Ep. 1197 - Fauci Caught With His Hand In The COVID Coverup Jar
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
A new House investigation shows that the early scientific consensus against the lab leak theory of COVID seems to be a total political hit job cooked up by Dr. Fauci, New York City Democrat Mayor Eric Adams rejects the separation of church and state, and there will soon be a trans day of vengeance that I may have had something to do with.
- - -
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:
Hallow - Try Hallow for 3 months FREE: https://hallow.com/michaelknowles
Bambee - Type in 'Michael Knowles' when you sign up with Bambee: https://bambee.com/michael
- - -
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
Three years after all the powers that be attacked and censored anyone who suggested that COVID maybe escaped from a Chinese biolab, called us all crazy conspiracy theorists, more and more government agencies are admitting that the virus most likely came from the Chinese biolab. more and more government agencies are admitting that the virus But so what?
The liberals are simply claiming that back then, the science suggested that the virus originated in nature.
And now they say the science has developed and shown that it likely began in the lab.
No big deal.
That's how science is supposed to work, right?
Not quite.
Now that Republicans control the House of Representatives, we are finally able to investigate and see how that early scientific consensus developed.
And it turns out, it's not very scientific.
In fact, it's looking pretty much entirely political.
On April 17, 2020, here is what Dr.
Fauci told reporters.
There was a study recently where a group of highly qualified evolutionary biologists looked at the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.
So the paper will be available.
I don't have the authors right now, but we can make it available to you.
Straightforward enough, right?
Sounds like it.
Except what Fauci didn't tell you is that he was the guy who prompted the study, specifically in order to debunk the lab leak theory that we now know was almost certainly correct.
And that we knew at the time, actually, many of us, was almost certainly correct.
According to the House Republicans and Democrats investigating Fauci, this is a bipartisan select committee, quote, The evidence available to the select subcommittee suggests that Dr.
Anthony Fauci prompted Dr.
Christian Anderson, professor of Scripps Research, to write proximal origin and that the goal was to disprove any lab leak theory.
The select committee found that Dr.
Anderson privately did not find the natural origin theory particularly compelling, despite saying so publicly.
This is how fake news works.
Whether we're talking about fake news in the Trump-Russia hoax, whether we're talking about fake news in my own recent run-in with being accused of genocide, to the fake news from Dr.
Fauci and the origin of COVID. The liberal operators who control the scientific, media, big tech, and government establishments work in collusion with one another.
So, in the case of COVID, they concoct the scientific rationale, which is then adopted by the government, which is then reported on by the media, which is then protected through censorship of contrary views by big tech, all to push a conclusion that they had already reached from the very beginning, a conclusion that was political in nature.
Then, occasionally, we find out the whole thing was a political operation.
But only later, long after the revelation, would have had any practical political effect.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.
In this case, well into Dr.
Fauci's pleasant retirement, where unfortunately it seems he will face no consequences for his deceit.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Toby, who says the real reason Michael gave this CPAC speech was to get Ben to defend him for the first time.
Did Ben defend me?
I haven't caught up on all the shows.
Did Ben?
Wow.
That's how you know that what I said at CPAC was completely, 100%, there's no way to attack it, is even...
Even Ben is saying I was totally right.
I love that.
I absolutely love that.
Some people have said it would be a chilly day in hell when Ben would come out and defend yours truly.
But when you want to avoid hell, when you want to go to heaven, when you want to be closer to God, you've got to check out Hallow.
Head on over to Hallow.com slash Knowles.
Lent is already in full swing.
Giving things up even for a short time is never easy.
Something that I will not give up is my faith.
I certainly hope and pray I never give it up.
With all the uncertainty in this world, there is no better time than now to start building a daily habit of prayer and meditation with Hallow.
Hallow is the number one Christian prayer app and the number one Catholic app in the world.
Pray every single day leading up to Easter with world-famous Catholics and Protestants alike, such as Jim Kniezel, Father Mike Schmitz, and even Mark Wahlberg.
Dive deep into scripture and the second most read Christian book of all time, The Imitation of Christ.
You will learn how to become a better individual in spite of today's broken world.
Through prayer, fasting, and giving, Hallow will help guide you on your journey to become more like Christ.
Download Hallow at hallow.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, and get an exclusive three months free, which will carry you through Lent and Easter.
This is a free free free free free free free That is three months absolutely free at Hallow.com slash Knowles.
