Ep. 1089 - Diversity Is Not Martha’s Vineyard's Strength
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Liberals meltdown over the arrival of a few dozen illegal aliens in Martha’s Vineyard, a Mexican valedictorian might lose his degree and professional license for questioning transgenderism, and an old-school feminist teaches conservatives how to talk about porn.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at https://www.jeremysrazors.com.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access movies, shows, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Stop funding woke corporate agendas. Switch to PureTalk instead. Save 50% OFF your 1st month when you enter promo code KNOWLESPODCAST at puretalk.com
Ring Alarm is an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe. Learn more at www.Ring.com/KNOWLES
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sent the entire American left into a tizzy, a now days-long national meltdown.
How did he do it?
He approached 50 of the 2 million illegal aliens per year that Democrats invite into this country.
He gave 50 of them, 5-0, airplane tickets to Martha's Vineyard.
The fact that Fox News and not the Department of Homeland Security, the city, or local NGOs were alerted about a plan to leave migrants, including children, on the side of a busy D.C. street makes clear that this is just a cruel, premeditated political stunt.
This is what they are doing.
And a couple more things.
The migrants, including children, Who arrived in Martha's Vineyard were misled about where they were being taken and what would be provided when they arrived is also deeply alarming.
The children Governor Abbott abandoned in Martha's Vineyard, the children that Governor DeSantis abandoned as well deserve better.
They deserve better than being left on the streets of D.C. or being left in Martha's Vineyard.
They deserve a lot better than that.
Yeah, these people deserve better than to be left on the streets of Washington, D.C. or Martha's Vineyard.
They deserve to be left on the streets of El Paso, right?
Isn't that so much better?
She also keeps saying it's the children, it's the children.
It's adults.
It's adult people who have come to America flocking.
Some children come to America, too.
Democrats have invited millions and millions of people per year.
And it's good, right?
It's good to leave them there, right there on the border.
It's just bad I don't mean to disparage El Paso.
I like Texas as much as the next guy.
But I don't see very many prominent Democrats, wealthy liberal elites, buying property on the border.
Do you?
I don't see many wealthy liberals vacationing in El Paso or Del Rio.
I see them all flocking to Martha's Vineyard, which they boast is a sanctuary for illegal aliens.
So, great.
That's a win-win, right?
The illegal aliens come in, and Texas says to Florida, Arizona, they say, we're not a sanctuary.
So, okay, send them up to some of the most desirable property in the world, which says it is a sanctuary.
Great, right?
Apparently not.
The liberal journalist Soledad O'Brien summed up the opposition.
Basically, human trafficking, she tweeted, cheered on by people who call themselves Christians.
It's disgusting.
But if Republicans bringing 50 illegal aliens to Martha's Vineyard constitutes human trafficking, What do you call it when Democrats bring 2 million illegal aliens per year into border states?
And then, by the way, what do you call it when Democrats do exactly the same thing that DeSantis did except in regular, consistent, much larger numbers?
We've got the headlines right here.
If the problem is that DeSantis is flying illegal aliens around the country, just 50 of them, what about this headline?
Biden sent 70 secret night flights of migrants from border to Florida.
That's from the Washington Examiner.
What about this headline?
Biden administration resumes migrant flights to suburban New York report.
That's in Fox News.
Okay, you might say, well, those are, well, the Examiner's not right-wing.
But, you know, okay, Fox News, that's a sort of vaguely right-wing website.
What about NBC News?
I got NBC News right here.
Biden administration again flying migrants who cross border in one place to another before expelling them.
Okay, what about this NBC headline?
Amid border surge, Biden administration plans to send migrants to cities deeper inside U.S., starting with L.A., say, internal documents.
Now, why is it that when Republicans do, at a very, very small, minuscule level, exactly the same thing Democrats have done at a huge level, that's human trafficking?
In a way, I guess it is human trafficking.
In a way, Democrats, for coming up on 60 years now, have trafficked tens of millions of illegal aliens into America, exposing them, by the way, to all manner of horrific violence on the journey and violating America's most basic laws in the process.
Then, when Democrats feel like they've got enough illegals in border states, they fly the migrants to other parts of the country where they think that they'll be more politically useful.
And then, all the while, it's lauded as virtuous and compassionate and as American as apple pie.
And then, the moment Republicans send even a few dozen of those very same migrants to the neighborhoods of wealthy Democrats, all of a sudden, it's a crime against humanity.
Beach season is over.
There are now lots of multi-million dollar mansions owned by Open Borders Democrats all over Martha's Vineyard.
There are ample, opulent accommodations just waiting to be occupied by people to whom the owners of those homes promised sanctuary back when they thought it was impossible that the migrants would actually show up for it.
I, for one, say it's time to open up the doors of those wealthy Democrats' homes to all that diversity and strength.
Show those selfish border state Republicans what true compassion looks like.
And Governor DeSantis keeps sending those lucky illegal aliens up to the vineyard for a luxury vacation the Democrats will never forget.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Big Daddy Scoops, who says, Trump, go down and peacefully protest.
It's apparently a call for violence.
