Ep. 1196 - Fake News Must Be Eradicated From Public Life
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
At CPAC, Michael suggested we stop pretending that men can become women, so the liberal media accused him of genocide.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit & safe: https://birchgold.com/knowles
RabbitAir - Get your award-winning air purifier today! Visit https://www.rabbitair.com/.
- - -
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
The problem with transgenderism is that it's acceptance at any level We're
It's all or nothing.
If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it is true for everybody of all ages.
If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men and women really are different, as we are, then it is false for everybody, too.
And if it is false, then we should not indulge it, especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people.
If it is false, then for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.
The whole preposterous ideology at every level.
Have I made myself clear?
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show, my host.
My favorite comment on Friday is from Ten Olly, who says, Michael's solution to most problems is just be normal.
That is very true.
Although, over the weekend, I said, just be normal.
Let's do normal stuff.
Let's, you know, acknowledge basic realities.
And I was accused of genocide for that.
Can you imagine?
That's pretty crazy.
And when the economy's getting crazy, you're going to want to check out gold.
Right now, text Knowles to 989898.
Here's the deal.
The Fed keeps raising rates because it's the only tool they have to keep inflation under control.
It's not working.
You can't spend your way out of inflation.
You've seen the impact on the stock market.
You've seen the impact on your savings.
Hedge inflation by owning gold with Birch Gold.
Buy gold and get a free safe to store it in.
That's right.
On qualifying purchases from Birch Gold, now through March 31st, they will ship a free safe directly to your door.
Whether physical gold and silver in your safe or through an IRA in precious metals, where you can hold real gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold and to claim your free safe.
So there I was.
I was at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Probably the biggest in-person conservative event of the year.
And I was giving a speech on the main stage.
I said something that I've said for many, many years.
Something that everybody in the entire country agreed on until about...
Five minutes ago, and I said that men and women are different, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise for the purposes of public life.
And then, well then the press decided to call me a genocidal maniac.
I have been called many crazy things by the libs over the years.
I've been called all sorts of nasty names.
Genocidal is a first.
I had not gotten that before, but that's exactly what the Libs called me.
I said, how on earth are the Libs going to call me genocidal?
I started thinking, I said, I'm a genocidal maniac now.
What is my genocidal dictator name going to be?
Am I going to be Slobodan Mikulovic?
Am I going to be Benito Michelini?
Am I going to be Nauchel, perhaps?
I said, where did they get this from?
But I'm genocidal.
And then I read the headline.
And the headline said, this is from Rolling Stone, CPAC speaker calls for transgender people to be eradicated.
Did I say that?
I don't remember saying that.
Did I? Hold on, let me look through my speech.
Oh, of course I never said that.
Calls for transgender people to be eradicated.
Why, that's...
That's a complete lie.
And then I looked, and there was another article from the Daily Beast.
It said, Michael Knowles says transgender community must be eradicated at CPAC. I said, hold on, let me check my speech.
Maybe, I mean, maybe I just blacked out for a second.
I looked at the, I said, oh no, I never did that either.
That was also a total lie from the Daily Beast.
Same thing, Huffington Post.
At CPAC, a call for trans people to be eradicated gets big cheers.
Now, this one was partially true in that my speech did get very big cheers.
I was very pleased that the speech went over well in the room.
But the idea that I or anybody else called for trans people to be eradicated, obviously a total lie.
I choose my words, generally speaking, pretty carefully.
I'm pretty precise in my language.
In fact, I wrote a whole book about how important it is to be precise in one's language.
It's called Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
It is a number one national best-selling book.
I said, how did they get this so wrong?
Because what did I say?
Well, I just read you verbatim what I said in my speech.
I said...
That for the good of society, and especially the good of the poor people who've fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely, the whole preposterous ideology.
So, I thought maybe these people just don't understand the basic meaning of words.
But I don't know how they could have misinterpreted what I said.
Because if you're just a regular, this went totally viral.
Everybody was talking about this over the weekend, which it's always nice to be talked about, I guess, but not generally when you're being accused of inciting genocide.
So I said, how could people misinterpret this?
And for most people who were talking about it, they didn't watch my speech.
They didn't read the text.
They didn't even read the article.
They just saw the headline.
And so if you're just flicking through the news and you say, this guy calls for people to be eradicated or community to be eradicated, you're just going to believe the headline and move on.
The problem for most people is they believed fake news from the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, and Rolling Stone.
But what about the news editors who wrote those headlines?
Could they really be this stupid?