We're now all basically agreeing that COVID came from the lab, right?
You know there was that report from the energy department, the energy department saying, no, yeah, now we think COVID probably came from that lab.
We have heard from the FBI, this clip was from a week or two ago, Christopher Wray, the FBI director, admitting, yeah, we, yeah, that's pretty much, that's what we think.
Now there's this Department of Energy study that says it's likely to have come from a lab leak, although the confidence is low.
It cites the FBI. What is the determination by the FBI? So, as you note, Brett, the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.
Yes, we do know that.
We've all known that for a very long time.
But only now is this being accepted by the powers that be.
So why is it?
My question is not, okay, how did the virus leak?
We know how the virus leaked.
We're at least pretty certain of it.
My question always, when truths that we have long suspected are finally being mainstreamed, Why now?
Why are they releasing it now?
I wonder if the reason that the government and the media establishment are willing to release this now is because tensions with China are a little bit higher.
Back in those early days, I think that everyone was a little softer on China.
Now we've had the spy balloon coming across.
You're seeing more incursions from China into the South China Sea.
There's a little more tension around a potential invasion or blockade of Taiwan.
Taiwan is economically and technologically very important for the United States.
So is that maybe what's going on?
That this is a game of chess being played by people who did not just yesterday discover this, who actually from those early days suspected it, but now it's starting to play out.
You've always got to ask yourself these questions when it comes to the news.
The first question that you've got to look at is not anything to do with the details of any given news story.
The first question is, why am I being presented with this story?
Why am I being presented with this headline and why are they doing it right now?
But even just on the operation of fake news, this is how fake news works all the time.
They get the story wrong.
Very often they get the story intentionally wrong to achieve a political purpose.
And then you get the fake news on page A1 of the newspaper.
And you get the retraction or the correction or even just the stealth edit on page Z10,000 of the newspaper.
So very few people see it.
Everyone sees the original fake headline.
Very few people see the correction.
I did just experience this very recently when the Libs decided to accuse me of genocide.
And quickly enough, they had to change the headlines because it was obviously libelous.
But all the libs, not you, the conservatives understood this from day one.
Every prominent conservative, even the prominent, squishy type of conservatives who don't even like me all that much, they all came out immediately and said, this is such a bogus story.
But the libs all saw the fake headline.
How many of those libs who are now calling me a genocidal maniac, how many of them saw the very quick corrections that the news organizations had to make because they were violating libel law, and their lawyers, I'm sure, called the editorial team and said, you got to change the headlines?
Many fewer people saw those corrections, especially because there were stealth edits.
So I mentioned yesterday on the show that- That, after I demanded a retraction, Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, some other outlets pretty quickly changed their headlines.
Now, Huffington Post has changed their headlines because they're afraid of hearing from their own lawyers, I think.
The Independent and the UK has changed their headlines.
But they didn't want to add any editorial notes, so we pointed out, hey, this is still libelous.
Okay, so now they're starting to add editorial notes acknowledging the change.
This is my favorite one.
This is my favorite editor's note.
For a correction that I have ever seen in my whole life in any news story.
And I feel so privileged that it just happens to be from a story that involves me.
Editor's note.
The headline has been changed to more literally reflect the words Knowles used.
The headline has been changed from the complete BS that we lied about, the words that we put into his mouth.
Now, okay, we're changing the headline to reflect what he actually said.
It's just such an admission.
You could say, editor's note, we are hereby acknowledging that we, the Daily Beast, publish fake news.
We are a fake news organization, and occasionally we cross the line into legally actionable libel.
So, okay, we'll use the words he actually used.
Remember that, I want to frame this editor's note.
I want this to be on the wall of my studio.
Editor's note, don't believe anything that you read in the liberal press.
So, and it was very kind of everyone to come out and defend me, all the people on the right.
One person in particular who did that was Senator Mike Lee, who pointed out this is libelous, and the guy knows quite a lot about constitutional law, being a Supreme Court litigator and a U.S. Senator.
So, moving on from all the nonsense about my CPAC speech.
Senator Lee just had a wonderful exchange with a...
A woman who is from the Independent Women's Law Center on the topic of sex and gender, but not specifically on the topic of transgenderism.
He actually dug into an issue that goes back much further and that goes a lot deeper.
An issue where, if we want to really get at the heart of our present crazy sexual gender madness...
Which is dominating the headlines.
It's all the libs want to talk about.
And therefore the conservatives have to talk about it.
