The ADL redefines racism twice in 18 months, the State Department struggles to sell war with Russia, and Joe Biden promises to cure cancer.
Check out my shop page to purchase shirts, stickers, and books (one with words, one without) https://utm.io/uedo1
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
After a full 18 months of waiting, a new definition of racism just dropped.
You see, for a long time, the Anti-Defamation League defined racism as, quote, Then, about 18 months ago during the BLM riots, the ADL redefined racism as exclusively a white thing.
Quote, And that definition had been going great for the left.
It was very simple.
White people, bad.
Black people, good.
No complications here.
But then, then, Whoopi Goldberg had to go and screw it all up when she claimed that the Holocaust was not about racism.
Now, everyone with two brain cells to rub together who knew anything about the Nazis mocked Whoopi Goldberg's claim.
The problem was that according to the new leftist definition of racism, she was 100% correct.
If racism is only something that white people can inflict on people of color, then the Holocaust could not have been racist.
There were no people of color involved in that entire event.
So they've changed the definition again.
Now, in this post-Whoopie world, the ADL defines racism as occurring, quote, when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.
But do not get too attached to this definition.
The ADL has made clear this is an interim, quote-unquote, definition.
And a new definition is sure to drop just as soon as it's politically convenient.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Frank S., who says, Looks like Jeffrey Toobin is the only guy at CNN who can keep his hands to himself.
That's true.
That's true.
A little...
You know, damning with faint praise in that regard, but you're right, that's true.
Toobin's looking relatively better after what's going on with Zucker and all the rest of these people.
Not, not great.
It's kind of, you know...
You want to be able to tell the difference between SHIT and Shinola.
You want to be able to tell the difference between guilt and gold.
You want to be able to ascertain some value in this world.
And when you want real, actual gold, I would strongly recommend you check out Birch Gold.
Forty years ago, Ronald Reagan saw massive inflation unlike anything the country had ever seen before.
Until today.
In Reagan's own words, inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hitman.
Well, I can't tell.
That was either Ronald Reagan or John Voight.
I'm not sure which voice that was.
Right now, your retirement accounts are under attack thanks to the inflationary policies of this administration.
If you have not yet called Birch Gold the only people that I trust to help you diversify your 401ks and IRAs into gold, then you are missing the boat.
Actually, you're treading water without a life vest.
Birch Gold has your life vest.
Let them help you convert an IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
With thousands of satisfied customers and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you can trust Birch Gold to protect your savings.
Right now, text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to get a free info kit on gold.
Reagan knew the biggest threat to your wealth.
Protect yours now.
Text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to get your free info kit now.
It's very complicated to keep up with the definition of racism.
It is very, very funny that Whoopi Goldberg's ignorant comment was correct, according to the ADL, actually, which is a Jewish anti-defamation organization.
They realized, oh, yikes, we're talking about an explicitly Jewish issue.
This is an explicitly Jewish organization.
But really, the ADL doesn't speak for Jews.
It speaks for radical leftists.
And I guess radical leftist Jews in particular.
And so they said, oh, yikes, okay, we've got to change this.
And they changed the definition.
But they're going to change it again.
It's interim.
It's always words, words, words, just changing our reality as the left sees fit.
Speaking of race...
Racial politics are actually helping conservatives out right now in New York.
Four black New Yorkers are suing New York City over an illegal voting law.
A law that they believe violates the law.
What's the law?
Democrats on the 51-member New York City Council last month approved a provision that will allow more than 800,000 foreign nationals to vote in citywide elections.
Illegal aliens, people here on green cards, visas, work permits, not U.S. citizens, will be able to vote in elections in New York as long as they've resided in the city for 30 days.
You just have to be there for one month consecutively, and you can vote in citywide elections.
This seems awful.
This seems un-American.
But now the issue has become about race.
Four black New York City residents, Phyllis Coachman, DeRoy Murdoch, Catherine James, and Anthony Gillies have filed a lawsuit.
The lawsuit makes this claim.
The New York City Council was aware of the discriminatory impact that the foreign citizen voting bill would have on the voting strength of black voters.
These concerns were raised by council members.
Despite the discriminatory impact and the knowledge that the New York City Council was without legal authority to grant foreign citizens the right to vote, the council moved forward and passed the bill.
This is a really clever way to go after this law.
It's a clever way because race is not the point.
The fact that black people are upset that now overwhelmingly Hispanic people are going to get, non-American Hispanic people are going to get an outsized share of the vote, that's their issue with the voting law.
But the problem with the voting law is that we shouldn't have foreign nationals influencing our government in America.
We shouldn't have foreigners influencing our elections.
Or participating in our elections, for goodness sakes.
That's the issue.
But we're not allowed to talk about that anymore.
In our current culture, we're not allowed to say that the nation is a good thing.
We're not allowed to say that America is a good thing.
