Liberal journalists complain that neo-Nazis are supporting the Left’s anti-Israel protests, RFK polls at 22% in a race against Trump and Biden, and Elon says George Soros “fundamentally hates humanity.”
Ep.1364
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Check out Bentkey Kids Entertainment here: https://bit.ly/46NTTVo
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/Knowles
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag at http://www.ruffgreens.com/Michael
Or call 844-RUFF-123
- - -
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
Which is reporting that neo-Nazis are apparently hijacking the left-wing anti-Israel protests.
You see, many pro-Palestine groups on the left, groups such as Black Lives Matter, are excusing and even celebrating Hamas terrorists for slaughtering Israeli civilians.
Which is totally fine, according to the liberal media.
But now, the neo-Nazis are doing precisely the same thing, which is evil and must be stopped.
Hundreds of thousands of liberals have been rallying in cities around the world in support of the Palestine Liberation Movement and against the State of Israel.
That includes liberals, that includes Islamists, that includes all sorts of people that are totally great, according to the press.
But some neo-Nazis have joined them, which is very bad.
Even though the Neo-Nazis are doing precisely the same thing with the same rhetoric to advance the same objectives, it is bad when they do it because they're white and on the far right instead of brown and in the mainstream left.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Elon Musk.
Says that George Soros fundamentally hates humanity.
I'm sure he'll soon be called an anti-Semite.
Because anytime you criticize the most prominent left-wing funder in the world, people tell you that you just hate the Jews or something like that.
Anyway, we'll get to that in just a moment.
First though, this word hijacking is really being used in an interesting way here.
Neo-Nazis in the far right are trying to hijack the pro-Palestine.
What is the point of the pro-Palestine protests?
The main mantra that you hear is, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, which means abolishing the state of Israel, which plenty of people around the world want to do, including the neo-Nazis.
There are plenty of other people who also want to do that, and they're different groups, but they have the same objective.
So how is it hijacking?
If a group comes in and says, hey, you guys over there, this you distinct group, we support what you believe, we are going to join with you in the actions that you're currently performing, and we hope for the very same objectives that you hope for.
How is that hijacking?
Hijacking is when you go in and you turn a political movement towards some other ends.
You subvert a political movement.
Here, though, it's just the same thing.
The only difference is that when the brown people do it, Vice News says it's good.
And when the white skinheads do it, Vice News says it's bad.
Now, if you call me crazy, call me some sort of wild egalitarian.
But I think that an action ought to be judged on its intrinsic value rather than the shade of the people who are performing such an action.
But on the issue to the Israel-Palestine conflict, what is the solution?
The answer is There isn't one, as Hamas has made clear.
Israel is a country with no place in our land.
We must remove that country because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation.
We are not ashamed to say this with full force.
We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again.
The Al-Aqsa flood is just the first time.
There will be a second, a third, a fourth.
That's referring to the attack on October 7th.
Because we have the determination, the resolve.
Will we have to pay a price?
Yes, and we are ready to pay it.
We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.
We did not want to harm civilians, but there were complications on the ground.
The occupation must come to an end.
Occupation where?
In the Gaza Strip?
No, I'm talking about all the Palestinian lands.
Does that mean the annihilation of Israel?
Yes, of course.
The existence of Israel is illogical.
The existence of Israel is what causes all that pain, blood, and tears.
It is Israel, not us.
We are the victims of the occupation, period.
Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do.
On October 7th, everything that we do is justified.
Everything that we do is justified.
Okay.
Whatever one thinks of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which actually is a complex conflict that has gone on in its present form for 100 years and has gone on in other forms for millennia at this point, Whatever one thinks of the conflict, the last part of what he said there is not true ever under any circumstances.
The notion that anything we do is justified because of our political claim, that is not true.
To the contrary, there's something called just war.
And there are two chief considerations, even within just war, which is, is your action just when it comes to going to war, and is your action just when you are already in war?
And we've gone over on this show, I won't rehash it here, we've gone over some of what makes a war justified, going all through the ages, from great thinkers including Cicero, all the way up through St.
Thomas Aquinas, and others, all the way up to the present.
That last part that he just said there is not true.