Because it's upending society.
That issue is before transgenderism.
Before redefining marriage.
Before all the crazy sexual revolution stuff.
It goes all the way back to feminism and the feminist would-be constitutional amendment called the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would destroy women's rights in America.
First though, when we're talking about The rights that you have in the workplace, even things regarding sexual harassment, you've got to check out Bambi.
Right now, go to Bambi.com, type Michael Knowles under podcast when you sign up.
When you are running your business, your employees can create all kinds of interesting situations, to put it delicately.
For instance, if an employee reports a serious issue, such as sexual harassment, do you have a documented policy for how to handle that situation?
That's why you better talk to Bambi.
Bambi gives you access to your own dedicated HR manager.
This person is available to you by phone, email, and real-time chat.
The person will help you run employee onboarding, terminations, and performance reviews.
With Bambi's HR Autopilot feature, you can automate important HR practices, such as setting policies, employee training, and feedback procedures.
All of Bambi's HR managers are based in the U.S. and can support the nuances across all 50 states.
HR managers can easily cost $80,000 per year.
Bambi starts at just $99 per month.
Incredible, incredible value.
Schedule your free conversation today to see how much Bambi can take off your plate.
Go to Bambi.com right now.
Type Michael Knowles under podcast when you sign up.
That is Bambi.
B-A-M-B-E-E dot com.
Bambi.com.
Type in Michael Knowles.
Senator Lee has recently dug into a recurrent, an almost perennial leftist issue.
It's been cropping up since the 70s.
And it's called the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment.
This is the feminist constitutional amendment that ironically, though not so ironically, if you really understand feminism, but seems ironically, would destroy rights for women in America.
And the ERA, the Libs have been trying to ratify this thing for decades now.
People don't actually want it, which is why it keeps stalling out.
But Senator Lee asked Jennifer Braceres, who's at the Independent Women's Law Center, what the ERA really would look like in practice.
What might this do for sex-segregated prisons, prisons for women?
What might this do for government-sponsored, government-funded and operated shelters for abused women, for example?
Or public restrooms, locker rooms, athletic facilities, athletic competitions?
What might strict scrutiny do to every one of those?
So in the racial context, courts have been very clear that prisons cannot separate inmates on the basis of race, even where doing so would prevent certain gang violence in the prison, and that's the right standard.
They should not be able to separate inmates on the basis of race.
If you applied that same standard to men and women, that would mean that prisons could never, they would have to have co-ed prisons.
You could never separate inmates on the basis of sex, and male and female prisoners would have to be housed together.
That's right, ladies.
We're going to bring you progress.
We're going to liberate you women by forcing you to bunk up with big gigantic Bubba over there when you're in prison.
What could go wrong?
Isn't that great?
Isn't that progress?
Reminds me of a line from Lucille Ball.
Lucille Ball was asked during an interview, I think maybe with Dick Cavett many decades ago, what she thought about women's lib.
And she said, I think I'm liberated enough.
I think I could use a little less liberation.
I don't think women's lib has made women very, very happy.
And you can see this in study after study.
Take studies of happiness with a grain of salt, but all of them seem to show that women have become much less happy since women's lib came about, both relative to men and in absolute terms.
The ERA would do all sorts of other things, would effectively abolish women's bathrooms, though the transgender activists are trying to do that already, would effectively ban women's sports, would end women's schools, and all the special rights and spaces that women have specifically for themselves right now. and all the special rights and spaces that women have How did this thing come about?
Thank you.
Well, the ERA actually was not first proposed in the 70s.
It became to prominence in the 70s.
The ERA that was first proposed in 1923, this was the first version of it, written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, and it was introduced into Congress.
Didn't get very far.
Then there's another move to revive it in the 1970s.
Congress set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979.
By 1977, the ERA had received 35 of the necessary 38 states to ratify it.
So the feminists realized it wasn't going to work to get this thing through Congress.
People didn't want it.
But if they tried to surreptitiously go through all of the different states and get it ratified, they might, over time, Push this thing through.
So they were so close in 1977.
35 out of 38 states.
And then along came, not some man, some patriarchal, misogynistic man to put those women in their place.
No, along came a little lady by the name of Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative woman, one of the most important conservative leaders in America, certainly of the 20th century.
Really, I would say ever.
She was a religious mother of six, I believe.
And she rallied women around America.
Not the women that the feminists like.
Not the crazy hair, burning their bras, woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle kind of feminist ladies.