We're not allowed to say that borders are real.
We're not allowed to say that non-Americans are different than Americans.
We're not allowed to say that the American people have a right to stop the advance of global liberalism.
We're not allowed to say any of that.
The one thing we're still allowed to talk about is racism.
Because that has been the instrument that the left has used to transform our culture.
And so now you've got some conservatives using the racism argument, playing the race card against the left.
And they're saying, hold on, hold on, hold on.
What are elections?
Elections aren't just the people of a given place showing up and voting and exercising control over their government.
Elections are different voting groups wielding their proportionate influence.
And specifically, because we now all say race is the most important thing in the whole wide world, it's different racial groups.
And when you flood the country with a bunch of Guatemalans and Hondurans and Nicaraguans, a bunch of Hispanics, that's the new racial group that has only really existed for the past half century.
That was another creation of the left, this idea that all people who speak Spanish all around the world, they're all the same thing somehow.
Well, when you get more Hispanics voting, that means you're decreasing the black share of the vote.
And that is very, very racist.
The argument is a little bit silly.
It's not that it's silly.
These sorts of arguments influence our politics.
I guess I would say the argument is beside the point.
That's not really the issue with this law.
But Nevertheless, I say, it's very clever.
I like it.
Whatever works.
We've got to stop these laws.
We don't want foreigners voting in our elections.
if this is the argument that is going to persuade the liberals in New York and the liberal judges in New York to get rid of this ridiculous law, fine by me.
Let's do it.
I cheer them on.
Good job, Phyllis, DeRoy, Catherine, and Anthony.
Keep it up.
Very clever.
You got to be wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove.
I absolutely love it.
Speaking of the law, though, increasingly, we're just throwing the law out the window in this country.
The rule of law is falling apart.
You heard yesterday Joe Biden say that he's going to pick a nominee who understands that the Constitution is always evolving, and the words don't really mean what they say they mean.
They just keep changing, man.
You know?
Doesn't it?
You know, what if this word now means the opposite of that word?
And we've heard these kinds of arguments from the left for a long time.
Now, you have leftists cheering on the squishy Republicans who are doing their bidding by throwing the law out the window.
Nicole Wallace on MSNBC just gave a huge round of applause to Liz Cheney precisely for how lawless she and the other squishes are behaving.
He's now conditioned his base to not believe in elections.
Elections now do not matter.
And that's where Liz Cheney seems to be drawing a line and bringing out an equally large arsenal by being the first person to say he's going to get away with nothing, not potential violations of the Presidential Records Act, not potential witness tampering, not potential efforts to overthrow an election.
She's going for the whole package of sins, which no one's ever done.
People have said, oh, well, he obstructed justice, but, you know, we've got this law in the books at DOJ that says we can't indict.
Liz Cheney is saying, F the laws.
We're going to hold this buffoon, this dangerous buffoon accountable once and for all.
Can she succeed?
I hope she can succeed.
I love that Liz Cheney is completely disregarding the law, throwing it out the window, saying, F the law.
I hate Trump and I'm going to get him.
I actually give Nicole Wallace a lot of credit here for admitting that this is what Liz Cheney is doing.
I never again want to hear from the squish conservatives, or from the left for that matter, that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and all of the other Clown conservatives, fake conservatives, who only exist to do the bidding of the left, they're the respectable ones.
They have respect for the rule of law.
Bill Kristol calls his Never Trumper group the rule of law Republicans.
Republicans for the rule of law.
No, Nicole Wallace is admitting.
It's actually the opposite.
All these squishes don't care at all about the rule of law.
They're ignoring the law.
They're saying, F the law.
I hate Trump, and so I'm just going to get him.
And why?
Because they say Trump is not accepting the results of the election.
Oh yeah, where do you think he learned that, guys?
Where do you think that Trump learned that you don't need to accept the results of an election?
You think it might have anything to do with, oh, I don't know, the woman that he beat who still doesn't accept the results of the 2016 election?
You think that might have anything to do with, I don't know, Al Gore?
And all of the other Democrats, including Terry McAuliffe, just ran for governor of Virginia, who still won't accept the results of the 2000 election.
Those elections, by the way, conducted in an almost perfectly ordinary way, unlike 2020, where all the rules were changed, in some cases, obviously illegally and contrary to state constitutions.
Well, no, that's different, Michael, because Trump's bad.
It's fine to throw out the law if it means that we can get rid of the orange man.
That's what the left is saying.
That's fine.
You're making a naked political argument.
This is bare-knuckle interest politics.
Fine.
But don't you ever tell me again that the liberals are the ones defending the rule of law.
It's a joke.
They're even admitting that they're the ones not doing it.
Now, when you want to protect not just your country and your community, but your home...
I would strongly recommend you check out Ring.
You know all about Ring.