Democrats, this is a call to arms.
Well, that is totally necessary.
That's good.
That's safe.
Of course, that's true.
Of course, that's true.
When Republicans do anything that's violent, that's extreme, that's terrorism, that's a threat to our sacred democracy.
When Democrats actually call on their supporters to confront, attack, and even kill Republicans, well, that's safe.
That's constitutionally protected.
That's really democracy in action.
Are you getting it now?
Are you catching on?
I suspect you are catching on.
I suspect a lot of other people who are not paying as close attention are catching on too.
We got to keep our country safe.
We got to keep our home safe.
That's why you need Ring.
Right now, go to ring.com slash Knowles.
We are in speech season, baby.
I travel a whole lot.
But I'm always traveling a lot.
You might be too.
You got your summer vacations, then you're going back to work, and then you want to make sure that your home is protected.
That's why you need Ring.
Did you know that Ring has a wonderful alarm system?
I know.
You're thinking, Ring, the video doorbell company?
Yeah, they have an alarm.
They have an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe.
Best of all, you can easily install it yourself, and Ring does not stop there.
They've changed the entire home security game with Ring Alarm Pro.
That is why I have teamed up with Ring, and when it comes to protecting our home, you've got to go pro, baby!
You've got to be a pro like me, okay?
Ring Alarm Pro is...
is whole home security with available professional monitoring when you subscribe to Ring Protect Pro.
Ring Alarm Pro combines a security system with a fast Eero Wi-Fi 6 router, so you're protecting your physical home and your digital home as well, all with one device.
It's absolutely phenomenal.
Protect your home.
Be like me.
Go pro with Ring Alarm Pro.
You can do it, too, okay?
Learn more at ring.com slash Knowles.
That is ring.com slash Knowles.
Not in my backyard.
That is the Democrats' immigration policy.
Oh yeah, open up that border, as long as it's down in El Paso, as long as it's down in Del Rio, as long as they're going to Florida, as long as the Biden administration can fly the migrants to wherever they're politically useful.
Maybe, look, maybe they'll end up in some blue cities, some small number of them.
All right, we'll tolerate that, I guess.
But they sure as hell ain't coming to Martha's Vineyard.
Oh, no.
50 migrants?
50?
Oh, my gosh.
Think of the property values, though.
Could you imagine?
And then there might be a line, you know, at the local brunch spot.
No, no, no.
We need to build a big, beautiful wall around Martha's Vineyard and keep those migrants out.
We just have to send them to border states.
The head of the Winter Home Shelter, Lisa Belcastro, she's coordinator there, she just came out and summed up, I think, the opinion of Martha's Vineyard.
What are the most difficult challenges right now?
The difficult challenges are at some point in time they have to move from here to somewhere else.
We don't have the services to take care of 50 immigrants and we certainly don't have housing.
We're in a housing crisis as we are on this island.
We can't house everyone here that lives here and works here.
We don't have housing for 50 more people.
That's tough.
Sounds like you're going to have to build some more housing.
Sounds like you don't have the services set up.
Well, I guess you better get them.
I mean, the federal government spends untold amounts of money, not only to service illegal immigration, but to actually encourage illegal immigration.
So better send some of that money to Martha's Vineyard.
50 people.
50.
It's nothing.
That's so few people.
That's not a drop of an iota, of a fraction, of even a slight percentage point of the illegal immigration that border states get.
So you better figure it out, guys.
We just don't have room.
What are you talking about?
Martha's Vineyard is empty right now.
People leave Martha's Vineyard after Labor Day.
Consider the homes that are completely empty right now.
I bet you any home, almost any home on Martha's Vineyard that is empty right now that is owned by some wealthy liberal elite could house all of the migrants that Ron DeSantis sent up there.
They just won't do it because they would much rather have red state voters, they would much rather have Republicans in Texas deal with the consequences of illegal immigration than in any way even slightly crack open the doors to their gazillion dollar mansions.
Barack Obama alone could house every single migrant that has been sent to Martha's Vineyard.
Barack Obama has a $12 million mansion on Martha's Vineyard.
It's almost 7,000 square feet.
It's got seven bedrooms, but even that, okay, so seven bedrooms, that alone could probably almost house all of the illegal immigrants to say nothing of the living rooms and the sitting rooms.
But Barack Obama's got 30 acres.
This guy has so much land.
He's got a separate barn.
You could put up a temporary shelter there.
You got 30 acres.
You could put up many temporary shelters.
Every migrant could get his own temporary mansion.
And he should do it, by the way.
If Barack Obama wanted a real political masterstroke here, he would open up his home.
He's got the best security in the world.
He doesn't need to worry about that.
He's not even there.
He could open up his home.
Allow the 50 migrants in.
He would look like an absolute hero.
would be such a masterstroke.
But he won't do it.
None of these people will do it.
Because they don't want the dirty, filthy, hoi polloi migrants in their homes.
They don't want them in their backyard.
They'll talk a really, really good game when the migrants are over 1,000 miles away down on the border.
But they don't want these people.