There are in fact rules to war because there is such a thing as the moral law and there are moral considerations in war just as there are in peace.
What this does mean is that the war is almost certainly intractable because the demands here cannot really be resolved.
The pro-Palestine movement says that Israel's establishment in 1948 constituted an unjust act of imperialism, that the British gave the Jews this land that they had no right to give them, and as a result of this, the Palestinian Arabs were kicked out of their land into other places, and so they will just simply not accept the existence of the State of Israel.
Israel's argument is that God gave us this land millennia ago, And, obviously, different religious groups have different views of what that covenant means.
Christians have a different view.
Catholics and Orthodox have a different view, even than, say, evangelical Protestants.
And, obviously, Jews have a different view, and Muslims have a different view.
So, that's the theological argument.
And then, the more recent legal argument from the State of Israel is that the Balfour Declaration Grant's the premise that the Jews can establish a state in Israel and in 1948 the UN says it can happen.
And then an even more recent argument from a military and political perspective is that Israel will say we fought a war and it's ours.
Law of Conquest.
Okay, well, then the response to that is going to be, okay, well, we're going to keep making war on you, just like Hamas has said here.
We're going to just keep doing October 7th.
We're going to keep attacking children.
We're going to keep attacking women.
We're going to keep attacking civilians.
And there's going to be no end to it, which is very, very sad.
It's a sad fact.
I think there are some utopians out there who believe that there's going to be a once and for all answer to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
I just don't think it's going to happen.
I guess Israel could annex Gaza, formally annex Gaza.
I don't think that the Arab states in the region are going to take kindly to that.
I don't think the West Bank is going to take kindly to that.
I think it's probably going to expand the war.
They could glass Gaza.
Same thing.
They could try to send the Gazans to Egypt.
I don't know that that's going to work.
Conversely, Hamas could go in and say, we're going to kill all the Jews or route them out of the land of Israel.
I don't think that's going to go over all that well either.
So it seems relatively intractable now.
Which is why, for the American audience, my perspective has always been and remains, the chief U.S.
interest in this war is to contain the war.
There's no reasoning with the head of Hamas, okay?
There's no reasoning with we celebrate our women and our children martyrs to die so that we can abolish the state of Israel.
There's no arguing with we love death more than the Israelis love life, okay?
And there's not going to be any way.
What's going to happen?
The state of Israel is just going to say, okay, never mind then.
We're gone.
Well, we're going to leave.
We've been here for 75 years, but okay, we're done now.
You're right, Hamas.
You convinced us.
No, there's not.
So the only interest for the United States, or the chief interest, I should say, is contain the war.
We got to talk about these things.
And when you want to talk, you got to check out Pure Talk.
Right now go to puretalk.com slash nulls.
Pure Talk announced that they would alleviate 10 million dollars in veteran debt by Veterans Day.
Thanks to your support these last few weeks, Pure Talk is 74% to that goal with two weeks to go.
Now, just think about this.
We have a 100% volunteer military, men and women who raise their hands to sacrifice for this country.
When they're done serving, they come back to a tight job market and an outrageous cost of living expenses.
That is why I am so happy a private company like PeerTalk has jumped in to help.
When you switch to PeerTalk's lightning-fast 5G network, they will donate a portion of every new order to this noble cause.
You can make a real difference just by choosing superior cell phone service.
Pure Talk's plans start at just $20 a month, offering unlimited talk, text, more data, and a mobile hotspot.
Just go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Make the switch.
Let's rally together, show our unwavering support of our veterans.
Puretalk.com slash Knowles.
Switch to Pure Talk today.
It's the right move, and it's the American way.
Speaking of containing threats, there's a new poll out.
That looks at the race, not just Biden versus Trump, not just Trump versus the Republican primary candidates, but Biden versus Trump versus RFK Jr.
And according to this poll, forget about who wins and who pulls votes from whom, according to this poll, this is Quinnipiac, which is a very serious poll, RFK Jr.
is currently polling at 22% against Biden and Trump.
So according to this poll, if it's just Biden versus Trump, Biden wins by one point.
If it's Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr., Biden wins by three points.
So this contradicts earlier polls.
I have long said I think RFK takes more votes from Biden than he does from Trump.