I've been telling you about Ring for years, that amazing video doorbell where you can see and speak to whoever is outside the door, whether you are in the house, whether you're at the office, whether you're on the other side of the world.
Well, did you know that Ring has an award-winning alarm?
Yes, the incredible Ring Alarm is an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring and It's super easy to install.
Even I can do that.
It really gives you peace of mind.
For instance, when I'm on the road, I can feel safe and secure when my wife and baby are at home or when we're all on the road.
And I know that our home is protected not just from bad guys, but from freeze, from fire, from flood.
It's also incredible that Ring Alarm for many, many months will cost you what the old kinds of security systems used to cost you for just one month.
It's really an incredible deal.
Get that award-winning Ring Alarm.
Get it right now.
Go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. Get a great deal on the Ring Alarm home security kit today.
Ring.com slash Knowles.
Speaking of not trusting the government, I just saw the most pathetic, magnificent, absurd, transparent display of incompetent, almost certainly corrupt government maybe I've ever seen.
This came yesterday, not from some foreign government, it came from our government.
Came from the State Department.
It turns out there's at least one actual journalist, one actual reporter left in Washington.
The State Department is trying to ratchet up tensions with Russia over this issue of Ukraine.
And they've been trying a number of different strategies to do this.
And yesterday, the State Department and State Department spokesman, what's his name, Ned Price, made this claim that Russia is going to launch a false flag attack that will then give them a pretext to invade Ukraine.
And the reporter in the room had a very simple question.
Only one reporter.
He said, what is your evidence?
And the State Department couldn't answer.
What we know, Matt, is what I have just said, that they have engaged in this activity, in this planning activity.
But let me, because obviously this is not the first time we've made these reports public.
You'll remember that just a few weeks ago.
I'm sorry, made what report public?
If you'll let me finish, I will tell you what report we made public.
We told you a few weeks ago that we have information indicating Russia also has already pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine.
So that, Matt, to your question, is an action that Russia has already taken.
Well, it's an action that you say that they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that.
And I'm going to get to the next question here, which is, what is the evidence that they...
I mean, this is like crisis actors, really?
This is like Alex Jones territory you're getting into now.
What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?
Hold on, I've got to pause it there.
It only gets better.
The State Department only beclowns itself further.
The reason I have to pause it, though, is the reporter did make a mistake.
He said that the State Department is getting into Alex Jones territory.
That is not true.
Alex Jones is much more trustworthy than the State Department.
Yeah.
Alex Jones has a much better record of predictions than the State Department, including the gay frogs.
He was right about the gay frogs.
I am damning with faint praise a little bit here because the State Department and our federal bureaucracy and the liberal establishment has such a terrible record that the reporter is saying, you're asking me to just take this on faith that you're telling me the truth, but you guys are incompetent and liars, so why am I supposed to believe you?
Matt, this is derived from information known to the U.S. government.
Intelligence information that we have declassified.
I think you know...
Okay, well, where is it?
Where is this information?
It is intelligence information that we have declassified.
Well, where is it?
Where is the declassified information?
I just delivered it.
No, you made a series of allegations and statements.
Would you like us to print out the topper?
Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself.
That's not evidence, Ned.
That's you saying it.
That's not evidence.
I'm sorry.
What would you like, Matt?
I would like to see some proof.
I'd like some proof.
No, well, I'm giving it to you.
Okay, let's try this again, Mr.
State Department spokesman.
What is the evidence that Russia is going to launch a false flag and that's why we need to go send a zillion troops to Ukraine and start a war with Russia?
What is the evidence that that's going to happen?
Well, I just gave it to you.
No, you made an allegation.
Yeah, that's right.
That's the evidence.
Take my word for it.
Take my word for it.
The people who have lied about and or screwed up every major foreign policy issue almost for my entire lifetime The fall of the Berlin Wall was the last thing.
And actually, they didn't get that right either.
Reagan was right about the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And the State Department and those people all tried to screw it up.
So actually, never mind.
Forget that.
These people have screwed up every major foreign policy issue, almost without exception, for as far back as I can even remember with historical memory.
The people who told us that Saddam Hussein was making nukes, the people who told us that Kabul was not going to...
Forget about we have to go back to ancient history with Saddam and the nukes.
What about Kabul?
What about the Afghanistan debacle from a year ago?
We were told...
Less than a year ago.
We were told that Kabul was not going to fall.
It was strong.
The Afghan national government was great.
It fell within weeks.
With days.
But trust us, we're right.
Believe us.
Give me a break, bro.
Sorry.
I'm not even denying that Vladimir Putin would stage a false flag.
The guy's capable of doing just about anything.
He's a former KGB agent who runs Russia and wants to greatly expand Russia's territory and has already invaded Russia's neighbors.
So I'm not saying he wouldn't do it.
Sure, of course he could do it.
But I ain't just taking the State Department's word for it.