But normal, regular women who love their husbands, who love their sons, who love their home life, who love their special privileges and places and rights and spaces in society, rallied those women around America and said, no, we don't want this progress that would destroy our role in society. we don't want this progress that would destroy our role At that point, five state legislatures, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, South Dakota, voted to revoke their ERA ratifications.
So they'd already ratified it.
They said, nope, we don't want this thing anymore.
The first four rescinded their ratification before the original 1979 deadline.
South Dakota did so By voting to sunset the ratification as of the original deadline.
So the original deadline hits.
Okay, no more ERA because they couldn't get it through.
In 1978, the Libs kept it up.
Congress passed by simple majorities in each house.
And Jimmy Carter signed as president a joint resolution to extend the deadline, which is legally a little bit dubious.
But they said, okay, we couldn't get the damn thing through.
Well, all right, let's push it a few more years.
1982.
And then guess what happened in those three years?
No additional state legislatures ratified the ERA because nobody wants it because it's insane.
Then, in 2020, just three years ago, Virginia's General Assembly passed a ratification resolution for the ERA, which then claimed to bring that number up to 38.
But of course, there are so many reasons that obviously didn't work.
They've blown through deadline after deadline.
They In order to claim that they had 38 states, they would have to ignore the fact that five state legislatures withdrew their ratification.
It's just nonsense.
But this is what the libs do.
They just doggedly pursue their agenda, even if the people hate it, even if it's not particularly legal or constitutional.
They're like a dog with a bone.
They don't let go.
That's why they generally win in the culture war stuff.
The reason I mention this now is to be on the alert, because they're going to keep pushing for this, and we need to shoot it down.
It would be terrible for women.
It would be terrible for society.
But also to point out That there's a line that some conservatives have used in recent years that is not true.
They'll say, look, we hate second wave feminism.
That's the bra burners of the 70s.
That second wave feminism was bad.
The third wave feminism, which was, I don't know, it was like the 90s, 2000s, that was also bad.
And now I think we're in the fourth wave, I don't know, or the 50th wave, whatever wave we're in, that's also bad.
But, this is what they would say, they'll say the first wave feminists, they were really good.
Those first wave feminists back in the 20s, they were the good ones.
And it's not true.
They're all the same people.
Feminism is just bad.
It's bad because it posits, and this is the same issue that we see with transgenderism, it posits a false anthropology.
It suggests that there is no meaningful difference between men and women.
The traditional way of viewing men and women is that men and women are different.
Men are from Mars.
Women are from Venus.
Men and women go together.
You're never going to have a war between the sexes because everybody's sleeping with the enemy.
Ah, men and women will never understand each other, but that's what adds spice to life.
And we love that.
And that's why men and women are coupled with one another.
Human beings are a coupling species.
And we come together and by golly, we can procreate.
Isn't that so amazing?
It's only through the union of a man and a woman that we can actually partake of God's creation.
Because what we can do without one another is we can, you know, I can produce this show, though I need a whole army of people to actually make the show happen.
But we can all do that.
We can make a work of art.
We can write a poem.
We can bake a pie.
but in order to partake of actual creation, not just putting stuff together and building it, but actually creating new life, you need men and women together.
That's the old way of viewing things.
The modern view, the feminist view is that men and women don't need each other.
They're basically the same anyway.
It gets a little confusing because the feminists would argue that men and women certainly have the same brains and their physical differences are just superficial.
They only run skin deep.
Whereas the transgenderists now claim that men and women have totally different brains, which is how men who think they're women, they actually allegedly have the brain of a woman or something like that, which irritates many of the feminists because the feminists say, well, the hell are you to tell me that my brain isn't the same as a man's brain and And so they'll try to duke it out.
But it all derives from the same false anthropology.
Yes, the second wave feminists were bad.
They're all bad, though, because it's all wrong.
It's either true or false.
It happens to be false, and we should oppose this stuff.
This is going to be the topic of my speech in Buffalo.
I'm giving a speech with Young America's Foundation up at the University of Buffalo on Thursday.
Very, very excited for that.
The topic that I have been requested to speak on is feminism and And you know, since I am the love guru here at the Daily Wire, Dr.
Romance, I have many thoughts on this topic.
And thoughts on the topic of sex and gender in politics more broadly.
Because conservatives are always just fighting on the terms of the left.
So now we're fighting over whether or not we should trans the 8-year-olds, if not the 9-year-olds.