The only time that the wealthy Democrats of Martha's Vineyard are going to allow any Latin Americans anywhere near them is when they're mowing their lawns.
That's what it's all about.
And they'll talk a really, really good game.
But ultimately, they don't care one little wit about these people.
They certainly don't care about the millions of them coming each year.
They can't even tolerate being near.
They can't even tolerate 50 of them being near their property, much less themselves or their families.
And so DeSantis exposes that and gives these migrants an ice trip to one of the most desirable locations in the world.
Great.
Keep it up.
Keep those plane loads coming, baby.
We got to do it.
We've got to make sure that we all coordinate on this.
The red state governors need to coordinate.
We've all got to talk to each other.
When you want to talk, you've got to check out Pure Talk USA. Right now, go to puretalk.com, enter promo code at KnowlesPodcast, Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile.
These guys take way too much of your money every month for way more data than you will ever need, which is really, really concerning, especially given the current state of the economy.
No matter what the libs tell you, we are in a recession right now.
It is time to hunker down and start saving money wherever we can.
One of the ways you can do that is by looking at your current cell phone bill and realizing that you are paying for way more data than you need.
If that is the case, and I'm almost certain it is, then you should talk to my friends over at PureTalk.
PureTalk gives you myriad choices so that you can choose the data plan that is right for you, whether that is two gigs per month or an unlimited plan with a mobile hotspot.
By switching to PureTalk, the average family of four is saving over $75 every month.
Customers are realizing that they simply do not need as much data as they thought.
Plus, PureTalk makes it easy to find the right plan for you and your family.
They're a veteran-owned company with a customer service team based right here in the U.S.
They make the switch from your current provider.
Super easy.
It takes 10 minutes.
Do it right now.
Join the hundreds of thousands who are making the switch to PureTalk today.
This month, when you switch to PureTalk, you get one month free.
I have loved Pure Talk for years now.
They have never made an offer this big.
Go to puretalk.com, choose your plan, enter code NOLSPODCAST for this special offer.
puretalk.com, switch to my cell phone company, enter code NOLSPODCAST, get your one month free.
You know, speaking of Mexicans and speaking of people from Latin America, switching gears here away from immigration, there is a story just came out of Mexico that is really, really jarring and should put all Americans on high alert for what it means for our own culture, because it's coming here as well.
A university student in Mexico is the school's valedictorian, Fanny's got now his degree and license to practice psychology.
And now all of that is threatened.
His degree, his license to practice, his career is threatened.
Because the valedictorian had the audacity to challenge transgender theory and to defend the family.
So this guy, in his speech, in his valedictory speech, makes a really important, basic, but really important point.
He says...
I'll translate into English.
Today we are deep into a real anthropological struggle to redefine the human being, the human person, man, through the implementation of ideologies and fashions of thought that always end up undermining dignity and freedom.
He then quoted G.K. Chesterton.
He said, people do not know what they are doing because they do not know what they are undoing.
And then he said, to attack life and the family is to self-destruct.
It is an attack on civilization itself.
Absolutely true.
He's right.
And now he could lose everything.
ADF, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which I strongly support, is now defending this young man.
This is coming here too.
And what this really represents...
It's effectively an outlawing of Christianity in public life.
And, coincidentally, an outlawing of Judaism in public life.
And, coincidentally, an outlawing of Islam in public life.
And, coincidentally, an outlawing of any vaguely traditional religious, moral, ethical view on marriage.
That's what it is.
It's an establishment of leftism as the state religion.
You're seeing it in Mexico.
You're seeing it elsewhere in Latin America.
You're seeing it all throughout Western Europe.
And you're seeing it happen in the United States.
This is what the marriage bill is about.
I mentioned it a little briefly at the end of the show yesterday.
There's a bill right now that's being supported by Democrats and squish Republicans, Republicans in the Senate and even some Senate candidates are volunteering this, like Dr.
Oz, the biggest loser running this year.
He's saying, I'm going to defend this bill that will not only accept the Supreme Court's decision to radically redefine marriage in Obergefell, but it's going to enshrine that in federal law.
And by the way, even if you support Obergefell, even if you support redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, The bill goes much further than that.
What the bill does is effectively outlaw institutions that have any relation to the government at all from believing that marriage is what marriage actually is and not the insane new definition of it.
What the marriage bill will do is say that if you're a 501c3, if you're a church, if you're a civic organization, and you in any way support marriage as marriage actually is, You're going to lose your tax exemption.
You're going to be punished by the state.
You're going to be sued by the government.
They already did this in Pennsylvania.
They did this because a Catholic charity helps facilitate the adoption of children.
And because it's a Catholic charity, it doesn't adopt children out to just anybody.
It says that children have a right to a mother and a father.
And so the babies go to married parents, husband and wife.
Some gay activists sued and said, no, we want the children.
We want to force the Catholic Adoption Agency to give children to us.
Goes up to the high courts.
And finally, the courts say, no, sorry Pennsylvania.
Sorry political activists in the Pennsylvania government.
You don't have the right to ban Catholicism from your state.
This law would do it.
This law would do it.
And it's not even just this one bill.