Or the rest of the federal blob.
They've squandered their credibility.
They don't have credibility anymore.
And that's not my fault.
It's not unpatriotic.
It's not conspiratorial.
It's not irrational not to believe these people after they've gotten everything wrong and lied to us for decades.
You want us to go invade Ukraine, Ned Price?
You want us to go start a war with Russia?
Okay, fine.
Show me the proof of these things, though.
Don't just tell me to take your word for it.
Because your word and a buck fifty used to get you a cup of coffee.
Now you need three fifty to get a cup of coffee because of Joe Biden's inflation.
Speaking of a lack of credibility from this administration.
Joe Biden.
Failed on the economy.
Failed on foreign policy, as we have seen.
Failed on the border.
Failed on COVID. Remember, I'm going to shut down COVID, and now there's no federal solution to COVID. Failed on issue after issue after issue after issue.
He is now underwater on every single issue.
He's considered one of the worst presidents in American history.
So now, as the Democrats are poised to head into disaster in the midterm elections...
Joe Biden has thrown a Hail Mary.
He says that he is going to cure cancer.
Our message today is this.
We can do this.
I promise you, we can do this.
For all those we lost, for all those we miss, we can end cancer as we know it.
I committed to this fight when I was vice president.
It's one of the reasons why, quite frankly, I ran for president.
Let there be no doubt, now that I am president, this is a presidential White House priority.
Okay, Joe Biden is going to cure cancer.
He's launching this initiative.
He's going to take a moonshot, except they already launched this initiative.
They launched this initiative when Barack Obama was president.
He put Joe Biden in charge of it, which is probably why nothing happened.
He launched it now six years ago.
And what they said at the time was they were going to launch this Moonshot to Cure Cancer, quote, to make a decade's worth of advances in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in five years.
That was six years ago.
It didn't happen.
The whole idea of the president announcing that he's going to cure cancer was taken out of a West Wing episode.
This is the problem with a bunch of brain-dead millennials running your White House, is that the only thing that they really know about Statecraft is what they watched on a sitcom, or I suppose a network drama, when they were children, written by Aaron Sorkin.
And they think that's real life, and they think that's politics.
And so, so this is the best they've got.
Joe Biden could not cure a mild cough.
Joe Biden said, I'm going to shut down the virus.
I'm going to shut down COVID.
And then he just admitted, what, less than a month ago, sorry, there's no federal solution.
You're on your own.
It's going to be solved at the States.
We can't do it.
You can't cure the cough.
You are not going to cure cancer.
He doesn't think he's going to cure cancer.
None of these people, even the Aaron Sorkin fans who are writing all of Joe Biden's speeches, don't think he's going to cure cancer.
This is a distraction.
This is a Hail Mary.
This is just a way of saying, hey, don't look at the economy.
Don't look at foreign policy.
Don't look at COVID, actually, the other medical issue we're trying to solve.
Don't look at this.
Don't look at that.
Hey, we're gonna, you know, if you re-elect me, everyone's gonna have lots of money and health, and it's gonna be Big Rock Candy Mountain with the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees.
No, it's not.
It's not gonna happen.
None of that is going to happen.
What you are watching is a flailing presidency.
The best shot they have right now to stop the bleeding in the midterms is ram their Supreme Court justice through.
That seems like they actually will get that.
And then make a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises.
Not even that people will believe, but just distract them from all of the carnage and misery that everyone is seeing around them.
One of the new flailing initiatives from Joe Biden is more gun control.
And even this he's screwing up.
This is usually a reliable base Democrat issue.
Doesn't appeal to the majority of Americans, but it does appeal to the Democrat base, and they're just trying to keep them happy enough.
But even that Biden screwed up.
Biden made the claim during a press conference on guns that a Glock is a weapon of war.
You know, the future is cut short by a man with a stolen Glock with 40 rounds.
A magazine with 40 rounds.
And it's really a weapon of war.
It's really a weapon of war.
Now, to be fair to Joe Biden, he's not just saying that the Glock itself, one of the most common handguns, if not the most common handgun in America, he's not just saying that's a weapon of war.
If a Glock is a weapon of war, then every gun is a weapon of war.
He's saying that the Glock with the magazine that holds a lot of rounds, that's what makes it a But then that just means that every gun is a weapon of war, because every gun potentially, almost every gun potentially, could have a big magazine in it.
Right?
You just swap out the magazine.
So what Biden is claiming is that weapons of war are bad, we need to ban weapons of war, and every single gun can be a weapon of war.
It does not take Socrates to put that together and say, oh, he wants to ban all of the guns.
I don't think that's going to play very well either.
I do think that gun control can work for Democrats sometimes, but not this way.
But again, it's just appealing to the base, because he's already lost the middle.
He's already lost the relative centrists.
So now he is losing his base right now.