So we're fighting over whether we should abolish women's sports.
We've got to go a little bit deeper.
We've got to take on the feminists.
Speaking of New York, Mayor Eric Adams.
He's not a very good mayor.
He's a big lib.
New York City is not doing very well under his leadership.
But he's also not the worst mayor we've ever had, especially coming after Bill de Blasio.
You know I'm a New Yorker by upbringing, and so I care still a lot.
It's very sad to see poor old Gotham descend into crime and mayhem.
And Eric Adams said something the other day where I felt I had to give him credit where credit's due.
He said that...
When God and prayer and the Bible left schools, that's when the guns came into schools.
So he's trying to make a little knock at guns in the Second Amendment, but okay, I'm willing to overlook that because he's defending God in schools.
That's a very conservative position.
Very out of step with the rest of his party.
So Mayor Adams went on CNN, and the CNN lady grilled him over this.
She was furious.
She said, how dare?
Are you suggesting that there is no firm separation of church and state?
Here's Mayor Adams' answer.
You also said you implement policies with a, quote, godlike approach and said, quote, when we took prayers out of schools, guns came into schools.
You know that those comments alarmed some people, even some religious leaders who were in the room.
A rabbi who was there called it dangerous.
Well, listen, let's be clear on something.
The last words I said after I was sworn in is, so help me God.
On our dollar bill, we have, in God we trust.
Every president touched a religious book when they were sworn in, except for three.
Faith is who I am.
And anyone who takes those words are stating that I'm going to try to compel people to follow my religion.
No.
I'm a child of God.
I believe that wholly.
I'm going to follow the law.
I'm not going to compel people who believe in whatever faith.
It could be if you're in a synagogue, a Baptist church, a Buddhist temple.
I'm in all of them.
And that's what was in my service.
Just to be clear, do you fundamentally believe in the separation of church and state from a governing standpoint?
No.
What I believe is that you cannot separate your faith.
Awesome.
Love that.
This guy, this liberal Democrat, has more courage on this very important issue than many, if not most, Republicans in public life.
Do you not believe in a separation of church and state?
Very simply goes, no.
No, I don't.
Good.
That puts him on the same side as the founding fathers, every American statesman until the 60s and 70s, 1960s and 70s, and every great leader and statesman throughout all of history since the dawn of time.
Of course not.
And his reasoning is quite right.
He says, faith is everything to me.
It informs everything I do.
He says, I'm not going to force people to join my denomination or particular religious view.
I'm all for toleration, but you can't separate me from my faith.
And if you can't separate me from my faith, then you can't separate my faith from government because I am the person in office right now.
Of course, all politics, all human conflict ultimately is theological.
It has to be.
That's always inevitable.
I've mentioned the writer Matthew Petrucic's excellent way of thinking about this.
Politics is on top of morality, is on top of epistemology, is on top of anthropology, is on top of ontology, is on top of theology.
Without getting into every category, ultimately, you've got to get down to the question of what is everything?
What is everything that is resting upon?
And that is a theological question.
You can't pass a law about taxes or parking tickets without getting down to some theological premises.
You can't do it.
It's not possible.
So he's just being honest about that.
And the people who say, no, we're going to have a separation of church and state.
No, no, I don't let my religious views affect my politics.
That's what John F. Kennedy said when he was running for president, and he was afraid that by being Catholic he would lose.
He said, oh, listen here, I'm very Catholic, but I would never let my Catholic faith affect anything I do.
Okay, so practically speaking, you're not all that Catholic.
Okay, fine.
Adams is saying, no, we all do that.
And he does it too.
I love it.
Great on him.
I hope Republican leaders...
Follow this mostly failed liberal mayor of New York, at least on this question.
Say, okay, yeah, absolutely.
And that allows you to be tolerant.
When you know what you stand for and you're being very clear and very open, you can be tolerant of minority religious views.
He says, I'm not going to go after the Hindus or whatever and Buddhists and try to convert them to my way of thinking.
He's going to tolerate it.
But...
You can only tolerate these sort of minority views if you have a broadly established set of norms and standards that derive from faith, and the majority faith in the country.
People who are not very tolerant, I've learned, are some of the radical transgender activists.
You're going to be shocked to hear that.
There's a story that came out, I'm afraid I might have something to do with this, called the Trans Day of Vengeance.
When I saw that headline, I realized they are now taking my advice from...