It's not even just this one country.
You're seeing it in Mexico, too.
If you even suggest that maybe we shouldn't redefine the human person and the family.
Oh, yeah.
Remember how you were the smartest person in our class?
Remember you're the valedictorian?
You're going to have a great career ahead of you?
We're going to take it all away.
We're going to take it all away because you have the audacity To be a Christian.
Or a Jew or a Muslim.
Or just a reasonable person.
You have the audacity to hold the views on marriage and the human person that Barack Obama held in 2011.
That's the stakes that we're talking about.
And you've got squish, useless, coward, morally idiotic Republicans.
Some of them.
It's a small minority, but it's some of them who are defending it.
It's pathetic.
The question we're asking ourselves is not, well, who has the right?
Who has the right to get married or adopt or this or the right to speak or your right to not be offended or this right or that right or this right?
Really, the question is, what is the animating force of our country?
What is the soul of our country?
That's what we're really asking.
Countries have a physical aspect and a metaphysical aspect.
Just like a human person.
We got our body and we got our soul.
Well, the country is the same way.
So what is America?
What we are told today by the Libs is that America is a liberal democracy.
We need to defend liberal democracy.
And what's really ironic about this...
The phrase liberal democracy appears pretty much nowhere in the English language until 1930.
And then it doesn't spike at all until the 1950s.
And then it really doesn't take off until 1982.
If you Google, say, Christian nation, that appears all over the place.
Christian civilization, Christian country.
That's all over the literature.
You can see it everywhere.
Liberal democracy...
It doesn't really take off until about 40 years ago.
So if liberal democracy is what America really is at her core, at her essence, no one knew it until roughly four decades ago.
The way that America conceived herself in the beginning, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, you don't see that phrase, liberal democracy.
You don't see the phrase democracy all that much.
Democracy does not appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
It does appear in the Federalist Papers a handful of times, always with disapproval.
The Founding Fathers were very, very skeptical of democracy.
And the word liberal doesn't really appear.
It doesn't appear in the Constitution.
It doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence.
It appears in the Federalist, again, a handful of times, but only in the sense of generous.
Oh, he's a very liberal person.
It's not referring to any political philosophy or ideology.
By contrast, the word nation appears in all three of the documents.
It appears in the Federalist Papers, I think 569 times, always with approval.
And then, so at the physical aspect, you say, okay, America's a nation.
And then what animates the nation?
What's the soul of the nation?
It's not liberalism.
If you go back to the founding documents, the founding papers, it's Christianity.
That's what John Adams says.
John Adams says that The thing that united the founding fathers, the thing that united the men who built the country, was the principles of Christianity.
That's it.
Sometimes the libs like to quote this line that they pretend is from John Adams.
They say, America is in no way founded on the Christian religion.
That line comes from the Treaty of Tripoli.
That was signed by John Adams, but it was not written by John Adams.
It was written by the Jeffersonian Republican Joel Barno, I think his name was.
And it was just a diplomatic document to placate the Muslim pirates who were abducting and enslaving American sailors.
It was like a ransom letter, basically.
It wasn't a statement of philosophy or even really law.
And John Adams, when he was speaking freely and not trying to ransom back the sailors, directly contradicted the Treaty of Tripoli.
And we all know this.
We know that America was a Christian nation going back to its earliest days.
1620, the Mayflower.
Why did the pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower?
To establish Christianity.
Why did Governor Winthrop establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony?
You don't need to scratch your head.
We know he told us because he gave us a speech in which he said that America will be a shining city on a hill and a model of Christian charity.
We see this in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
We see this later on in American history.
We see this in the Francis Scott Keyes poem.
You know, the Star-Spangled Banner is based on this poem called The Battle of Fort McHenry.
And the final stanza of it, no one ever remembers the stanza, but the final big conclusion of the poem is, Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand between their loved home and the war's desolation.
Blessed with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must when our cause is just, and this be our motto, in God is our trust.
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
In God is our trust.
So that poem became the national anthem.
It was authorized for military use in the late 19th century.
It's acknowledged for official use by the White House in 1916, I believe, and then established as the national anthem in 1931 with the approval of the president as well, so with the Congress and the president.
This is our national anthem.
This is our national motto, in God is our trust.
Eisenhower added a version of that to the Pledge of Allegiance, One Nation Under God.
And we know that In God We Trust is on all of the U.S. currency.
That's the animating principle.
All a long way of saying, what is America?
It's a Christian nation.
The body of America, it's not just an empire.
It's not a city-state.
The physical aspect of America is a nation.
That's what the founders established.
And then the spiritual aspect, the metaphysical aspect, the thing that animates the nation, just like the soul animates the body.
A body without a soul is dead.
A nation without an animating principle is dead.
The animating principle is not liberalism.
It's not secularism.
It's not atheism, traditionally.
It's Christianity.
That's what it is.
It's just, I'm not even saying that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I obviously think it is a good thing.
I'm just stating an historical fact that is irrefutable, okay?
And now, there's a major campaign underway to upend all of that.
What the Libs want to do is destroy America as a nation and open up its borders.
