's not just the feds telling little Johnny to rat on his parents in and it's not just the feds telling little Johnny to rat on his parents in a tweet, though they They are also using the schools to go in and try to upend traditional family dynamics and the traditional family structure.
	The Chicago public school system, not considered the premier educational institution in the country, the Chicago public school system is now giving condoms to 10-year-olds.
	Schools that teach fifth grade and up must now maintain a condom availability program as part of an expanded vision of sexual health education that means all but a dozen A dozen schools which enroll only younger grades.
	Of the more than 600 Chicago Public Schools schools will have condoms.
	According to the top doctor employed by the Chicago public school system, young people have the right to accurate and clear information to make healthy decisions.
	And they need access to resources to protect their health and the health of others as they make and act on those decisions.
	So you're seeing another real confusing statement.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	All those people have been pushed to the fringes of society and had their political power taken away, and all the power is going to the priests, the high priests of secular progressivism, also known as physicians.
	So this physician says, yes, it's very important for health that 10-year-olds have condoms.
	Elementary schools will be given 250 condoms.
	High schools...
	Many of which already have the condoms, will be given 1,000 condoms.
	So I'm glad that the elementary schools are only going to be given 250 condoms because they're assuming that 10-year-olds are only having sex, or younger, by the way, are only having sex a quarter of the time that the high school students are.
	This is really sick stuff.
	Now...
	One of the arguments here is that if you give condoms out to these kids, that's not to encourage them to have sex.
	It won't encourage them to have sex.
	Now, of course it will.
	The way these things work is if you make things easier, you will get more of that thing.
	If you make certain behavior easier, you will get more of that behavior.
	The experts...
	The parents love this kind of stuff.
	The parents don't love this kind of stuff.
	And the glimmer of hope I have here is all these parents who have shown up to the school boards to protest critical race theory or radical gender theory, they're going out and they're saying, I don't care what you insane eggheads are thinking with your radical theories.
	We don't care.
	We don't care how preening and sneering you are.
	We are going to take back our kids' education.
	You are now seeing a move by some on the right to run school board candidates.
	The left has been very good at running school board candidates, local political races.
	The right has been very bad at that.
	But now you're seeing that change a little bit.
	So one hopes that we can keep this kind of thing up.
	Because if you are defending giving out taxpayer-funded condoms to 10-year-olds, something has seriously gone wrong with your political philosophy.
	And speaking of creepy sex stuff and kids, you know how much I hate to say I told you so.
	You know, I hate it.
	It pains me to say I told you so.
	But I have to do it a lot because I tell you so a lot.
	The right has warned that as you mainstream all this kind of creepy, weird sexual revolution stuff, you are going to get more and more deviant, more and more perverse behavior, and some of it's going to involve kids.
	And what did the left say?
	They said, oh, you're making that slippery slope argument again.
	Oh, come on, give me a break.
	And the problem with the slippery slope criticism here is Is that the right-wingers' objections have been proven correct 100% of the time.
	We are so far down the slippery slope now, you think you can't go any further, but actually, it turns out you can.
	A London library sparked a little bit of backlash, thankfully.
	After hiring recently an anti-racist carnival troupe with a performer who dressed up as a monkey in a rainbow monkey costume with a gigantic plastic phallus hanging between his legs for a children's reading event.
	The monkey had a giant plastic sex toy in the shape of a phallus hanging between his rainbow clothing that he swung around for children at a library.
	The Red Bridge Central Library in the United Kingdom hosted a performance from the Mandinga Arts Carnival Grouping.
	Anti-racist, sexual revolutionary.
	Video footage on social media shows the guy with the giant floppy, creepy mock genitalia.
	This is part of the Summer Reading Challenge in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund for a very special nature-themed challenge that will inspire you to stand up for the planet.
	So they said.
	I think it would be good in the United Kingdom and the United States, it's not long before this craziness comes here, I think it would be good to ban this sort of stuff, to not permit it, to limit the free marketplace of ideas, to exclude...
	Rainbow monkeys with sex toys between their legs dancing for kids.
	I don't think that the Mandinga giant dancing rainbow monkey sex toy group is one of the, quote, blessings of liberty, as some erstwhile conservative commentators have suggested.
	I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
	I don't think that there is a First Amendment protection for flopping sex toys around for little children.