And most polls have backed that up, and I still stand by that prediction.
This poll contradicts that though, albeit very slightly, and says no, RFK actually takes slightly more votes from Trump.
I don't totally buy that, but could be the case.
The crazier part about it is that RFK Jr.
is at 22%.
So you got Biden at 39%, Trump at 36%, RFK Jr.
at 22%.
22% in that kind of a race, when the other two major party frontrunners are in the 30s and you're in the 20s?
That's crazy!
That's really good.
And then what happens when you add Cornel West into the race?
Again, Quinnipiac is predicting that Biden always wins.
But then it goes down a little bit again.
Biden is up one point.
It's Biden 36, Trump 35, so statistically even.
RFK Jr.
loses a little bit at 19%, and then Cornel West is at 6%.
So, according to this, the combination of Cornel West and RFK Jr.
is better for Trump than just RFK Jr.
himself.
Again, these are pretty slim margins, so forget about that for a second.
How does RFK Jr.
poll at 22%?
Some would say it's because he was right about COVID, or at least he was more right about COVID than Anthony Fauci or Joe Biden, or maybe even Donald Trump for that matter.
Maybe, but I don't think that the RFK Jr.
support is primarily about COVID.
One, because he's polling well among Democrats.
I think he said, what, 20% among Democrats?
But also, if the chief issue in this race were COVID and the handling of COVID, Ron DeSantis would be the Republican nominee, not Donald Trump.
But right now, Trump is destroying DeSantis.
According to this very same poll, Trump is at 64%.
Ron DeSantis is at 15%.
So Trump is at more than 4x what DeSantis is.
And then DeSantis is at roughly 2x what the next highest polling Republican, Nikki Haley, is at, which is 8%.
So you got Trump with a 49 point lead.
Ron DeSantis can claim, maybe it's his greatest achievement, it's certainly up there, that he was the best governor in America on COVID.
And yet he's losing.
So what's the R.F.K.
Jr.
thing about?
I think the R.F.K.
Jr.
22% surge in the polls is about a longing for a bygone era.
I think it's not because R.F.K.
Jr.
is the most normal guy in the world, but his last name's Kennedy.
And he's more moderate, at least on some issues, than Joe Biden.
He's more moderate on immigration.
He's a little more moderate on abortion.
He's a little more moderate on a few issues.
Joe Biden doesn't really believe anything, so to say more moderate or more radical would imply that he has beliefs, and he doesn't.
Joe Biden licks his fingers, figures out which way the wind is blowing, and then goes with that.
And because the Democratic Party is so much more radical now, and because RFK Jr.
I think actually does have some beliefs.
He seems more moderate.
And people just think, ah, back in the 60s and 70s, man, politics was a little more normal.
It was crazy then, too.
You know, we were, like, assassinating presidential candidates, and there was a cultural revolution and bombing federal buildings.
But, you know, though, all in all, it was more normal than it is now.
That's the longing that we're seeing.
And he represents that because of his last name.
And Trump and Biden, for a lot of Americans, represent the modern craziness.
Now, of course, nostalgia is history after a few drinks.
So, as I've just alluded to, the 1960s weren't all that hot.
There were major protests, a ton of what is euphemistically called civil unrest, which just means political violence, the assassination of major political figures.
So, it wasn't all that great.
Age of Aquarius, bunch of weird hippies cropping up, doing drugs, destroying the family, all sorts of stuff.
But people are nostalgic, and so how far can RFK Jr.
ride that nostalgia?
Further and further, depending on how much the political order falls into chaos, which doesn't show any signs of letting up doing that.
Now, speaking of longing, one of the biggest Halloween costumes this year, I am told, I was traveling on Halloween, I was getting updates and I'm told that one of the big Halloween costumes was Travis Kelsey and Taylor Swift.
And in fact, Travis Kelsey was talking about this with his brother, Jason Kelsey.
Apparently they have a podcast because every white man, every white millennial man in the country, if not in the world, has a natural right to a podcast.
I don't know how that came to be, but just looking at the results here, I'm not sure that I know a single white millennial man who does not have at least one podcast.
So, I guess the Kelsey brothers have one, and they were talking about how odd it is that people were dressing up as this previously relatively unknown football player and Taylor Swift.