He's got to try to get the base back first.
Then he can try to rebuild the coalition.
He just doesn't seem to have enough time.
Now he's like, oh yeah, we're going to ban all the guns.
He's basically become Beto.
Hell yeah!
Hell yeah, we're going to ban your clocks!
Hey, come on, man!
Speaking of redefining words, David Crosby.
You remember David Crosby, possibly.
David Crosby was part of Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young.
He's an old hippie singer.
I actually like Neil Young, like Joni Mitchell.
I like their music.
I like some of their music, not all of it, but I like the handful of songs that people know.
You know, Our House, it's sentimental, but it's okay.
Teach Your Children, that's fine.
4 and 20, there's some good songs.
David Crosby is now calling on Spotify to remove his music as well.
Not just Neil Young, but Crosby, Stills and Nash as well.
He wants to do it because he wants to censor Joe Rogan, but he doesn't want to admit that he wants to censor Joe Rogan.
Here's what David Crosby said earlier.
Yesterday, he was responding to someone who said some good advice.
Actually, listen to Joe Rogan's show before you demand his cancellation.
And David responded and said, I have not and will not demand anything from Spotify or Joe Rogan.
I just don't want my music on there if he's on there.
So I'm taking mine off.
That is not censorship.
No, it's not censorship because it's not working, but it's obviously an attempt at censorship.
Come on, David.
David!
You know, I think David used to follow me on Twitter for a while.
So I always wondered if his politics were really very far left or maybe if it were a little more complicated than that.
I don't think he follows me anymore.
But I wondered.
I said, maybe he's a little more moderate or maybe he just doesn't think about politics all that much because he's a musician and he's focused on other things.
Regardless, I'm going to assume the best motives here David is not being honest with himself about this issue.
A lot of people are not being honest with themselves about the censorship issue.
What he is saying is...
My music has value...
And so I'm going to take it off of Spotify.
Unless David Crosby really believes his music has absolutely no value, and his music, whether it's on or off Spotify, will not affect people's behavior whatsoever.
But I don't think anyone really believes that.
He's saying, my music has value, and so here's an ultimatum.
It's Rogan or me.
Cancel Rogan, and you get to keep me.
Or don't censor Rogan, and I'm going to take my ball and go home, and I'm going to add more pressure to you to censor Rogan.
Of course you're trying to censor Rogan.
And by the way, I don't think censorship is bad in and of itself.
I know that on the right now, it's become fashionable in the last five or ten years to take the position that censorship is always bad.
That's not a conservative position.
That's not an American position.
That's not a coherent position.
We censor all sorts of things, very rightly so.
We censor snuff films.
We censor child pornography.
That's a good thing.
We censor obscenity more broadly.
We censor certain words.
You're not allowed to say certain ugly, profane words in polite company.
We always do that.
We censor it in schools, in homes, in businesses, in the public square.
We always censor stuff.
Every society censors stuff.
It was the libs in the 1960s who pretended that censorship is bad in and of itself.
And it was the conservatives who said, what the hell are you talking about?
Every society in history censors certain things.
You don't want to censor everything.
You don't want to have an overbearing, authoritarian kind of censorship regime.
But yeah, we're going to have standards.
We're going to have taboos.
And they said, no, you've got to get rid of all that.
So then we got rid of all that.
And then what happens?
Two seconds later, the minute they destroy our standards, they erect their own standards and start censoring us.
They never meant it.
It was always just an operation.
It was always just a tool for them to come in and reshape the culture.
David, you want to censor Joe Rogan, who I'm sure you've never listened to?
Fine.
Fine.
Okay.
You think Joe Rogan violates the standards of the society you want to live in?
Okay.
I mean, that's insane, but sure.
Well, fine.
But don't, please do not relieve yourself on my leg and tell me that it's raining.
If you want censorship, as everyone does to some degree, then own it, admit it, and tell us what you want to censor.
Speaking of limits and education...
Glenn Youngkin, absolutely crushing it.
The new governor of Virginia, killing it, along with the attorney general, who's doing a great job, and the superintendent of public instruction, also doing a great job.
They have now asked a court to let them become plaintiffs, along with parents, who are suing Loudoun County Public Schools.
So, now the governor, the attorney general, and the head of education are all going to sue The Loudoun County Public Schools, along with the parents, they're going to join the parents to sue the schools to get the schools to stop forcing the kids to wear those stupid masks.
Youngkin issued an executive order saying that parents had the right to choose whether their children must wear masks at school or not.
The liberal schools have refused to follow it.
They claim that they don't need to follow executive orders.
Now Glenn Youngkin is wielding the power of the state to remove the The free choice of the school districts, and I think that's awesome.
Some squishes are going to say, no, this is bad.
We need to let the schools do whatever the schools want.
This is an overreach on the part of the state.
I disagree.