Could they really be this ignorant of the basic workings of the English language?
An ism, generally speaking, refers to a doctrine, a set of beliefs, an idea.
Sometimes it can refer to, I guess, a medical condition.
But even so, if you want to eradicate a medical condition, you're not saying you want to eradicate the patient.
So I don't see how they could get that.
I was quite clear in my language.
I said...
This is for the good of the people involved.
I want to benefit the people who have fallen prey to this ideology.
So, quite clearly, I'm saying I don't want to kill these people.
I want to help them.
And then, even if you were confused by what ism means, I explain it in the very sentence.
Say I'm referring to a whole preposterous ideology.
So I started to think, these news editors, I don't think they were confused by what I said.
I think they were deliberately lying about what I said.
I think they were acting with actual malice to libel me.
And I made that point.
I told the news people, I retweeted these things.
I said, I never said that, and I demand a retraction.
I'm not going to do that.
This is libel.
And I first did it to the Daily Beast, and I first did it to Rolling Stone.
I think I later did it to the Huffington Post.
And almost immediately, Rolling Stone and the Daily Beast changed their headlines to get rid of transgender people or transgender community and use my actual words, which is the idea of transgenderism.
So how'd that happen?
I don't know for sure.
I assume what happened is that the editors at the Rolling Stone and the Daily Beast got a call from their legal departments saying, hey guys, you have committed actual libel here, and the threshold for libel lawsuits, defamation lawsuits, is very high in the United States, and you've still probably crossed it because you're demonstrating actual malice here.
It's just so preposterous from the content of the speech.
And so they changed their headlines quite Quick as can be.
And then what's funny is Rolling Stone got pushed back from the left because the left was very upset that they came to quote-unquote right-wing pressure, by which they meant libel laws and honesty and the truth.
And so then Rolling Stone had to change the headline again to still acknowledge that I obviously didn't call for genocide or anything like that.
But they then changed their headline to insult me.
So it was all...
Pretty clear.
There are some news outlets that have not yet changed their headlines.
I would recommend that they do so.
I would recommend they reconsider that because I don't really know how I could have been any clearer in my language.
And I don't think a news editor could look someone straight in the face and say, I didn't understand what the man was saying.
Now, some people who just read the headlines, they...
They also kind of proved my point.
There was a blue check on Twitter named Reverend Dr.
Jackie Lewis, some liberal blue check, and she said, you can't eradicate transgenderism without violence against trans siblings.
People don't simply cease to exist.
They're saying, you can't eradicate transgenderism without murdering all the transgender people or whatever.
But then, her very next tweet, she says, I just dream about a world where we spend the amount of energy, time, and money we currently waste on bigotry to eradicate poverty, homelessness, hunger, and medical debt.
Do you see the problem with what she said?
Do you see how she might have just undermined her own point?
Unless Jackie Lewis is calling for a genocide of the poor, the homeless, the hungry, and the indebted, she just made my point, which is that we can eradicate ideas, institutions, pathologies, ailments without eradicating human beings.
If we say, I want to eradicate capitalism from public life, plenty of liberals would say something to that effect.
Are they saying they want to slaughter all the capitalists?
Maybe they are, but that's not the meaning of the sentence.
You say, oh, you want to eradicate communism.
You're going to kill all the communists?
No.
You say, we're going to eradicate anorexia.
Anorexia must be eradicated from public life.
Are you saying you want to kill all the anorexics?
No, of course not.
Of course not.
And the libs accidentally have proven my point.
So the question then becomes...
The more honest liberals have said, okay, well, what does it mean then?
What would it mean to eradicate transgenderism from public life?
And it's a good question.
I'm glad people are talking about that.
That was the point of my speech.
What would it mean to eradicate the preposterous ideology of transgenderism from public life at every level?
I'll tell you, but first I've got to clear the air a little bit.
When you want to clear the air, you've got to check out Rabbit Air.
Right now, go to rabbitair.com.
Tell them Michael Knowles sends you.
You know I love all of my sponsors.
I love them all equally.
It's like my children.
I love them all equally, but at different times, different sponsors can be more helpful than others, different circumstances.
And when I am lighting up a big, fat stogie, There is no greater sponsor than Rabbit Air, a sponsor I've been waiting for for a long time.
Rabbit Air's award-winning air purifiers are some of the best in the industry.
They've got advanced six-stage filtration and deodorization that can reduce airborne particles, odors, and pollutants to keep your air clean and fresh.
This air purifier is super customizable.