There were so many people that dressed up.
Travis, and Taylor, and me, and Kylie, and mom.
It was probably the most... It was a Kelsey Halloween.
It was a major amount of Kelsey outfits.
There was a New Heights, there was a Kelsey.
It was pretty creepy watching that many people be us, but it was awesome!
It's kind of cute.
I like it.
I don't know that much about Taylor Swift.
I certainly don't know anything about Travis Kelsey.
It's kind of nice.
I don't mind it.
It seems sort of relatively wholesome.
America seems obsessed with Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift, just as America is obsessed with all of Taylor Swift's boyfriends, which shows a problem for Taylor Swift and her career.
And the problem is this.
Taylor Swift cannot get married and move on with her life without radically changing her career.
People love when Taylor Swift gets a new boyfriend.
But she needs to keep getting a new boyfriend in order to do that.
All of Taylor Swift's songs are just about her ex-boyfriends.
So she needs a steady supply of ex-boyfriends if she's going to have a steady supply of songs, and the songs are popular and they've made her into a billionaire.
But the minute that she gets a serious boyfriend and then gets married and she's off the market, what's she going to write about?
What's she going to sing about?
What are the celebrity tabloid people going to follow?
Where's the surprise?
It's like a sitcom.
This is the problem for sitcoms.
In a sitcom, you've got the two characters who are love interests, and the question is always, will they or won't they?
And then the moment that they get together, the show is terrible.
You want them to get together.
You want to believe that there is true love and marriage and a happy ending, but the problem with a sitcom is it's got to go on.
So it can't be the ending.
And then the minute that you, the viewer, get what you want in a sitcom, the moment that Niles and Daphne Finally get together, the show goes stale because there's nothing left.
There's no more anticipation.
Now it's just a marriage.
People don't want to watch a marriage.
So what is she going to do?
This is a big problem, I think, with our culture.
We don't want to move on.
We want to remain perpetually adolescent for our whole lives.
I think it's a big part of why Taylor Swift's music remains so popular.
I think it's a big part of why the sitcom has been the defining genre of the past 30 years.
I think it's a big reason why people don't get married.
And put marriage aside for a second.
Why they don't grow up.
Why you have people in their 30s and 40s using terms like adulting because they're so proud that they paid a bill for once.
But life is not a sitcom.
Life is a drama.
Life is a drama and you've got to lean in and grow and not be perpetually a child.
Now, one thing that people have done, because they don't want to have babies anymore, they don't want to adopt, if they are not able to conceive on their own, they don't want to do this, they don't want to do that.
So people, they treat dogs as children.
And that's not good.
It's good to treat your dog as a dog.
It's not good to treat your dog as a child.
But when you do treat your dog as a dog, you want to give him the very best food, which is why you've got to check out Rough Greens.
Right now, go to roughgreens.com slash Michael.
My stepbrother has been giving his dog Rough Greens, and his dog is loving it.
Well, the dog isn't loving it because dogs don't have rational souls and they're incapable of love, but I am sure that the dog finds the Rough Greens appetizing, and the Rough Greens are definitely very good for the dog's health.
Naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Dog food may as well be considered dead food because it contains very little nutritional value.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green!
Let Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't even have to go out and buy new dog food.
You can just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every single day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about it, and Dr. Dennis Black right now is so confident that Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering our listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag.
So that your dog can try it.
Get a free Jumpstart Trial Bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to RuffGreens.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, or call 844-RUFF-123.
That is R-U-F-F-Greens.com slash Michael, or you can call 844-RUFF-123.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Bill Burkett, 7166, who says, It's gotten a little hard to watch the show with half of it cut out.
All right, listen, man.
I feel you.
There have been some cuts on the YouTube show.
I mean, I just do my show, is the thing.
Because I'm not going to allow the jerks at Big Tech to censor me from saying what I'm going to say.
They can shut my whole show down.
So we have to clip out the parts that are not allowed on certain platforms.
I think you know which ones I'm talking about.
But the full show is available.
It's available on X, formerly known as Twitter.
It's available on dailywire.com for free, for everybody, with ads.
It's available without ads on dailywire.com for DW Plus members.