We are living in a time now where the left is wielding a ton of political power, and the right, because of silly notions of...
Government and very silly ideologies have completely surrendered political power.
That's bad.
We need to follow the Conan the Barbarian strategy here when we're talking about politics.
Conan, what is best in political life?
Wrong!
Conan, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear a lamentation of their women.
That is good.
That is good.
Here, here, I wish I could vote for that guy for governor.
Not Schwarzenegger, but Conan the Barbarian.
I want to have a caveat here.
Really, the best thing that we want is a civilized, orderly, reasonable government that is conducive toward the good.
It shuts out, it suppresses the bad, and it leads to human flourishing.
That's what we want.
We want to be very, very reasonable.
That doesn't mean that there are no limits here whatsoever.
And when your political opponents are being completely unreasonable and wielding power unreasonably, you need to wield power too.
Justly, morally, absolutely, but you gotta wield it.
And you want to hear the lamentations of your political opponents.
You know, next Thursday, February 10th.
We'll be the world premiere of Shut In, Daily Wire's first original film.
It's at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central over at the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
The suspenseful thriller follows a young mother trapped in a pantry by her violent ex and meth addict friend, and she must escape to save her children before it's too late.
The Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring had this to say.
Shut In is a fiercely independent, powerful movie about motherhood and redemption.
It's riveting.
It's challenging.
It's highly entertaining.
We cannot wait to release it next week.
Check out the trailer.
Lady!
Rob!
Rob owes me money.
Let me out, please.
What good is this to me now?
You had your way.
*Dramatic music* I'm scared.
Well, you must pay.
Your daughter, she's very pretty.
It's premiering next Thursday, February 10th, 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central over at The Daily Wire YouTube.
We enter the entertainment space in order to send Hollywood a message.
You no longer have a monopoly on the film industry.
The release of Shut In is just the next step in proving it.
Also, if basketball is your favorite sport, but you're tired of wokeness infiltrating the NBA, you're not alone.
Orlando Magic player Jonathan Isaac is publishing a book with The Daily Wire about the rise of his career, his journey into faith, and his strength to stand alone in the face of immense social pressure.
This autobiographical account is going to be absolutely fabulously wonderful.
The book is available for pre-order at Amazon.
Get your copy today.
Also, Valentine's Day is around the corner.
Get the official Daily Wire Valentine's.
Give it to your sweetheart.
You can get one with my smiling face on it saying that you leave me speechless.
We'll be right back with the mailbag.
Welcome back to my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
First question up from Elijah.
Esteemed Puzzle Master, I need some comment on the tragic news this week that the New York Times has acquired Wordle.
I fear our days of posting our gray, yellow, and green squares on social media are numbered.
Sincerely, a fellow Wordle addict.
Here is my thought, Elijah.
Nature's first green is gold, her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower, but only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief.
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Next question from Landry.
Hey Michael, I wanted to know your take on this.
Is there anything worse than death?
On one hand, I think yes.
You can have torture, which can physically hurt more than death.
But should we only take the physical part into account?
Sincerely, just a guy who wants to see peace between Knowles and Shapiro.
Yeah, there are things worse than death.
Death is very bad.
I don't want to say that death is not bad.
It's a punishment for original sin.
It's the consequence of original sin.
In a way, you might say it's sort of a blessing in a world that's fallen.
But everyone's going to die.
There are things that are worse than death.
You say that torture seems like it would be worse than death because it has more physical pain, but I don't think that physical pain is the worst thing in the world.
I don't think that physical pain is worse than death.
I think the thing that is worse than death is eternal damnation.
I think, I know this is sort of a crazy, obscure point of view these days in our modern secular materialist world, But I think that human beings have souls, and I think that we are part physical, but also part spiritual.
And I think that our spirit has an eternal destination.
And furthermore, I believe in the resurrection.
I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come.
And I think that there is justice in the world, and I think that there is a moral order, and we will be held to account for the things that we have done.
For what we've done in our thoughts and in our words and what we've done and what we've failed to do through our most grievous fault.
And I think that there is an off-ramp to salvation offered by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
And I'm laughing about it because this is so basic and this is the sort of thing that created Western civilization.
And now if you say it to people, they look at you like you've got three heads.
They look at you like you're completely crazy.
If you look at people today...
And you say, hey, all of our hopes and joys and dreams and our intuitions of the moral world and the idea that there's justice and our natural human longing for and knowledge of God who can be known with certainty by the light of reason from the natural world— I don't think that's just an illusion.
I don't think it's all just fake because some synapses are firing off in our brain.
I don't think that we're really just worm food.
I don't think that petting a little puppy on a nice summer day is the same thing as killing a bunch of babies.
I don't think it's all just like stuff and flesh.
Here's a good example.
I don't think that consensual sex between a married couple...
And rape is the same thing.