A nation that doesn't have borders cannot be a nation at all.
They want to turn America into basically just a tax farm for a global empire and make us all citizens of the world without any distinction between our people and other people.
But again, a nation that does not make any distinction between its own citizens and foreign nationals is not a nation.
There's nothing that distinguishes it as a nation.
And then at the metaphysical level, what the Democrats want to do is disestablish Christianity as the animating principle of the country and establish atheism or secularism or leftism or whatever.
The consequences of that are terrible.
The reason that the libs are complaining about Christian nationalism right now, I just gave a long talk on this at the National Conservative Conference, which you can find on YouTube.
The reason that the Democrats are losing their minds over Christian nationalism is not because it's a departure from the American political tradition.
They're losing their minds over it because Christian nationalism is the American political tradition.
The libs hate the American political tradition, and they're trying to upend the whole thing.
Recently, the Daily Wire was CC'd on an email from Harry's Razors, from a Harry's Razors customer who was canceling his subscription and switching to Jeremy's.
This is what he wrote.
Dear Harry's, I have used and enjoyed your razors for five years now and even have a personalized Harry's handle.
However, I was disappointed to learn of the circumstances in which your company disassociated from the Daily Wire, and specifically from my show.
As such, I am not giving any more of my money to you as I think Jeremy, jeremysrazors.com, could find more uses aligned with the values that I hold dear.
I will add that I am a resident of the United Kingdom, and Jeremy's does not currently ship outside of the U.S., Therefore, I'm arranging to have my Jeremy subscription sent to my family in the USA, where it will then be sent at an additional cost to me.
This is great.
This is a small price I am willing to pay to expressly support those who stand against woke bullying.
Signed, King Charles III. Okay, no, maybe the email was not written by Britain's new sovereign.
But the understandably frustrated citizen who did write that was certainly right about one thing.
Jeremy can find more uses for your money, aligned with the values that you hold dear.
And frankly...
Razors are just the start.
We enjoyed receiving this email so much, we are encouraging you to do the same.
When you subscribe to Jeremy's Razors, copy us, CC us, on your breakup email with Harry's or Gillette.
Maybe we'll read it on the show.
Just send it to reviews at jeremysrazors.com.
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you.
Give it to Jeremy instead.
Go to jeremysrazors.com today.
What has happened to conservatives?
We ask what has happened to the liberals.
My bigger question is what has happened to the conservatives?
The way we talk, we sound today, American conservatives send way more to the left than any of the libs or the radicals or the socialists did 10, 20, 30 years ago.
How pathetic is that?
Dr.
Oz got me thinking about this because Dr.
Oz right now is campaigning as a Republican for Senate far to the left of Barack Obama just 10 years ago, 11 years ago.
But it's not just Dr.
Oz.
It's a lot of other Republicans, too.
How on earth did we get here?
Edmund Smirk, one of my favorite Twitter accounts, pseudonymous Twitter accounts, called my attention to this.
It is the radical feminist Catherine McKinnon, back in 1993, discussing the issue of porn.
Take a listen, because she sounds far more right-wing than almost any conservative on this issue today.
Those are actual acts.
That isn't what quote-unquote offends somebody.
Charlie, if you heard a woman screaming in the next room by being bounced off walls by a man she lives with, are you offended?
I mean, that isn't what you say to yourself.
You're experiencing the enactment of an abuse.
You're witnessing it.
You feel it.
You hear her scream.
You think, I've got to do something about this.
I'm saying, I mean, that's what I experience when I see pornography.
A woman is being hurt here.
She's being violated.
She's being used.
And on top of it, I get to know that someone's enjoying this.
I mean, on top of her humiliation, there's going to be men experiencing their own sexuality, and this being protected as a constitutional right and called a form of entertainment.
Based.
How can I vote for that radical feminist?
Because that radical feminist is much more right-wing.
This radical left-wing feminist.
She's a leftist.
She's Catherine McKinnon, okay?
She is much more right-wing on very important issues than pretty much any Republican today.
Pathetic represents a total failure, a total collapse of anything even resembling conservatism over the last 30 years.
And the point she's making is a really important one, even beyond porn.
Even beyond porn, because what she's saying is, look, if you were just sitting in your home and you heard your neighbor, some woman who's your neighbor, making the sounds that you would hear in lots of, if not most, pornography, you'd probably rush over there and say, hey, is everything okay?
Are you all right, lady?
It sounds like You're being, no, no, okay, all right, maybe she's okay, but maybe she's not.
Pornography can be very, you know, because pornography is appealing to your most base sort of despicable fantasies, right?
It's not appealing to your higher loves, it's appealing to your lust.
So it is representing generally sort of abusive behavior.
You would be concerned about that.
You would feel, even if you were just hearing it in real life, you would feel like you were somehow, you had an obligation to do something.
So why don't people feel that way with pornography?
Pornography always represents an abuse, even if it's not violent pornography.
It is a woman being used, not being treated as a full human being, but just being used as a kind of slab of meat to appeal to the basest desires of the audience and being thrown out like trash and being paid very little.