	I really like the idea of standards.
	And it worries me that people are pretending to get exercised about some radical right-wingers who have relatively small followings, who have relatively little influence in the country, and they make a big deal and they cut who have relatively little influence in the country, and they make a big deal and they cut them off from all aspects of society, when this kind of stuff is not only permitted, And subsidized by taxpayers.
	In this case, in the United Kingdom, but we've seen lots of similar things here in the United States.
	And there is all of the evidence pointing that it will only get worse.
	That's a big problem.
	That's, I think, something we should focus on.
	I was riding in an Uber yesterday.
	I sound like I'm starting a Thomas Friedman column at the New York Times.
	I was riding in an Uber in Beirut, and I heard...
	And the driver wanted to put on NPR. And they're putting on NPR and that stupid program that I can't stand.
	Wait, wait, don't tell me.
	You know, all these sort of very pretentious shows on NPR that allow suburban people to feel like they're really intelligent.
	National Public Radio, which you and I pay for, by the way.
	National Public Radio comes on and they have a little news blurb at the beginning of it.
	And they've got that very NPR kind of voice and it's all very...
	Moderate and just very intelligent, very calm.
	And this is the way that the elite people listen and they talk.
	And we were told that CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, took place yesterday in Texas.
	And the Republicans at CPAC focused more on their culture war obsessions that have come to define the Republican Party for the past several years.
	I'm Jane Smith at NPR. Now, here's your program.
	Wait, wait, don't tell me.
	And I said, well, hold on.
	That was very calm and sort of put me into a trance.
	And I know it's very moderate and very intelligent.
	But did you just say, did you just say that Republicans are the ones pushing the culture war obsessions?
	You're telling me, you're telling me that the left in this country can go out, smear the majority of the country, white people, as racists, worst thing you can be called in America, can go out and teach three-year-old boys that they're actually little girls, can permit grown adult men to go into the women's changing can permit grown adult men to go into the women's changing room, can radically redefine marriage, can kill a million babies a year through abortion, can bring transvestites, some of whom are convicted sex offenders, into public libraries to twerk for
	And we, conservatives, are the ones pushing the culture war.
	You can actually say that with a straight face on NPR, and I think a lot of people believe it.
	If I were politically not very aware, and I were just a suburban woman just trying to seem intelligent, just trying to be part of the mainstream, I would be very taken with the view of the world being pushed by NPR. But it is so, so insane.
	It is so, so radical.
	And it expresses the views of the liberal establishment that has all of the power in the country.
	I think that's where the threat really lies.
	I think the threat of the radical right-wing fringe extreme that has no power, I think that is a phantom menace.
	I think that is a distraction to lure you away from where the threats actually reside.
	Because, by the way, I think the majority of Americans support conservative points of view on a whole lot of issues.
	Definitely on all this creepy, weird sex stuff.
	Definitely on all the insane race stuff coming from the left.
	But on other issues as well.
	Think about immigration.
	The Majority of Americans want to drastically reduce immigration.
	That includes Democrats.
	That includes independents.
	They want to drastically reduce immigration, according to a Harvard-Harris poll.
	Legal and illegal, dramatically.
	And yet the entire establishment, the Democrats and many Republicans, want effectively open borders.
	Isn't that weird?
	I thought this was a democratic republic.
	I thought that our representatives were supposed to represent the wishes of the people.
	And yet for decades and decades, they haven't.
	Because power in this country does not lie with the people quite as much as you would believe from reading the Constitution.
	How about voter ID laws?
	There was a poll that just came out.
	Now this was a poll that was commissioned by the Republican National Committee and it was conducted by Kellyanne Conway.
	So, you know, obviously those are right-wing organizations, relatively right-wing organizations.
	But Nevertheless, there's no reason to doubt that this poll was conducted with some sort of rigor.
	Poll finds that 78% of voters surveyed said that in addition to stronger voter ID laws, they also support signature verification, chain of custody controls, bipartisan observers overseeing counting, and cleaning up the voter rolls.
	According to this poll, 71% said they don't think ballots should be accepted after the election day.
	And 87%, a full 87% are against ballot harvesting.
	And if you don't believe this poll, just keep in mind that many, many, many other polls have backed up these results.