Physically, it looks basically like the same thing.
The physical action is the same, but I don't think they're the same thing because I think there is a spiritual world because I think there's more.
There's more to life that matters than just matter.
So yes, there are things that are worse than death.
Though you will die, so get ready for it.
Make sure you're ready to die.
Life is a preparation for death in many ways.
On that note, no, I'm kidding, there's more.
From Jessica, hey Michael, I recently have re-entered the dating world.
I will pause for the flood of comments in the subscriber section to settle down, as they all want a chance with me.
Fair enough.
Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts are on dating multiple people at once.
When you first start going on dates and start to like someone, should you force yourself to date other people simultaneously, even if you like one person?
I hear advice about dating multiple people at once to not only keep your options open, but to make sure you don't seem desperate or needy.
Should I force myself to keep finding and talking to other guys when dating and until it's exclusive?
Sincerely, do I need a deep bench?
This is a really good question because the short answer is no, but the longer answer is maybe.
By which I mean, no, you don't need to go and spend all your time flirting with all these other guys that you're not really interested in just because of this terrible fear that the guy that you are interested in might not like you quite as much, and so you might be left alone for a couple of weeks, and that's unacceptable, so you've got to be playing the field.
Whether that means going out to dinner or whether that means something a little more invasive, no, I don't think you need to do that.
However, your point here about not seeming too needy or wanting the guy maybe to know that you're dating other people so that he likes you more or feels greater urgency to seal the deal, that's a very legitimate intuition.
The way that desire works.
I mentioned this name on the show months ago, Rene Girard.
He was this sociologist who has this idea of desire as being mimetic, meaning we imitate others' desires.
The reason that you want the Leftist Tears Tumblr is not merely because it is a beautiful vessel filled to the brim with delicious, salty Leftist Tears.
At a deeper level, the reason you want the Leftist Tears Tumblr is because other people want the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
You see that other people want it, and you imitate that desire.
We don't just imitate people in terms of their behavior, which we all do.
Human beings are imitative creatures.
I see Dr.
Fauci, and I see him give some stupid speech, and then I imitate him.
I say, well, now listen here, you dirty peasant.
We're doing that because human beings naturally imitate one another.
And how do we learn how to behave?
Well, we imitate our parents.
We imitate our teachers.
We imitate our friends.
This is why people say you are known by the friends you keep.
Because the people you spend the most time with, you're just naturally going to imitate them, because that's how human beings are.
Well, the same is true, not just for our behavior, but for our desires.
You actually...
Desire the things that the people that you admire and the people you spend time with desire.
They shape not only the way you act, but your desires as well.
And so, you see this in love affairs because, and I promise you every guy, at least every guy and probably every woman out there, I actually think this is true regardless of sex.
If you're interested in someone, You think, okay, that girl's pretty cute, and I like that girl, she's kind of cute too, and whatever, maybe I'll try it out and date a few people.
And then you notice that a bunch of other guys are trying to date that first girl.
You are going to desire that first girl even more.
Same thing with the guys.
I noticed this in my single life.
There were times, if I was lucky with the ladies, it was a period of time where lots of gals were interested in me, More and more gals would be interested in me.
But if it was a period of time where I was not dating people, then many fewer people were interested in me.
And this is true for, I'm sure you have experienced this in your own life.
This is kind of what happens in the petri dish of colleges or in cities.
Why is that?
Why do these things come in waves?
Because we imitate one another's desires.
So, as a tactical matter...
This is why women send flowers to themselves, right?
To trick other guys and make them think that others are interested in them.
So, you know, as a tactical matter, maybe.
But, you know, preserve your modesty, darling.
Don't preserve your virtue.
From Nicole.
Dear Mr.
Knowles, I am a big fan of your podcast and your book, Speechless.
Thank you.
However, something you said on All Access Live really startled me.
You said that women can reform men.
Am I to believe that you think a woman can or should date a man with the intention of changing him?
This is something I don't think is possible or healthy.
Sincerely, I came for Ben.
Stayed for Knowles.
Subscribe for Klavan.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
I don't just think it can happen.
I think it inevitably happens.
And actually, I guess my previous answer is, this was a great transition into this answer.
We naturally shape the people that we are with.
That's just how human nature works.
So, I'm not saying, you know, if you're going to get married to some degenerate, abusive guy, I'm not saying I can change him and you'll totally reform him.
But he will change.
People grow together or they grow apart.
They do shape one another.
And so, yeah, that will happen.
When men are bachelors, they live like bachelors, almost without exception.
They don't do their laundry as much as they should.
They don't cook as much as they should.
They don't clean as much as they should.
They don't sleep as well as they should.
They go out too much.
That's just what they do.
Maybe they play too many video games.
And then you get married and you stop that stuff, or you greatly reduce it, or you change the way you behave.
That's inevitable.