Some years ago, I gave a speech on leftism through the lens of the seven deadly sins.
I said, why is it that the libs celebrate pride?
Pride is the queen of all vices.
And Drew Klavan pointed out that now it's also the vice of all queens.
I said, why would you, if you want, from just a PR standpoint, to promote your sexual group...
Why would you base it on pride, the deadliest of the seven deadly sins?
And I said, why pride in particular?
If you're going to make it based on a sin, why not gay gluttony week?
Or why not gay wrath week?
And so now we're getting it.
Essentially, the trans day of wrath to stop the alleged transgender genocide that nobody knew was happening.
This is the Trans Radical Activist Network.
I said on Twitter, the time is now.
Enough is enough.
We want more visibility.
And so they're calling for vengeance.
Vengeance is pretty violent.
Language, pretty violent concept.
I view vengeance as belonging to the Lord.
I don't think that it's up to me to take vengeance on people.
So even if I am inclined to anger and I'm really upset with somebody and I want revenge, I do my level best to put that away, kiss it up, give that to God, because revenge is the Lord's.
Which brought me back to this whole crazy non-traversy about the libs accusing me of genocide.
Because one of the reasons it's so laughable, other than it had no basis in anything I've ever said, is...
I'm Christian.
That's the foundation of my belief.
Catholic, specifically.
I... I think that I will be answerable for all the things that I have done in my life.
And I know that I sin a lot, which is why I ask Christ's forgiveness.
I confess my sins.
I seek absolution.
I hope that my Redeemer, and I have good reason to hope, but that my Redeemer will save me because I can't save myself.
Even when I'm writing this show, and half of this show is about poking fun at all these insane ideas that the libs have, I try to make sure that I don't fall into the sin of detraction, where I am intentionally revealing secret sins of other people, or using really cruel and harsh language about people.
Even that, I try...
In the way that I conduct my life, and we all fail constantly, and I'm certainly chief among them, I... I'm really, really careful because I think that I'm going to be answerable for my words and my actions someday.
These people do not think that.
Which is why these people tend to be a little less morally constrained in the way they deal with themselves and other people.
This is why the political violence in recent years has come, not exclusively, but largely from the left.
This is why BLM burned the country down for months.
This is why Antifa has attacked so many people, torched places.
They're always encouraging violence.
This is why you've now got these people, who obviously are not playing with a full deck generally, now calling for vengeance and obviously much more radical kind of language.
Who are they answerable to?
This is why this question that the CNN lady asked to Eric Adams is so crazy.
The Libs fear that if politicians believe in God, that's going to cause them to do all manner of terrible things.
If you think that the God-fearing politicians are bad, just wait until you see the politicians who don't fear God.
This is a way, it's kind of obscured in the history now, but we all make fun of divine right monarchy as this sort of absurd idea, and we view divine right monarchs as being absolute tyrants wielding, but that isn't true.
The idea of divine right monarchy is actually that there is a limit.
On the power of the monarch because the monarch is answerable to God who is a lot more important and powerful than a politician who is answerable only to the people or answerable only to a small group, say, in an oligarchy.
This is the meaning of John Adams' famous statement, the Constitution is built for a moral and religious people.
That's the constraint.
When you take that constraint away in the name of the separation of church and state or the enlightened views of secularism, when you take that away, you're going to lose the grace, you're going to lose the restraints, you're going to lose the kiss it up for vengeance as the Lord's, and you're going to get a lot of wrath and gluttony and pride and lust and all the rest of it.
You're going to get a country burning to the ground, as we have seen in recent years.
That's our brave new world.
Maybe I'll just tease this story, because this story is really, really wild on the brave new world.
You may have heard the World Economic Forum say that in the future, you will own nothing and be happy.
This sounds like something out of a James Bond villain's mouth.
But a lot of people wonder, well, how's that going to happen?
You're not taking my stuff.
You can come, you show up here, you try to take my stuff, threaten my family, you're going to catch a face full of lead is what you're going to do.
That's what a lot of people tell themselves with that independent spirit of, I'm going to keep my stuff.
But the way that the brave new world, great reset vision will be put into practice and is currently being put into practice is not that jackbooted thugs necessarily are going to come to your door, kick it in and grab you.
It's that even the products you buy are going to be less and less yours.
Ford Motor Company, Ford Global Technologies just filed a patent for a new system and method to repossess a vehicle.