It's got an interchangeable faceplate design, wall mount, floor stand, four custom filtration options like odor remover for cigars, toxin absorber for VOCs.
You can do it all from your phone.
It's just an amazing, amazing product.
Super quiet.
Go to rabbidaire.com to speak to a rabbidaire consultant.
That's R-A-B-B-I-T-A-I-R.com.
Don't forget to check out their Artists Series and Special Editions for a more aesthetically pleasing product design.
Make sure to tell them that Michael Knowles sent you.
Put simply, eradicating transgenderism from public life would mean behaving as American society did before, say, 2015.
team.
Before, around 2015, we did not have any acceptance of transgenderism in public life.
And it started to be introduced into public life around 2015 when Barack Obama instituted transgender military policies and some liberals in North Carolina decided to invite men into the women's bathroom and pass all sorts of weird ordinances about bathrooms.
Then later on we got the Bostock decision.
The Bostock decision rewrote civil rights law to say that there was a protection for gender identity in there.
Obviously there is not one, but that came years later.
So we're only talking about the last...
Seven, eight years or so, we've had transgenderism in public life.
And my point is, you...
You can't deal with transgenderism only by saying we're not going to trans the kids.
I think there are a lot of conservatives who say, okay, look, transgender adults, if a man wants to identify as a woman, he's an adult, that's fine.
Just don't do it to the kids.
That's missing the point.
I actually think this is what motivated these news outlets to lie about what I said.
They obviously couldn't deal with the argument I was making.
If they could, they would have done that.
But they couldn't do that.
So they had to lie.
They had to rewrite what I said until I scared them at the prospect of libel laws, and then they had to change their headlines, even though there's still libelous content in the articles.
Why?
Because the left believed that it had already won the transgender issue, just like it wins every other social issue.
Just about.
What happens, and I've talked about this on the show for weeks now, and I actually mentioned it in my CPAC speech.
What happens is, the Libs introduce some crazy idea.
And then the Conservatives briefly stand firm.
They briefly oppose it.
Then the Liberals totally stand firm.
And then the Conservatives cave.
And then the Conservatives will say, okay, I'm fine with that idea.
But this new idea that the Liberals are proposing, that's crazy.
And that's just what happened.
So in the 1970s, you had the feminists start burning their bras and saying that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
And what did the conservatives say?
They said, that's totally crazy.
Feminism, oh my goodness, that's crazy.
And then what happened?
The liberals stood firm.
And pretty quickly, the conservatives said, okay, feminism's fine.
But this sexual revolution, all that village people stuff over there, that's crazy.
And then what happened?
Very quickly, the conservatives said, okay, well, the sexual revolution and the village people stuff, that's totally fine.
But those liberals, you're never going to redefine marriage.
That would be crazy.
And then what happened?
Five seconds later, the liberals redefine marriage and the conservatives totally roll over.
And then the conservatives say, okay, well...
This new definition of marriage, that's fine.
But transgenderism, that's crazy.
And then what happens?
Five seconds later, the conservatives cave, and now we're on this new stage where they say, okay, transgenderism's fine.
But transing the kids, that's crazy.
Or actually, in some cases, you have some conservatives saying, well, transing the kids in certain circumstances is fine, but just not the five-year-olds.
Wait till eight.
Transing the eight years and younger, that's okay, or rather, that's not okay, but transing the nine-year-olds and up, that's okay.
And so the culture just moves ever, ever more to the left.
And the reason that the libs, I think, had to libel me and lie about what I said is because I said, no, I'm not rolling over on transgenderism.
And you can't.
Because it's not five-year-olds who are going into women's bathrooms and taking women's private spaces.
If a five-year-old is going into a woman's bathroom, it's because his mother is bringing him in there.
The issue with women being able to have their own bathrooms or have their own sports teams or have their own locker rooms or have their own public spaces is not that little kids are identifying as the opposite sex.
It's that 50-year-olds are identifying as the opposite sex.
So if you want to deal with the transgender issue, it's kind of all or nothing.
Furthermore, the argument that the liberals make for transing the little kids is they say transgenderism is real.
A man can be a woman secretly, or a woman can be a man born into the wrong body.
You're born that way.
And so if you're born that way, if it's real, if that's a true anthropology, then it's got to be real for everybody.
If transgenderism is real, then we certainly should trans the kids.
Because the kids are already trans.
And so to deny their true nature would be cruel.
The issue is transgenderism is not real for anybody.
A man can't really become a woman, and a woman can't really become a man.