Everyone's heard the horrible stories of abuse in the pornography industry.
So why is it that you would feel bad and sort of morally responsible if it were happening in the room next door, but you don't feel bad and morally responsible when you're getting your jollies looking at it on a computer screen?
This is where the issue becomes much bigger than just pornography, actually.
You feel that when you are experiencing life in a virtual world, that you don't have moral responsibilities.
Oh, it's just online.
You see this on Twitter, the way people talk to one another on Twitter.
Is wrong and impolite and frankly sinful a lot of the time.
You would never speak that way to someone in real life.
But you feel like you can speak that way to someone on the internet.
Because Twitter's not real life.
Twitter's not real life.
The internet's not real life.
Porn's not real life.
Except it actually is.
It's life.
You're there.
You're there doing it.
You are responsible for your actions even in the virtual world.
And we've got to resolve this issue right now because we are going to be living more and more of our lives in the virtual world.
We don't go shopping that much anymore.
We just click buttons online.
We don't see our friends in person nearly as much anymore.
We do it online or on FaceTime or on our phones or on chat or on text.
We don't get married and have sex as much anymore.
You can see those numbers plummeting.
What do we do instead?
We sext.
Well, I don't.
I'm not sexting anybody.
Listen, I'm a happily married man.
But what do young people do?
The ones who are not getting married.
The ones who statistically aren't even having sex anymore.
What are they doing?
They're living their lives online and they're having this virtual connection.
And so then if we believe that That we don't have any moral responsibilities in the virtual realm, then we're just throwing morality out the window.
In terms of how we treat our co-workers, in terms of how we treat our family and our friends, in terms of how we treat, yes, the issue of sex, in terms of how we treat our countrymen, in terms of...
You are morally responsible for these things.
You are doing it.
You want to pretend like your body doesn't matter at all.
It's only an intellectual action.
It's only an action that's happening in your mind.
But you have responsibility for that as well.
I can't believe that the radical feminists are much smarter on this point than the conservatives are.
Conservatives got to wise up.
Got to wise up on this because this is the future.
As we move ever closer toward the metaverse, You are going to want to make sure that we recognize the moral responsibility we all have toward ourselves and toward each other.
Whether it's in Oculus or whether it's in real life.
Because it's all real life.
It's all real life.
No matter how much it involves your body, it is real life.
Speaking of women and sex, Nancy Pelosi is coming out strongly in favor of abortion ahead of the midterms.
There is a conflict within the Republican Party.
There are those in the party that think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
And these people are in defiance of that, right?
They're in defiance of that because they're saying whatever they're saying about it.
So that's what you're seeing there.
But we are united in our support for women's right to choose.
Ha ha ha, okay, that's a funny line.
These Republicans, they think that life begins, you know, at the candlelit dinner.
You know, before you go, it's so crazy, these crazy Republicans.
Every sperm is sacred, like, what was that, Monty Python used to sing.
Except...
Republicans don't really believe that life begins at the candlelit dinner.
They don't believe that life begins at the level of the gonads or the sperm or the egg.
They say that life begins at conception.
This is the real holdup for the Democrats on all these kind of silly lines.
Obviously, life begins at conception.
That's the definition of conception.
That's why there's a word for it.
Conception refers to the beginning of life when it is conceived.
So no, it's pretty clear.
And no matter what sort of debates people want to have about abortion, the Democrats can never get past this fact.
And so they've got to just have these kind of glib jokes and these dismissals and, oh, never mind, and these distractions and nothing to see here.
They're trying to do it on the immigration issue as well.
Oh, no, this is human trafficking.
This is awful what they're doing.
But then there's the obvious next step, which is, well, hold on.
You're doing the same thing at a, not just a slightly higher scale, at many orders of magnitude higher scale.
So we can't get past that.
Sometimes these issues are really, really simple.
When does life begin?
Life begins at conception.
That's the definition.
Well, what's wrong with illegal immigration?
Illegal immigration is illegal.
It's not that complicated.
Why can't the foreigners do whatever they want in America?
Because they're not citizens.
Because citizens are citizens.
There are really clear distinctions to be had here, folks.
And the Democrats can giggle and be glib.
But because they have no arguments here, ultimately, they've just got to suppress the debate on this and attack their political opponents as a matter of rhetoric and physically increasingly as well.
You know, our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk.
Go to puretalk.com, select a plan, enter promo code NOLSPODCAST to get one month for free.
Let's get to the voicemail bag.
First question.
Michael, I am an adjunct professor at two colleges in California, and I want to know how you would handle this one.
In an interview, I was asked the question of, how do you deal with your white privilege?
And being a middle-aged white male, I'm just wondering, how would you handle that question?
Thank you.
How do I deal with my white privilege?
Well, I... I worked as hard as I could to do as well as I could on the SAT because I knew that in college admissions I would be discriminated against because of my white privilege.
I made sure that I watched every single word that I ever said because I knew that if I ever said anything that could be in any way, even implausibly misinterpreted as somehow racist, I knew that my entire life could be ruined because of my white privilege.