And the way they're going to do it is they're going to sell you the car, you're going to buy the car, you're going to think you own the car.
And then whenever the Ford executive wants, he's going to lock you out of that car.
He could repossess that car or You won't have anything to say about it.
We'll have to get into that a little bit more tomorrow because I want to take calls right now.
Before that, back in 2021, during a five-hour hearing before Congress, Mark Zuckerberg admitted that he did not let his own children use Facebook.
That should be enough to make you think twice about letting your kids use any social media, especially TikTok.
There's a new book out, published by DW Books, written by Bethany Mandel and Carol Markowitz, that drives that point home.
It's called Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation.
When I read this passage, I wanted to delete every social media app that I have and throw my phone away.
I already have that inclination generally, and this passage really underscored it.
Listen to this, quote, The highly personalized, never-ending feed curated by the algorithm.
The article explained, quote, an analysis of the videos served to these accounts found that through its powerful algorithms, TikTok can quickly drive minors, among the biggest users of the app, into endless spools of content about sex and drugs.
TikTok served one account registered as a 13-year-old at least 569 videos about drug use.
References to cocaine and meth addiction and promotional videos for online sales of drug products and paraphernalia.
Hundreds of similar videos appeared in the feeds of the journal's other minor accounts.
Remember, this is not an accident.
This is by design.
Radicals want your children sick and corrupted.
Good news is...
You can fight back right now.
You can figure out how to fight back.
Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation comes out today.
Order your copy on Amazon or wherever you get your books now.
And now I will have the supreme privilege of speaking to you on the line, taking your calls.
Who do we have?
Let me peruse who we have here.
Okay.
Let's turn to my home state.
Let's turn to Charles in New York.
Charles, you're on the line.
Michael, thank you very much for taking my call.
I've got a quick question.
I've been following the Hershey's controversy.
It disgusts me as much as anyone.
But I wonder if the solution to fight back against what these corporations are doing is, to be quite honest, is it to buy Jeremy's chocolate?
Or is it to invest that $25, $6 in chocolate bar?
In a gym membership, in a home garden, in locally grown organic produce.
I don't understand what is accomplished by, you know, substituting one chocolate bar for another.
Take that $25 instead of buying chocolate, give it to your local parish.
I'm just curious what your thoughts are on why it's important to buy Jeremy's chocolate instead of taking, you know, that money again.
And rather than filling our bodies with sugar, you know, doing something maybe a bit more productive with it.
Sure.
That's a really good question.
If you don't like chocolate and you want to get off chocolate, that's totally fine.
I mean, especially if you're trying to lose weight or something like that.
Yeah, that's totally fine.
But my question for you is, do you like chocolate?
I do like chocolate, but I would, again, I just don't know if that's the right direction to go.
No, but my question then is, I like chocolate.
I eat chocolate now and again.
I don't eat a ton.
Okay, I've got to keep my svelte figure.
I've got to fit into wardrobe for the show.
But if you are going to eat chocolate, The question is, are you going to buy Hershey's chocolate, Hershey's, which hates you and wants to trans the culture and is doing very bad things with your money, or would you rather buy Jeremy's chocolate, even if it's six bucks a bar, whatever amount of money you're going to spend on chocolate, would you rather spend that money there?
I'm not saying you have to buy Jeremy's chocolate.
I think it's very funny.
I've really got a kick out of the whole thing.
I fully intend to get myself some Jeremy's chocolate.
No, it's not saying that the way to fight the culture war is that we all need to buy a lot of chocolate.
The way to fight the culture war is to stop buying products from the companies that hate you and purchase those same products that you would already buy from companies that like you instead and that are not trying to trans the kids and that are actually using that money to try to fight back against the woke corporations.
So I don't think it's an either-or.
If you want to go to the gym, donate money to charity, donate to your church, I think that's all great stuff.
And, well, forget the gym, but at least donating to charity and to your church is probably a higher priority than getting yourself chocolate.
The point of Jeremy's chocolates and razors and all the rest of it It's not that you should put all your money into that.
The point is that if you are going to buy those products already, consumers ought to have an option.
And we shouldn't be forced into this monopoly or oligopoly to give all of our money to companies that hate us and that use that money, use our money to screw up our culture.
That's the whole point.
And if you want to go to the gym, I encourage you to work out enough for the two of us, because I certainly don't intend to go to the gym, and I will then perhaps eat double the chocolate.
Very good question, Charles.