And all the arguments they make to this effect are preposterous.
Some are metaphysical arguments.
They'll say, well, my body is that of a man, but my soul or my spirit is that of a woman.
Sometimes it's materialist.
They'll say, well, much of my body is the body of a man, but my brain is that of a woman.
That's a really funny argument, because the feminists told us, remember, for the purposes of feminism, Men and women have identical brains, and if you suggest that the brains of men and the brains of women are different, you're a terrible sexist and a misogynist.
But for the purposes of transgenderism, men and women have brains that are so different that you can see it very quickly on a scan, and men who have women's brains, whatever that means, I assume it means something kind of offensive to women, but whatever that means, you need to mutilate your body and be accepted as a woman in society.
So what does it mean?
What does it mean to eradicate transgenderism from public life?
Well, I chose my words carefully.
We're talking about public life.
I'm not suggesting that we're going to go in and force people to believe a certain way.
The law is a teacher.
Public life is a teacher.
We're mimetic beings, so ultimately the norms that prevail in society are going to shape the way that we view ourselves and view the world.
We're just talking about public life here.
If you want to go home and imagine yourself to be the opposite sex, nobody's going to stop you from doing that.
But in public life, when it comes to your birth certificate, when it comes to bathrooms, when it comes to the way that you, when it comes to your passport, when it comes to the way that you present yourself in sex-selective spaces, you don't get to pretend to be the opposite sex. you don't get to pretend to be the opposite sex.
Why?
Why do we have to do that?
Well, because it's the truth.
And a society that ignores the distinction between truth and falsehood is not going to flourish.
Also because people who are transgender, who identify as transgender...
Generally speaking, don't have a very happy go of things.
It's a very difficult delusion to labor under, and you see this reflected in high rates of anxiety and stress and suicide and all the rest of it.
And it is simply a fact that as the preposterous notion of transgenderism has been normalized in society, more and more people have started to identify as transgender.
It is whatever you want to say the root cause of transgenderism is, or gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, whatever the new term is.
It clearly develops as a social contagion.
The more people identify with it, the more people will identify with it.
This is how you get to a place now where, according to one survey, more than one in five Zoomers identifies as LGBT.
Either Alex Jones is right, and there's something in the water turning the freaking frogs gay, or this is a social contagion.
Obviously it is.
And obviously it is because man is mimetic.
The way that we learn, the way we develop personality, the way that we develop beliefs and behaviors is by imitating others.
It's even the way we develop our desires.
You want the Rolex watch.
Not because you know something about horology.
Not because you know about the finer points of this gold or this movement or this steel.
You want the Rolex watch because some other guy wants the Rolex watch.
And it has created a sense of status and prestige.
That's called mimesis.
The little baby learns to smile because he looks up at his mother while he's breastfeeding.
And the mother looks down and eventually he mimics that behavior.
This is why little kids are sponges.
And you've got to watch what you say around little kids because they suck up All sorts of behaviors and speech.
And that's true for everybody.
That's how society operates.
So I was really pleased.
No conservatives were fooled by this.
You know, immediately you saw, there are too many to name, but all the big conservative names come out and defend me, including conservatives who don't even like me that much.
I want to give a shout out to Brad Palumbo, who is a very pro-LGBT libertarian type, who identifies as being on the right.
And he criticizes me all the time.
He says, I don't like Michael Knowles.
I think this guy's extreme.
I'm socially liberal and all this stuff.
But he said, but you've got to be a liar.
To pretend that when he's criticizing an idea and calling for the eradication of that idea, he's calling for genocide.
And there were many more prominent conservatives then who came out and pointed out that what these news agencies did is libelous and, I think, actionable.
Senator Mike Lee, who is a Supreme Court litigator and obviously a United States senator and frequently discussed as a candidate for the Supreme Court, he pointed out, he said, this is indeed libelous.
It's an example of how a bad Supreme Court ruling from 1964, New York Times v.
Sullivan, has created a monster, giving the news media a license to lie about any public figure who can't prove that the reporter acted with actual malice, which is nearly impossible.
Vivek Ramaswamy, another friend of mine who is running for president right now, graduate of Yale Law School, very, very sharp legal mind, pointed out, he said, I think actually it seems clear that they were acting with actual malice, and so we'll see.
I'm glad to see that the Daily Beast and the Rolling Stone corrected their defamatory, dishonest, libelous headlines.
Look forward to other outlets doing the same.
Okay, enough about me, but more about the dishonest press.
I saw this headline.