It's available on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify.
I don't know what more I can do for you.
Unless you want me to go in and change the largest company in the world, which has a liberal bent.
I don't know, I'm doing my best for you.
But if you want to watch that full show, without ads in the best way possible, Here are all the things that Big Tech doesn't want you to hear.
You've got to go to Daily Wire Plus and become a member.
Speaking of human relationships, Elon Musk has just said that George Soros hates humanity.
Soros, I don't know.
I mean, he had a very difficult upbringing.
And in my opinion, he fundamentally hates humanity.
That's my opinion.
Really?
Yeah.
I mean, well he's doing things that erode the fabric of civilization.
You know, getting DA's elected who refuse to prosecute crime.
That's part of the problem in San Francisco.
And L.A.
and much of other cities.
So why would you do that?
As is often the case, Elon Musk, spot on here.
This is the irony with humanists and humanitarians, is the humanists and the humanitarians, they suggest that they are exalting mankind, that they are perfecting humanity, and all they want is for humanity to live up to its full potential.
And the way they're going to do that is by getting rid of all those stupid things we believed in the past.
We're going to get rid of religion.
That only holds us back and makes us fight each other, and it's not very inclusive, and it's not diverse and equitable or whatever the modern jargon is.
We're going to get rid of all the traditions.
We're going to get rid of all the normal bonds and relationships.
We're not up in the whole world.
We're going to be revolutionary.
But the irony is, That the humanists and the humanitarians end up degrading human beings.
When you have God in your perspective and all the things that go along with God, religion, civilization, inspiration, when you have that Mankind becomes most perfectly himself because man is made in the image and likeness of God.
So when your society is oriented toward God, you become more perfectly who you really are.
When you take God out of the equation and you say, we're going to be humanists.
We're going to only focus on humanity.
We're not going to focus on all those other moral or religious considerations and rights and obligations.
We're just going to focus on human beings.
Humans are the greatest thing of all.
We're going to turn humans into gods.
We're going to write a book like Yuval Harari wrote called Homo Deus.
Ironically, what you do is you degrade humans.
Because you're forgetting what humans are supposed to be.
You're forgetting in whose image the humans are made.
And so you make humans like animals.
You make humans like computers.
We start talking about humans like machines.
Or we start talking about humans as no different from irrational beasts.
We're just flesh.
We're just hormones and synapses and pistons firing.
We pretend that we have rational thought, but we don't really.
We know that that's just an illusion.
You're just a cog.
You're just a machine.
You're like a computer.
We're going to hack you.
You're going to have a hackable... We're going to biohack your body.
And we're going to transform you.
We're going to upgrade the software.
Whatever stupid language they use.
So ultimately they degrade humanity.
This has always been the case.
It's always... Even George Soros, he's a tragic figure to me.
Because the thing I think of first when I think of George Soros is Esperanto.
To me Esperanto explains George Soros.
This is a man Who grew up, his father was one of the leaders of creating Esperanto and promoting it.
This failed universal second language.
It's a language that was just concocted.
It's a contrivance and it was supposed to be the second language for all the people who speak all these different languages.
That's how they would all converse with one another and we'd all come together kumbaya.
And the irony is, there already was a universal second language for thousands of years in the West, and that language is Latin.
And it was precisely at the time that all these new, modern, hip, liberal people said, we've got to get Latin out of life.
Latin's a dead language.
We've got to forget that.
All of a sudden, it was exactly at that time that they said, hey, wait, we need a universal second language.
So they contrived this thing Esperanto, which is just inhuman.
In fact, if you try to teach little kids to speak Esperanto, They will naturally make it more complicated, because life isn't so simple.
And we, human beings, are just not that good at playing God.
We actually can't create the universe better than it was already created.
And George Soros, it was a childhood speaker of Esperanto and he is a big promoter of it.
Just as he's a big promoter of all of these human contrivances to remake the world after our own image.
Not going to work very well.
Very, very degrading.
Speaking of humanitarians, Democrat representative Jason Crow is voting against Republican Speaker Mike Johnson's Israel support bill because it, quote, politicizes Israel.
I'm not going to support this bill.
It's a horrible, horrible bill.