And that's one of the reasons that people get married, is to move on with their lives and to grow and to develop.
From Maddie.
Hey Michael, recently someone told me that they think romance novels, movies, etc.
are as bad to women as porn is to men.
While these two are not on the same level for obvious reasons, it did make me think about the TikTok trend talking about the appeal of men written by women.
Do you think growing up watching movies like Pride and Prejudice and the Titanic gives women unrealistic hopes?
That is, do I need to leave the romance to fiction and just settle down with someone practical?
No, I don't think so.
I think we live in a culture right now where men have been particularly degraded by the educational system, by the culture, by the licentiousness throughout the society that's now tolerated by the government.
And by women who are willing to give them the milk for free.
And so they have no particular incentive, at least at the material level, to go by the cow.
So I don't think it's wrong for women to aim for something higher than just some loaf couch potato idiot man who has no ambition and just eats potato chips all day.
I think you can aim higher.
But the one thing I would recommend is...
Maybe you want your Mr.
Darcy, to use your Pride and Prejudice reference.
You want a man like Mr.
Darcy.
But don't make an idol out of Mr.
Darcy.
I'm actually going to take it out of the realm of romance for a second and put it into the realm of your career.
This might be a little easier to understand.
People have heroes.
People, when they think about their life and their career, they say, I want to be like Ronald Reagan.
I want to be like, I don't know, Elon Musk.
I want to be like Donald Trump.
And it's good to have those goals in mind and to say, okay, he did this, so maybe I should do something like this or this, that, or the other thing.
But you can't just replicate someone else's career.
You're not just going to be Ronald Reagan and do all the things Ronald Reagan did.
Or you're not just going to do all the things Elon Musk did.
You're not going to get exactly Mr.
Darcy.
It's good to have these virtues in mind and these good habits in mind and these good attributes in mind.
But when you make an idol out of them, then you really are living in a fantasy, and then you really will be disappointed.
From Ava, Michael, I'm 14 years old.
Wow, I love that we are just completely corrupting the youth away from the extremely corrupt modern culture and toward something a little more conservative.
That's great.
Thank you, Ava.
14 years old, no friends.
Sorry to hear that.
Homeschooled for two years now.
No reliable means of travel.
Very untrusting parents.
I converted to Catholicism after hearing you talk more and more about it.
And because of you, I was turned to God and I am now a better educated and pretty established Catholic.
Wow, great news.
That's so wonderful to hear.
That's terrific.
My issue is that my family does not approve.
My mom has made fun of the faith, bribed me to leave the Catholic faith behind, and has not taken me to another church since she mocked my first Mass.
That's unfortunate.
It's made me very nervous about my standing with God, knowing that I have no way to go to confession or even do an RCIA program so I can get baptized.
The only way I'm able to practice at the moment is my rosary, which I was able to buy online.
I have since never wanted to say a word about my religion to my family because they reject it.
It makes it hard for me worrying about the states of their souls as well.
What should I do?
I keep pushing to go to a church, preferably a Latin mass, or just wait until I turn 16 and can drive myself.
Please help.
A long question, but yeah, a really tough predicament that you are in.
The one thing I would say if you're really worried about the state of your soul is to remember that you have limitations put on you right now.
And that's just the way of the world.
I'll give you an example of a little-known fella, goes by the name of St.
Thomas Aquinas.
Maybe you heard of him.
Thomas Aquinas wanted to join the Dominican Order.
I think his parents wanted him to join the Abbacy, but he wanted to become a Dominican.
Parents were really upset about this.
They kidnapped him.
They locked him in a tower.
They sent loose women to try to...
At least according to legend, to try to loosen him up, you know.
And they tried to persuade him not to join the embassy, not to become a Dominican.
He held firm when he was finally able to break out.
He did that.
There is also, you haven't been baptized, you say, there is such a thing, according to St.
Thomas Aquinas and the tradition of Holy Mother Church of baptism of desire.
This is not to say that you shouldn't get baptized the first chance you can to have a real baptism in real life with your real physical body.
But there is such a thing as baptism of desire.
This was true for the catechumens, people who wanted to get into the church but had not yet been baptized.
If they were martyred, for instance, the tradition of the church says, yes, absolutely, there is such a baptism that takes place even before the physical, actual sacramental baptism.
So I think you're okay.
In that regard, I would, you know, right now, pray the rosary.
You can stream masses, if you like.
It's not ideal, but you can do it.
You can read a lot, watch videos, grow in your faith.
Pray.
Pray for your family.
Try to work this thing out.
Sometimes they get a little shocked when people convert.
And then look forward with hope, which is a theological virtue, toward the future.
We can do that certainly in our spiritual life, and I think everyone can do that in our political life as well.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you Monday.
Bye.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Production manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate producer, Justine Turley.
Audio mixer, Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup by Cherokee Heart.
Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