Where is it?
From ABC News.
It says, It's psychosomatic.
So this is the latest about East Palestine, which was blown up with a bunch of toxic chemicals that poison the air, very possibly poison the water, and nobody wanted to talk about it.
And there was, if not a media blackout, at least a media brownout.
They just weren't focusing on it very much until President Trump showed up.
President Trump brought a lot of attention to East Palestine.
Senator J.D. Vance, a number of other people have come, finally forced Pete Buttigieg and the federal government to come down and...
Address the situation.
So why did they have to do that?
Because the residents of East Palestine were saying, I'm getting rashes, I'm developing a cough, I've got all these problems.
So the new line from the fake news media is, oh yeah, these effects, it's all in your head.
It's all psychosomatic.
Including the headaches and the fatigue and the respiratory issues.
Oh, you're having trouble breathing.
No, no, no, that's just in your head.
I think it's in your lungs.
We are now told that if you believe that you're the opposite sex, that you're suffering from a very real medical condition.
But if you've got rashes and lung damage and headaches from the toxic chemical explosion in your town, oh, that's just all in your head.
Never mind.
Move along.
That isn't real.
That's where we are, according to the news media.
Is it any wonder that people don't believe in this stuff anymore?
People on the right don't believe in it.
People on the left do still believe in it.
Which is why...
Which is why they're allowed to lie about people.
And if we don't hold them accountable, they're going to keep lying.
This is also why Trump does very well.
Trump does very, very well because of the way the political establishment treats the people who are exactly like the residents of East Palestine, Ohio.
The forgotten people, the people in flyover country, the people who are deplorable and irredeemable, bitter, clinging, rube, toothless, jerk, hillbilly, hick idiots.
That's what the people on the coast say about pretty much everybody from, I don't know, 200 miles into the West Coast, 200 miles into the East Coast.
Everybody in the middle, terrible, useless deplorables.
And Trump does very well with them.
His numbers are reflecting that.
Speaking of CPAC, Trump just won the CPAC straw poll, and he won it by a country mile.
62% of the respondents at the straw poll voted for Trump.
Ron DeSantis did not show up to CPAC.
He still came in second though.
He got 20%.
Third place went to a Michigan billionaire named Perry Johnson.
So does that matter?
Well, the CPAC straw poll, it's got actually a pretty decent record in predicting the nominee.
Not perfect.
It's a little bit of a mixed bag.
Some straw polls, though, don't matter at all.
The CPAC one does a little bit.
In 2020, obviously, they picked Trump.
In 2016, the CPAC straw poll picked Cruz.
And Cruz was the number two guy.
He almost got the nomination, but it went to Trump.
In 2012, the CPAC straw poll picked Romney.
2008 also picked Romney, so they got that one wrong.
In 2000, they picked Bush.
They got that one right.
Dole in 96, they got that one right.
Buchanan in 92, they got that one wrong.
Reagan in 1980, they got that one obviously right.
So, it's a mixed bag, but Trump winning it, I think, is a pretty decent sign.
Especially for the kinds of candidates.
You know, CPAC was founded basically for Ronald Reagan.
And Reagan showed up.
He tried to show up every single year of his presidency.
I think once he was not able to make it for an emergency.
But he said he had to show up to CPAC because he wanted to dance with the gal that rung him.
And he felt that CPAC was representing that conservative grassroots movement.
Obviously, it's changed a lot over the years, but...
I think the conclusion has to be, no matter how well DeSantis is doing, he's governing very well, he's campaigning very well, even though he hasn't officially declared he's running yet.
But I think, in this race, Trump remains the favorite.
He remains the guy to beat.
Not just CPAC showing this.
There was a Yahoo, YouGov poll that was released, it was last week, showing that 47% of Republicans would vote for Trump in a head-to-head primary against DeSantis.
That means that DeSantis is eight points behind Trump right now at 39%, 13 undecided.
So DeSantis, rather, could still take it.
But even according to that poll, Trump wins.
And it's important that that's a head-to-head poll.
Because again, early polls don't matter that much.
And it really depends on the state and the caucus or the primary.
But nevertheless, the conventional wisdom had been, if Trump runs, he can clear the field, then he gets the nomination.
If Trump ran, he did not clear the field.
If it's Trump versus DeSantis, DeSantis wins.
But if he really doesn't clear the field and a lot of other candidates get in, as we're seeing now Nikki Haley's gotten in, Vivek Ramaswamy's getting in, there are a lot of other people who are predicted to get in.