It's horrible for Israel because it actually doesn't have any humanitarian aid funding.
So like I've long said, there's no sole military solution to this.
We have to couple humanitarian aid and protection of civilians with the military response.
And if we don't do that, neither one of those will be a success.
So there has to be humanitarian funding.
But they have politicized this effort to support Israel in a way that is unacceptable.
It sets a precedent that these national security supplementals will be subject to politics in a way that we never have subjected into politics before.
And I'm just not going to stand for it.
I'm going to stand up and say there is a bipartisan way of doing this in a way that we have always done in the past.
And we're not going to allow this to be politicized.
The Republicans have apparently politicized support for Israel.
What does that mean?
What on earth does that mean?
How do you politicize a congressionally ratified military aid package to a foreign government?
Was that, that wasn't political before?
What was it?
That was just kind of cultural, man.
You know, it was just artistic and spiritual.
It was personal.
It wasn't political.
When our duly elected representatives vote to spend taxpayer money on a military aid package to support a foreign nation in a war, That's not political?
Give me a break!
That is one of the phrases that drives me craziest in modern politics, is when people accuse their opponents of politicizing something.
What does that mean?
Political means public.
That's all it means.
If an issue is of public interest, it is by definition a political matter.
This one is just extremely ridiculous because we're talking about international diplomacy and foreign aid.
Well, that was previously.
It was not a political matter.
I guess what he means is they're making it party political.
They're making it partisan.
But Mike Johnson's not making it party political.
He's saying, hey, we're going to vote to give the Israeli government money.
You guys want in?
And a lot of Democrats are saying no right now because it's a wedge issue for the Democrats because the Democrat donors support the state of Israel and the Democrat base hates the state of Israel.
So either way, the Democrat representatives are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
People just decry politicization when they want to delegitimize one's political opponents.
When they say, your opinion is outside the scope of politics.
And of course, they do that often because they can't win a political debate, including in our nation's deliberative body.
You know, my new interview series, Michael &, takes a deep dive into the world of extraordinary people with gripping testimonies, from an exorcist detailing what exorcism is really like, to the January 6th, excuse me, January 6th, the worst day in the history of this or any republic, QAnon Shaman, as he's called, describing his solitary confinement just days after his release.
Each episode reveals something that you may not have considered before.
In this latest installment, I sat down with a former witch who warns that ridding oneself of occult practices might mean the difference between life and death.
Witchcraft in general is control and manipulation.
It's something that you do to get something in return.
Do witches worship the moon?
Especially during Halloween, they believe that it opens up in the spiritual realm.
This was just accepted as commonplace.
What are the nuts and bolts of it like?
A demon came and the main witch, she just got possessed and she started to speak.
Someone in your family is going to die in one week.
My dad committed suicide and he was hanging there.
This episode is now available on The Michael Knowles Show YouTube channel, or you can listen to The Michael Knowles Show podcast.
On your preferred podcast platform.
And now, finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
This mailbag is brought to you by Pure Talk.
Go to puretalk.com slash Knowles today.
I'm going to pull it up here on my travel iPad.
Take it away.
Hey Michael, I'm a long time listener.
I've been listening since my sophomore year of high school.
I'm currently a freshman in college and I have not missed a single episode since I started watching.
Pretty big achievement in my opinion.
So I'm in a little bit of an interesting situation.
Just for preface, I'm a male who has attracted females as well as males too.
And I have a really good friend of mine, best friend I could ever ask for.
We started off kind of just as like normal.
I'll see you later type people.
And then shortly after, um, I didn't, you know, take this the way it was at the time, but developed some, you know, feelings.
And, um, as far as I know, I know pretty well, as far as I know, You know, he's a straight male, very questionable straight male, but, you know.
And it's just rough, you know, like, since we're so close, we basically tell each other everything.
It's just rough hearing him, you know, talk about this particular girl now, who he feels strongly for.
It's just really hard, you know, not being able to, you know, tell him how I feel.
Just really wanted some advice on it.
Thanks.
That's a tough one, pal.
What I would recommend is, don't tell him how you feel.
Because, look, you're obviously struggling with this.
You are attracted to women, but you're also dealing with some feelings of same-sex attraction, and this is complicating your friendship.