I made sure that when I was insulted by the entire culture and by the state and by the government because of my skin color, I made sure never to speak up too loudly against that because I knew that that would somehow paradoxically be called racist as well and then my life could be ruined for it.
So how did I deal with my white privilege, you know?
With the spirit of resignation and the recognition that suffering can be a sanctifying fact.
I guess that's how one deals with white privilege these days.
As we all should deal with the various difficulties that one faces in life.
You know, a spirit of resignation.
Kiss it up to God.
Try to make things a little bit better and don't complain.
Next question.
Hello, Michael.
This is Eduardo Hernandez.
I'm calling from Puerto Rico.
I'm a medical doctor.
I'm a conservative because not everybody over here are crazy, lefty lunatics who think the world runs on rainbows and good intentions.
I wanted to introduce you to the Dunning-Kruger effect, to see if you ever heard about it, if you know about it, and what do you think about the whole concept, and how can you relate it to current politics?
I'm very interested in listening to you about this, and I wanted to say hello to a big fan.
Alright, great question.
Yes, I am familiar to some degree with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
As I understand it, the Dunning-Kruger effect is this warping of self-perception such that people who are at the low end of skill or intelligence or aptitude tend to overestimate their skill and intelligence and aptitude.
And also, that people at the high end of skill and intelligence and aptitude tend to underestimate And what do I think of it?
I think it's obviously true.
This is obviously true.
We all know this in our daily lives, right?
It's always the people who are the most strident, yelling.
Not only can they not change their minds, but they can't even change the subject.
Those people are the ones who tend to utterly dismiss anything that anyone has to say other than themselves.
Those people tend to be a little bit dumber, right?
And those people tend to be more ignorant.
A wiser...
Way to operate in the world would be one of humility, to recognize that every man is my master, every man is my teacher.
I can learn something from everybody on earth.
That's obviously true.
And I've seen the other side of it, too.
people who are some of the most intelligent, capable people I've ever met, do tend to be not only humble, which is good, you wanna cultivate a spirit of humility, but do actually sometimes vastly underestimate their skill and intelligence.
That's certainly true.
But you see, it's much more common in the first sense, that dumb people tend to think they're a lot smarter than they are, to oversimplify it.
And it's really dangerous.
There's that great bit of advice, which is that it's better to be silent and thought to be an idiot rather than to open your mouth and prove it.
And it's another thing.
I remember it pretty distinctly in my early 20s.
This happened to me a little bit in college, but really in my early 20s.
I... I had this bomb go off in my head where I was reading a lot.
I tried to read at night, have a cigar, and as I'm reading just these kind of different smatterings of books, I realized that I don't know anything.
It's not false modesty.
It's just a little dose of humility.
I realized, oh my gosh, not only do I know statistically nothing, but I only have even a hint of an inkling of how little I don't know.
You know, the kind of Don Rumsfeld, known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
The unknown unknowns are the scariest one.
Because when you know what you know, that's fine.
It's usually a pretty small amount of things.
And then the known unknowns, you can say, okay, well, I know that there's such a thing as welding, I just don't know how to do it, but I know that they're okay.
And then unknown unknowns would be...
It's the largest category of all.
It's all the things that you don't even know that you don't know.
And so a spirit of humility is very important.
If for no other reason, then at least you won't look like such a dummy.
Okay, next one.
Michael, in relation to your interview the other day with the Fox News host who got fired for not taking the vaccine, it made me...
I just wonder about something my friends talk about quite frequently, who are super conservative, and that's about controlled opposition.
I hear this pointed at Fox News a lot, especially because of them calling Florida, but I've even heard it levied at Daily Wire and Ben Shapiro by more, we'll call them rabid conservatives.
Can you give me your take on controlled opposition and What that means and who the players are in our modern society, who could be that?
Absolutely.
It's a really, really good question.
There are two kinds of controlled opposition.
The one version of controlled opposition is that there's a shadowy cabal of five people in a room who just pick up the phone and they say, tell this person not to say that, or tell this person to do that, or whatever.
It kind of goes down the chain and then that's what happens.
I'm not saying that has never happened anywhere.
The reason that conspiracy theories can gain ground is because there are conspiracies.
So I'm not saying that doesn't happen a lot.
But the much more prevalent version of controlled opposition is...
It's not really guided by any one person at all.
It's guided by a structure and a system in which there are incentives and disincentives to raising certain ideas or making certain arguments.
And so a really good example of this would be social media.
On social media, you can say certain things and you can't say certain things.
And you remember this during COVID, right?
During COVID, there were moments where I had episodes of my show taken down because I said true things, perfectly unobjectionable true things, that the prevailing ruling class would not tolerate.
So they took my show down on the biggest social media platforms in the country.
Fortunately, I have the Daily Wire, and so I could say on the show, okay, this is being censored here.
We sometimes put a censorship bar over it, but go on over to Daily Wire, you get the full story.
Which I think would be some evidence that we are not controlled opposition at the Daily Wire.
But we're subject to the same forces, the same incentives and disincentives as anybody else.