Let's turn now to Gideon in Canada, America's Top Hat.
Gideon, how about your appearance on this show, eh?
Hi.
Thanks a lot for taking the call.
I just want to echo a point made by John Doyle, actually, somebody I think that you should have on the show.
I've met John Doyle a few times.
I like him.
Oh, he's wonderful, yes.
He said that when transgender people see calls to eliminate transgender ideology from society, they construe it as genocidal, as of course I'm sure you've had plenty of experience with at this point.
But when people begin calling for the elimination of quote-unquote whiteness, to call out the obvious is something that even most conservatives won't actually do.
So I don't know how else are we supposed to construe that.
Oh, of course.
Well, there's no question about that, that the establishment in the media and the government and all of it just hates white people.
And hates men, too.
So, of course, that's the case.
You're allowed to say any terrible stuff about men that you want.
We have to abolish toxic masculinity.
And, of course, that's never interpreted as a genocide.
We need to abolish whiteness or eradicate whiteness.
No, that is either not interpreted as calling for genocide or is...
Celebrated his calling for genocide.
But even you have people like Oprah.
Oprah famously was caught on camera giving an answer to how we deal with all these conservative people.
And she said, we just have to wait for them to die.
So that was a pretty direct call toward, maybe she didn't want to hasten their death, but she wasn't upset that they would die at some point anyway.
Yeah, there's no question about that.
They're just slightly different issues, I think.
As we talk about a lie, you can talk about how the culture is openly antagonistic toward white people and men and people who have ordinary sexual practices and desires and Christians and all the rest of it.
You can talk about that.
But I think it's also worth pointing out that on this particular issue with the liberals accusing me of genocide for suggesting that we ought not to indulge the transgender false anthropology, that's...
One is a little bit different in that...
Transgender people is not a real ontological category.
It's a euphemism to describe deeply confused men and women who ought to have psychological and spiritual help.
And so I think we just need to be very precise in our language and focus on that battle when we're dealing with that battle and focus on the other ones as well.
I don't know that there are Totally connected.
You could make a rhetorical point that wins a point or two by pointing out the left wing's hypocrisy.
I just don't think pointing out leftist hypocrisy really matters.
To quote Adrian Vermeule, the Harvard law professor, they're not exactly hypocrites on the left.
They're They just have a hierarchy.
They just say some people are better than other people, and some people should get special privileges, and others should be punished.
So in a way, that's kind of honest.
It's not hypocritical.
They just have their own caste system and set of values.
And you and I probably wouldn't fall very high up in that.
So a little bit separate issues, but both very important.
Okay, let's try to get to at least one more before...
Before we turn to the member block with the creme de la creme in a circle.
Brady in San Marcos, Texas.
Hello, Brady.
How can I help you?
Hey, Michael.
My wife and I are big fans of the show.
Your first book left us without words and your last book had us speechless.
So my question is this.
My wife and I converted to Christianity a little over a year and a half ago, and we largely retain our secular friend group from before we were saved.
You've talked a lot about having secular friends, gay friends, liberal friends, and so on.
I know that as Christians we have a calling to witness and to evangelize to others, but Proverbs also tells us that as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.
So at what point do you think having too many secular friends, having too many friends who oppose your values becomes a problem?
What would be some tips for remaining firm in the faith without coming across as judgmental or turning your secular friends off from Christianity entirely?
Thanks.
Great question.
I would not recommend that you cut your friends off.
Sometimes people say, now I've converted, and so I'm not talking to these people anymore.
If some of your friends are occasions of sin, if they lead you into behaviors that are sinful and that compromise your faith, then probably you should cut them off.
But if that's not the case, if you just have differing viewpoints, I wouldn't cut them off, but I would just predict and observe that That people grow together or they grow apart.
And it doesn't need to be some big terrible breakup, but I think you might find, as you deepen in your faith, you will naturally be spending more time with people who view things a little more similarly to the way that you view things.
And you'll spend a little less time with some of those other friends.
And That's natural, and people change, and with the real enduring friendships, your friends' views might change as well.
And if they don't, if you don't grow together, then very likely you will grow apart, and that's just the way friendship works.
Okay, it is now time to get to the member block with Le Crème de la Crème.
We will be today examining a really important trend on TikTok.
That would be the trend of trad wives, traditional wives.
I'm pleased to be married to such a wife.
And specifically the trend of left-wingers disparaging trad wives.
They hate them because they ain't them, I suspect.