Then in a split field, Trump is going to be able to hold his plurality.
Let's say he doesn't get 50% plus, but he holds that plurality just like he did in 2016.
He wins the nomination.
So the fact that right now Trump is head-to-head beating DeSantis...
Very good sign for Trump.
And also what it means is that right now people are living in echo chambers.
So...
The people who everyone's talking to in the primary campaigns tend to be the people of like mind, like social status, like personal interest.
And so you're seeing, especially among the pundits, a gravitation toward Ron DeSantis and a lot of other people too.
Plenty of people really, really like Ron DeSantis.
But I'm not sure that's totally reflective of every part of the GOP base.
Certainly this early when Ron DeSantis doesn't have anywhere near the name recognition that Trump does because the primary has not really taken off yet.
It's all about what do people want.
And speaking of what people want, do you know what they want?
They want chocolate that has not been transed.
Forget about transing the kids.
Forget about transing the adults.
People want regular old chocolate.
They want She, her chocolate.
That's just regular chocolate.
And they want he, him chocolate that contains nuts.
And that's what they got from Jeremy's chocolates.
You may have seen this commercial.
I've had a very busy few weeks.
I'm traveling a lot.
And so I came into the office, did my show.
I went off-site to record a long interview for a project we're working on.
I came back.
I had to record more that night.
As I'm recording, I hear a pause.
They say, stop, Michael.
You've got to walk out of the set.
Jeremy needs you.
I said, I'm in the middle of doing my...
They said, Jeremy needs you.
I said, okay, fine.
I walk out and...
Jeremy says, hey, I need you to stand here next to the McLaren.
I said, why is that?
He goes, oh, we started a chocolate company.
It's called Jeremy's Chocolates.
You go to IHateHershey's.com because Hershey's is transing the chocolates and we want to give people an alternative.
I said, okay, yeah, that makes sense.
We shoot the commercial.
It comes out immediately.
This is like the same day that Hershey's pushed its weird trans campaign where to celebrate Women's History Month or whatever Women's Month it is, they got a dude dressed up as a woman to sell the chocolate.
So Jeremy puts it up immediately.
IHateHershey's.com goes up immediately.
Sources the chocolate immediately.
And you think, okay, it's a funny joke, but are they actually going to sell any chocolate?
Jeremy has sold 300,000.
Non-woke chocolate bars.
The man has become actually Willy Wonka.
He's always been Willy Wonka-esque.
He is now literally Willy Wonka.
300,000 chocolate bars in less than two days.
I hate Hershey's dot com.
Go order yours.
Check out the commercial.
International Women's Day is upon us again.
And I love an international woman.
But our friends over at Hershey's, they don't even know what a woman is.
They've hired a biological male to be the spokesperson for their Women's Day campaign.
And they're calling that campaign, and I swear I'm not making this up, Her-She.
Her-She.
It's humiliating.
And it's the reason that I'm launching...
Jeremy's Chocolate.
We have two kinds.
She-Her.
And he, him.
One of them's got nuts.
If you need me to tell you which one it is, keep giving your money to Hershey's.
But if you're tired of giving your money to woke corporations that hate you, and you're looking for a delicious chocolate bar from a company that actually wants your business, head over to IHateHershey's.com and order Jeremy's chocolate today.
If you ask me, I think people are hungry for an alternative.
And I think you've all proved that.
So head on over to IHateHershey's.com and get yourself some delicious non-woke chocolate and just keep us all laughing.
Because these libs, they overplay their hands and they think that they've got total power and they think we're all going to cave.
And this goes right up to what we were talking about at the top of the show.
They are so certain that we're going to cave.
They're so certain that we're going to cave that whenever anyone stands up against their insane agenda, they will libel that person.
They'll smear that person.
They really think, oh, we can cancel anybody we want.
We can silence anybody we want.
We're going to put out a crappy product and you're going to buy it because you have no alternatives.
You sheep, you little sheep, you'll do what I say.
Where'd Dr.
Fauci come from?
I don't know.
That's their voice.
That's what they believe.
And what we say is, no.
No.
Whatever products you poison, we're going to offer an alternative.
Whatever crazy ideas you say are inevitable, we're going to stand firm.
And you're going to have to deal with it, Libs.
People want a choice.
They don't want an echo.
That was a great line from Phyllis Schlafly.
It is a line that I quoted in my CPAC speech.
And it is an important fact of conservatism.
If we're just going to be Fighting for the liberal policies of 10 years ago, then there's no point in having conservatives.