	So all the stuff that the Democrats did in terms of election laws, using COVID as an excuse, the vast majority of Americans oppose, and yet they get away with it.
	Why?
	Why?
	Because the broadly conservative views of the American people are not represented in our government.
	That's why.
	And we are told that those conservative views, the MAGA, the Trump supporters, the coup d'etat, the radical right...
	We are told that they are the grave threat to our country.
	Well, it looks like their views are pretty popular.
	It looks like actually your insane radical views on the left in the liberal establishment, those are very unpopular.
	Maybe that's why the establishment needs to clamp down so hard.
	Maybe that's why they let BLM off the hook, but the horn guy and the guy who took Pelosi's electorate, that's why they're going to rot in prison.
	How about on the border?
	How about on immigration?
	Only one in four Democrats agree with Joe Biden that there is no border crisis.
	This according to a poll from The Economist and YouGov.
	So this is more of a left-leaning group.
	Only one of every four registered Democrats agree with Biden that there is not a border crisis.
	27%.
	49% of registered Democrats say that the border represents a national crisis.
	24% say they're not sure.
	So roughly twice as many people believe that it is a crisis among registered Democrats as believe that it is not a crisis.
	Forget Republicans for a second.
	And yet, and yet...
	Nothing is going to happen because the Democratic base, the Democratic voters, are useful idiots for the ruling establishment, for the regime.
	But even their views are not being represented.
	Speaking of our national borders, there is some real horrifying political radicalism going on in America's hat, our neighbors to the north up in Canada.
	Churches being burned to the ground across the country.
	You probably haven't heard very much about that in the mainstream press, certainly not here in the United States.
	We hear that the church is an oppressor.
	We hear that the right wing is the big threat, and yet it's radical leftist groups attacking the church in Canada.
	Several churches in Canada have been burned, some completely destroyed.
	The reason for this, ostensibly, is because there was the discovery of hundreds of unmarked indigenous graves in residential schools in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia.
	So there was this program to Canadianize some of the indigenous people there, and there were these residential schools, and they found what are being portrayed in the media as mass graves.
	Unmarked graves.
	But there's no evidence that this is the hiding of a genocide or anything like that.
	In fact, in a number of cases, the alleged unmarked graves, they just had the markers wiped away.
	Everyone knew there were graveyards there.
	It's just that over time, the markers have disappeared or eroded.
	And were there abuses at these schools?
	I suppose so, but there were abuses at all schools around the entire Anglosphere.
	So it's not as though indigenous people were being singled out for abuse.
	And is it because people today are just furious about the treatment?
	No, I don't think it's because they hate the church.
	Now, some indigenous people are pushing back against this.
	Jesse Allen, who's an assistant Pentecostal minister in Canada, is pushing back and saying, hey, pro-indigenous groups, stop burning down the churches.
	My name is Jessie Allen.
	I'm a Sixty Scoop survivor and the daughter of a residential school survivor.
	We're here basically to ask people to basically quit burning down churches.
	We're concerned about the burning and defacing of churches bringing more strife, depression, anxiety to those already in pain and mourning.
	Former survivors of Canada's residential schools are triggered by the sight of burning and defaced churches.
	It also brings up former traumatic feelings of violence and threats to their lives.
	This is also putting further division between Canada's Indigenous people and the rest of Canadian society.
	We're asking for people who are setting these fires to stop now.
	We understand some people believe that they're standing in solidarity with us Indigenous people as we find more graves across Canada.
	Burning down churches is not in solidarity with us indigenous people.
	As I said, we do not destroy people's places of worship.
	Well said.
	I'm really glad that she said this sort of thing.
	I was speaking to Lauren Southern, who is a Canadian commentator.
	Now she lives in Australia.
	She said in many cases the people burning down the churches are not indigenous people.
	They're white leftists who are burning them down on behalf, allegedly, of the indigenous people.
	You're not going to hear a whole lot about this problem.
	You rarely heard about the churches being burned down around France and the rest of Europe.
	The attacks during the BLM summer on very important historic churches in the United States.
	You don't hear about that.
	We're told the real threat comes from the theocratic right-wing authoritarians.
	Why?
	How?
	What are they doing?
	They're wearing horn hats in the Capitol.
	They're sending tweets, sometimes legitimately offensive things.
	I'm not even denying that.