And so the important thing here is to give yourself more leverage such that you're not at the whims and the mercy of that ruling structure.
And so this is something Daily Wire has tried to do very intentionally.
We're trying to build an entirely separate ecosystem.
That's why we're selling razors.
That's why we're making movies.
That's why we're increasingly sending people over to become members on the Daily Wire.
Because then we're less vulnerable to the forces of this kind of superstructure that tries to shrink the Overton window and move the realm of acceptable discourse very far to the left.
And that's what we have to do.
You've got to be able to have your own platform.
Ideally, you've got to be able to have your own servers in case, let's say, Amazon Web Services wants to take you down.
You've got to be able to have your own wealth so that you can fight back, so that you can't be just absolutely crushed by much more powerful and wealthy and better financed forces.
It's much more complicated.
So when you're talking about a cable news channel, yeah, cable news is, one, I think a lot of the cable news channels intentionally don't want to promote particularly conservative content.
But also, they're very firmly within a superstructure that won't permit them to either.
That's why we need alternatives.
Next question.
Knowles.
Hope you're doing well.
I got a question here for you.
What if we made a punishment worse than the death penalty?
Now, I bring this question to you because in a previous voice mailbag, you were kind of talking about how if we made the punishment for rape and murder the same, the death penalty, for example, then the rapist would have an incentive to kill the victim, which would be horrible.
So we said, okay, you know, we're not going to do that.
We're going to have a lesser punishment for rape and then a worse punishment for murder.
I think this makes sense.
However, I think there's a better solution.
So here it is.
What if we keep rape at the death penalty and created a worse punishment for murder?
Now, what would this entail?
I would say, is torture on the books?
Is that something that we could do?
You know, of course we would have to throw away the cruel and unusual punishment clause, but I don't know.
Maybe it's something worth to consider.
Appreciate it.
Fair enough suggestion, but I would not consider it too strongly.
One, because you would have to amend the Constitution, as you say, to get rid of cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions, which I think would be virtually impossible and ill-advised.
But two, because torture is not...
It does not seem to jive very well with justice.
The reason that we execute certain criminals and the reason we punish all criminals, there are three reasons.
There is the deterrent effect, there is the rehabilitative effect, and then there is retribution, retributive justice.
All of which is a little different than, say, vengeance or a sort of vindictive infliction of pain.
And so you've got two scenarios here.
To preserve an incentive for rapists not to kill their victims, you could say, all right, we're going to kill the murderers and we're going to give life in prison or a long prison sentence to rapists or castration to rapists.
Or you say, we're going to kill the rapists and we're going to draw and quarter the murderers.
I think life in prison and castration for rapists would be sufficient.
I don't think that I would upend the Constitution and institute a regime of torture just to squeeze a little more punishment out of people who commit bad crimes.
Okay, one last written question before we get to the member block.
From Daniel.
Michael, my wife and I got married earlier this summer.
We're still in that wonderful honeymoon phase.
My question is this.
In your marriage, how do you go about deciding which arguments you are willing to contend with and which ones you will let go?
On one hand, I don't want to constantly argue about everything.
On the other, I don't want to be one of those cuckold husbands who don't stand up for what they believe is right.
I think there's a pretty big gray area between the foundational questions, openness to children, raising the family and the faith, versus the trivial, which movie to watch, what to have for dinner, etc.
But where do you draw the line?
How do you make the distinction?
Any other marital advice for a young couple would be welcome.
Thanks.
I would be really traditional about this.
I would throw feminism out the window and you'll have a much better life.
So the way that we do it, sweet little Lisa and I, is I do reluctantly act as the head of household.
And usually she has to prod me to do it.
You know, we'll be saying, where do you want to go to dinner?
You want Chinese?
I don't know.
You want Italian?
I don't know.
You want Mexican?
And she'll say to me, Mac, you're the head of household.
Genesis 3.
Make a decision.
Let's go.
Same thing with watching a movie or whatever.
Men generally don't really want to be tyrants, insisting on their will all the time.
Men generally want to sit on the couch and eat potato chips and not have to make decisions.
But the way it's set up, if you're a Christian, then the man is the head of the household.
And so, practically speaking...
We hash out all of the questions.
This especially happens with decorations in our home.
I really care a lot about aesthetics, and so we'll talk about it.
We'll talk about it at length and come to a kind of, no, I don't think this is good.
No, I think this looks more beautiful.
No, this color is better.
We'll hash it out.
Ultimately, If we really come to an impasse, I will make a decision.
Very often I defer to my wife.
Sometimes I don't defer to my wife.
As a practical matter, on most decisions, certainly within the home and a lot within the family, I defer to my wife entirely.
But I think if you still have that structure of the man as the head of the household, it makes things much clearer and more orderly.
Okay, the rest of the show is continuing now.
If you don't want to miss it, Well, obviously you don't want to miss it.
But if you're not a member, you've got to click the link in the description and join us.
We have not only some more questions from you, because we'll do a little bit of an extended mailbag, thanks to it being Friday, but we've also got the fake headlines.
So my producers have come up with five headlines of the week that they believe I have not seen.