It might be the case, I sometimes wonder.
I'm not saying that there's no deeper or more fundamental basis of same-sex attraction, but The fact that it appears to be so widespread now, I do wonder if that is partly due to a confusion over friendship.
Because men are... When men become friends now, it's called gay.
If you have a friendship that's any deeper than, hey, bro, let's go watch some strippers dance on the sidelines at a football game while we eat chicken wings and drink beer, you know, if there's anything deeper going on, then people will mock you and say, what, you talk about your deep thoughts and feelings?
What are you, a fanouk, you know?
Come on, you seem like a gay guy.
And then that's promoted in the culture, too.
So I think there's a real confusion about friendship, and I think friendship is extraordinarily important for men.
One might call it the highest form of relationship.
That's what some of the ancient Greeks did.
They were a little light in the loafers themselves in certain practices.
But I wonder if that's a little bit of the issue here.
It's just the broader confusion about friendship in this day and age.
You mentioned that he's a questionable guy, so maybe you're insinuating that he might have similar feelings that you do, which is that he's attracted to women, but maybe he could Go the other way.
I don't know.
Some people say that bisexuality, so-called, does not exist.
I just don't know.
I mean, you're saying it does exist, so I take your word for it.
And I don't know how that comes about.
Other than that it's, you know, disordered and you seem to have some trepidation even explaining this.
So I would follow your gut there and I would follow traditional teaching and you've got a little bit of an easier time than people who are strictly attracted to people of the same sex.
That's really hard for them because What are you going to do?
You could get married and just sort of, you know, grit your teeth and bear it, close your eyes and think of England.
Or you could be celibate, though perhaps not everyone is called to a vocation like that.
But that's a bit tougher.
Whereas you say, well, I am attracted to women.
I would pursue that then.
I think that's probably the right thing to do.
And if you're going to be married and have a, you know, sexual life, then I think I would If I were you and you say, well, I like women and I like men, well, I'd just as soon go for women then.
And you say, well, I like my buddy.
I really, really like my buddy.
Well, okay, then I would really, really love your buddy as a friend.
I don't know that that would be improved in any way if you told your buddy, you know, you like him as more than a friend.
You know, it's not...
Well, you listen to my show and you are writing in with this question in such a sincere and earnest way that I think, you know, that might be a hard lesson for people who say, but I've got this deeply held desire or something.
You know, this is a fallen world, and so our desires can become disordered.
And in this case, I would use your reason to follow the right way of doing things, and then you can have both.
Then you can have a wife, and you can have your friend.
And you don't need to confuse the two and cross the lines and potentially blow up both possibilities.
Next question.
Hi Michael, this is Kyle.
Big time fan of the show, first time voice mailbag.
Really appreciate you keeping me up to date on the news.
One news story in particular was the one about seed oils.
While I thought I ate clean, I didn't realize how ubiquitous seed oils really were.
I had to even cut out my favorite brand of olives.
That being said, my question to you is what type of political solution is there for seed oils and, you know, broader scale obesity given that, you know, the seed oils have influenced or greatly, like, greatly pushed up obesity rates and that's affected, you know, military recruitment, laziness, etc, etc.
You know, do you ever see, you know, maybe a major politician, say a Ron DeSantis, Vivek, whatever, ever coming out against seed oils or, you know, reforming those industries?
What type of political solutions do you see?
Thanks for all you do.
It's funny you mentioned Vivek, I could see him bringing up seed oils, because he's the more eccentric, edgy candidate in the GOP primary.
So I don't see Trump bringing it up.
I don't, DeSantis is in some ways a little more online and a little edgier than Trump.
But I don't, I think he's still too mainstream and established as a sitting governor to do that.
But I could totally see Vivek bringing up the seed oil thing.
And it's, the seed oil thing is the first big diet fad as an adult.
That I bought into.
I used to be really skeptical of it, and then sweet little Elisa totally seed oil-pilled me, and I buy it.
My sunburns are not as bad anymore, so, you know, there's that.
But the answer is, the answer to the seed oil problem is spend a lot more money on food.
That's it.
That's why.
Seed oils are in everything because they're super cheap, and right now we have very high inflation, and we've got, in particular, inflation among food.