If we're just going to be, to use Michael Malice's term, progressives driving the speed limit, then there's no point in having conservatives.
We need to say no, stand firm, and actually go on the offense.
Go back in the other direction.
Sometimes the best defense is a strong offense.
The squishes will not do.
On that point, by the way, I think YouTube may have taken down my CPAC speech.
If you want to read the full text verbatim, you've got to go to dailywire.com.
I have it up there.
You can read what the media won't allow you to see, or what they'll just lie about in their print.
People don't want the squishes.
And so there was a guy who was a big squish governor in Maryland, and he was considering running for president.
Larry Hogan, not looking good.
It was a tough decision, but I've decided that I will not be a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
Wow, huge news.
Here, I'm going to make news that's just as big.
I, too, will not be a candidate in 2024 for the Republican nomination for president.
I am constitutionally ineligible because I'm too young, and yet I think I had a much better chance of winning that nomination and the presidency than Larry Hogan ever did.
What's the lane for Larry Hogan?
Hey, I'll be a liberal from 2019.
Hey, I'm a liberal, but not the craziest, fringiest liberal that you ever saw.
Now, if I'm going to vote for a Democrat, I want to vote for a real Democrat.
I want a clear alternative.
If I'm going to vote for a liberal, I want him to be a coherent liberal.
And if I want a conservative, I want a conservative.
People want clarity.
And I think a lot of the times the squishes believe that what we need to do is we just need to be a little conciliatory.
Meet you halfway.
Okay.
Alright, you guys want to trans the three-year-olds.
I think we should only trans the 18-year-olds.
Okay, let's meet at 12.
No, if you keep meeting halfway and halfway and halfway as they push to the left, then you're just inevitably going to follow them all the way down their road to perdition.
Now, speaking of people who might run for president, and speaking of ambiguously partisan people, Yeah, he's the leader of your party.
I... No, the bottom line is let's see who's involved.
Let's wait until we see who all the players are.
Let's just wait until it all comes out.
My main purpose right now is to work for my country and my state.
That's my responsibility.
I'm not going to make my announcement for anything until the end of the year.
You've said you're not running for president.
Is that an open question, though?
I didn't say that.
I didn't say anything about that.
The bottom line is I will make my political decision in December, whatever it may be.
To run for president?
I'm not taking anything off the table, and I'm not putting anything on the table.
I said I'll make a decision at the end of this year.
So Joe Manchin is recognizing here, one, Maybe he wants to run for president, so he's trying to keep his options open.
But he's in a tough spot.
Is he going to run in the Democratic Party?
He'd never win the nomination.
Is he going to run in the Republican Party?
He'd have a better shot at winning the nomination, but no.
Is he going to run as an independent?
That's probably going nowhere.
Could he try to make a play to be a vice president?
Or, I don't think that's going to happen.
Remember, John McCain wanted to pick Joe Lieberman, the Democrat, to be his running mate.
Republicans would have completely thrown him out for that.
It's absurd to have your party pick a member of the opposite party to be the running mate.
And so I don't see that ever happening.
Or is Joe Manchin trying to keep his powder dry, get ready to cross the aisle, endorse whoever the eventual Republican nominee is, whether that's Trump, whether that's Ron DeSantis, whether that's somebody else, and then get a position like, I don't know, Secretary of State or some cabinet position?
That, to me, seems more likely.
He's trying to keep his powder dry to aim at something that would be pretty significant in a Republican administration, which is probably where he would get it.
He also realizes Joe Biden is just not a good bet right now, and the people don't want that.
The voters don't want that.
Now, speaking of voters, very troubling story from Washington, D.C.
Non-citizens are now apparently allowed to vote in local Washington, D.C. elections.
How is this possible?
Well, because D.C. has the license at the moment to govern itself in many ways.
But ultimately, D.C. does not have any right to govern itself.
Ultimately, the Congress governs Washington D.C. Because Washington D.C. is not a state.
It's not a normal municipality in America.
It's the federal district.
And the federal district is run by Congress.
So why on earth would Congress allow the local government there to allow these non-residents to vote in elections?
Because the Democrats still run the Senate.
So, the House Republicans could clamp down on the D.C. local government and say, no, you're not going to allow these foreigners to vote in elections.
But the Senate's going to strike that down.
I say, who cares?
The House Republicans must, I am begging you, I'm on my knees, I'm not on my knees, I'm in my chair at my desk, but I'm rhetorically on my knees.
Bring this up for a vote.