	And what's going on on the left?
	Burning down churches in Canada, burning down businesses, churches, government buildings in the United States, taking away people's rights, spying on Americans.
	To me, that's the real threat.
	Call me crazy.
	That's the real threat.
	Now, there is some good news.
	I don't want to leave you just bereft of good news.
	There is some good news on the standards front.
	There's a school in Sullivan County that is firing a teacher for his radical leftist views.
	Well, really, because he wouldn't present anything other than his radical leftist view.
	The Sullivan County Board of Education voted 6-1 to fire this teacher, Matthew Hahn.
	Who was a tenured teacher, he was accused of insubordination and repeated unprofessional conduct because he gave multiple assignments focusing on white privilege but failed to present opposing points of view.
	In particular, he assigned the writing of truly one of the most overrated writers working today, a man named Ta-Nehisi Coates, who is broadly of this opinion that whiteness and the evils of white supremacy pervade everything and it's the greatest threat.
	And whether or not he said all white people are racist in those explicit terms, that would seem to be the implication of his writing.
	So this guy, Hahn, taught a class called Contemporary Issues.
	He coached baseball at the school.
	He received a letter of reprimand after having students read this radical leftist writer, but not reading any alternative viewpoints.
	He refused to do anything about it, and now he's fired.
	That's good.
	I'm glad.
	I'm so glad.
	If academic freedom means anything at all, It means the ability of scholars to pursue their own studies.
	It does not mean that teachers have the right to teach whatever they want.
	They obviously do not.
	No one would tolerate a Nazi going in and teaching a sociology class.
	And yet, we all tolerate communists going in and teaching sociology class or teaching political science or teaching history or teaching everything, teaching math, teaching everything.
	And we should not tolerate that.
	We're all told the big threat to the country comes from the Nazis.
	How many Nazis are there?
	I think there's like seven Nazis in the country, and I think six of them are feds.
	I think they're all kind of working for the FBI, spying on one another.
	I think it's effectively a completely contrived threat.
	But I do think there are self-described communists in the country.
	The founders of Black Lives Matter describe themselves as trained Marxists.
	And openly supported communist politicians.
	That seems like a threat to me.
	The anarchists who burn down a lot of the country, that seems like a real threat to me.
	And yet those guys get blue check marks and those guys get to fly on airplanes and those guys get to do whatever they want.
	Those guys get MacArthur Genius Grants, for goodness sakes.
	Those guys get awards and positions of power and influence.
	Maybe the right should consider exercising power as well.
	I'm really pleased to see that the school board has come out and said, no, sorry teacher, you're out of here.
	This teacher's got to go.
	You're seeing this, we don't have time to get to it today, but you're seeing this especially on the public health front, the public health apparatus, which you know has been leading the charge at the political power grab for the past year.
	Well, this public health front is keeping its power.
	There were some people who believed before the election that, okay, you know, day after the election, COVID's going to go away, Biden will solve it, they'll let us all go back to normal.
	And I thought that early on, but then I realized, you know, a couple months before the election, I said, oh, wait a second.
	People don't give back power when they get it.
	This is probably going to go on for a long time.
	Now we're hearing about the Delta variant, the Lambda variant, this variant, that variant.
	And we are now being told that the Biden administration is going to send thugs door to door to get you vaccinated.
	We're being told by top medical advisors in the country, their hideous, perverse sort of vision of medical care, but they're coming out and saying they need to make life really hard for unvaccinated people.
	We'll get to that tomorrow.
	They're going to have to make it really hard for unvaccinated people because they've got the power and they're going to shut down the people without the power.
	And they're going to gaslight us into telling us that the people without any power whatsoever, they're the real threat to the country.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is the Michael Knowles Show.
	We'll show you tomorrow.
	We'll show you tomorrow.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producers Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, production manager Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny D'Amico, audio mixer Mike Coromina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production coordinator McKenna Waters.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
	Caitlyn Jenner attended CPAC over the weekend, reigniting the debate about whether this person represents conservatism.
	Ben Carson upsets a lot of people with an entirely correct statement about the black family.
	The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus, after releasing a song warning that they're coming for our children, have now decided that they are the victims because of the backlash they received.
	And Kamala Harris claims that rural Americans don't have access to photocopiers.

▲