So what's the answer?
If you're doing well, you know, if my blank book sells some extra copies this Christmas, then I have no problem.
Sweet little Elisa can go buy the most expensive seed oil stuff in the world and we'll get fewer sunburns.
But for a lot of people who are hurting in this economy, it's just an issue of money.
So you could try to regulate it.
I suppose I'm not opposed to just and prudent regulation by the proper authorities, you know, most local as can be, if possible.
I'm fine with that.
But it's not really going to solve the problem because the problem is really a financial one.
That's what started the seed oil trend in the first place.
Next question.
Hey Dirty Mike, Mr. Reality here.
I wanted to ask you to elaborate on your thoughts from Tuesday's show regarding Israel bombing part of a church campus.
Not on that specific church, but rather on whether churches in general should be safe havens for terrorists to plan acts of evil.
Throughout Eastern Roman history, tyrants would often try to take refuge in churches to escape justice, only to be dragged out to face that justice.
In the modern era, terrorists used churches and other religious buildings, as well as hospitals, schools, and so on, as places to conduct evil in relative safety.
There seemed to be three options for a nation being victimized by these evildoers.
One, ignore them and let them carry out their evil.
Two, sacrifice the lives of the people.
That a victimized nation should sacrifice its own blood to avoid damaging churches?
Or do you have a different perspective I haven't suggested?
I agree that it is sad when historical artifacts, especially churches, are destroyed in war, but it seems wrong to suggest a nation victimized by terrorists should sacrifice more of its citizens' lives to avoid damaging buildings that the terrorists are profaning.
Do you think churches should be off-limits, that a victimized nation should sacrifice its own blood to avoid damaging churches, or do you have a different perspective I haven't suggested?
Thanks.
The issue with the church in St. Francis, Porphyrios is not as you describe it.
I guess this is why I would call out that particular bombing.
No one is alleging that St.
Porphyrios Church in Gaza was housing Islamic militants or that Hamas had built tunnels underneath this church.
In fact, the Israeli airstrike was apparently, or I guess, I think that was, yes, that was an Israeli airstrike.
It's sometimes confusing because sometimes the airstrikes or the rockets or the bombs come from the Palestinian side, and then they blame Israel, and Israel blames the Palestinians, and then you find out later in the fog of war what really happened.
But in that case, it looked like it was the state of Israel sent a missile next to the church.
Because near the church, that's where the terrorists were hiding, and it destroyed part of the church because of that.
And so I don't begrudge the state of Israel for defending itself and killing terrorists and obliterating Hamas.
Obviously not.
But in that particular case, it's a real shame, because the church was built by crusaders in the 11th or 12th century, and parts of it date back all the way to antiquity.
So that's just a real loss for part of the church to be destroyed.
And I'm not suggesting that we need to make idols out of historical buildings, especially churches, but we can be a little careful.
You know, even at the height of the Second World War, the Nazis, the Axis and the Allies decided not to destroy Paris.
They could have destroyed Paris, but they didn't destroy Paris.
That was good.
And so I just think that there are rules to war, and there are special considerations to be made in war, and war is a bloody killing thing, to quote General Patton.
There's no way of getting out of it in a really nice way, but combatants can observe certain niceties and accommodations for how to keep living and how to maintain culture after the war.
So that was an issue there.
I don't think the State of Israel intentionally tried to blow up a church or anything like that, but one can go in and obliterate and kill the enemy while having some constraint in cultural consideration.
And at the height of that, one should have consideration for churches.
All right, next question.
Hey Michael, a really big fan here.
I have a quick question for you.
You're always posting videos on YouTube reacting to fat phobic or tiktokers complaining about fat phobia and you encourage physical fitness and stuff like that.
Two part question.
One, do you work out?
And second, if the answer is no, when are you going to start slamming some protein and lifting some heavy circles?
Thanks.
Yeah, that voice sounds strikingly familiar to me.
Sounds a lot like the voice of one... Professor Jacob!
Hmm?
Little Professor Jacob over there thinks just because he's lifted a few weights he's Mr. Beefcake, gets to push us all around, huh?
Gets to bully us and tell us to go hit the gym, huh?