Vote as the House of Representatives and To overrule the D.C. local government to say that foreigners cannot vote.
Because what that will do is force the Senate Democrats to shoot down the House legislation.
It will force the Senate Democrats to go on the record supporting voting by foreigners in American elections in the American capital.
And what that does, it won't necessarily affect a whole lot in terms of electoral politics.
Because Washington, D.C. does not have a voting representative to the Congress.
It doesn't have a ton of its own political power.
It will destroy the Democrats' narrative that they are not rigging elections.
It will destroy the Democrats' narrative that they support election integrity.
It will force the Democrats to go on the record saying, we explicitly support non-citizens voting in elections.
It will look absolutely terrible and will very much strengthen the Republicans' correct argument that the Democrats regularly rig elections and cheat to keep their political power.
Really, really important.
House Republicans get it done.
Speaking of foreigners, really disturbing story out of the United Kingdom has to do with all sorts of questions that we've been talking about today.
This is from the BBC. Four Wakefield pupils have been suspended after a Quran was damaged at the school.
What happened?
Well, the head teacher at this school, Mr.
Griffiths, said, we would like to reassure all our community that the holy book, this teacher is referring to the Quran as a holy book, remains fully intact and that our special inquiries indicate there was no malicious intent by those involved.
However, we have made it very clear that their actions did not, this is the actions of the students, did not treat the Quran with the respect it should have.
So those involved have been suspended, and we will be working with them to ensure they understand why their actions were unacceptable.
This morning we met with local Muslim community leaders, local counselors, and police to share all the information we currently know, the action taken, and the immediate steps we've taken to reinforce the values and behavior we expect from every member of the school community to ensure that all religions are respected.
I have read the Quran.
I have more respect for the Quran than I have at least for a number of books that are taught in schools today.
Like genderqueer and all the gay porn and all that kind of stuff.
But this is absurd.
Listen to what they're saying.
They're saying that students who accidentally disrespected the Quran will be suspended for doing so.
Would that have happened had the students disrespected the Bible accidentally or intentionally?
No.
That's the new norm.
That's the new norm in British public life.
The Quran is considered a holy book.
Holier than the Bible, certainly.
And it has to be treated with that kind of reverence and respect.
That's public life.
There's always going to be a religious component to politics.
All politics, all human conflict ultimately is theological.
There are going to be premises that undergird our entire political system, the background principles.
And this is where the transgender stuff comes in.
This is what it means to eradicate transgenderism from public life.
Right now, if you question the false anthropology which states that A man can become a woman and a woman can become a man.
You can be kicked off of YouTube or any of the big tech platforms.
You can be fired from your job.
You can be kicked out of school.
You can be ostracized from your community.
If you question such a thing while you are committing another crime, you can have your charges increased because it can be called a hate crime.
A hate crime if you say something that's true.
That's a big problem.
And so to eradicate this idea from public life, and we eradicate all sorts of ideas.
We suppress all sorts of ideas in this country.
We ban the Bible from public schools.
We ban prayer from schools.
We insist upon this absurd secularism that reads into the Establishment Clause of the Constitution a firm separation of church and state that never existed until very recent decades.
We rewrite civil rights law to pretend that there is a kind of protection for gender identity which is delusional.
And that creates a system in which you cannot Disagree publicly with transgenderism.
The consequences will be effective punishment all the way to ostracism or worse.
And we have to live under some kind of anthropology.
We've got to live under some kind of epistemology.
We've got to live under some kind of applied morality.
All of those things are going to inform the politics that we necessarily will live under.
And there's no middle ground between truth and falsehood and between reality and delusion.
We've got to pick one, and that's going to inform all these other aspects of public life.
Which is it?
Are we going to live under the anthropology which states that men and women are different Are we going to live under the anthropology which states that men and women are exactly the same in certain ways and men can become women and it's all fluid and women don't have the right to any public spaces?
You've got to pick one.
I, for one, believe that we ought to live under the true one, the true anthropology, and the way that we lived in this country until about five minutes ago, which is why, let me state it one more time for those in the back.
Maybe they got a little cotton in their ears.
They didn't hear what I said.
For the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who are laboring and suffering under this delusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life the whole preposterous ideology at every level.
Have I enunciated properly, articulated myself, used proper diction?
I think I have.
The member block begins now.
Head on over.
It's music Monday, baby.
And I am going to put all of my cultural maven focus and prudence and insight towards some new song.
Go to dailywire.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S at checkout for two months, free on all annual plans.
