A reportedly trans-identifying man shoots up a school, Trump appeals his removal from the ballot to the Supreme Court, and a liberal politician refuses to pledge an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1398
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the NEW series End of the World: https://bit.ly/485EYqm
Unlock your Bentkey 14 day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Genucel - Limited Inventory Available! https://genucel.com/Knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Yesterday, a high school student shot up a school in Iowa, killing a little child, a sixth grade student, and injuring five other innocent people, after which the shooter killed himself.
According to news reports, the shooter left a final social media post of a duffel bag, hinting at his crime.
His TikTok page, which has since been wiped, featured an anime girl as his avatar and a bio highlighting the LGBT pride flag.
Another account reportedly linked with the shooter featured transgender pronouns and a Reddit account reportedly belonging to the shooter interacted with transgender pages, which is why you can expect to hear nothing more about this story.
When a politically convenient villain commits such a crime, a straight white male, say, or a Christian, the shooting is blamed on the shooter's race, or sexual desires, or religion.
When the shooter's identity is ambiguous or politically neutral, the crime is blamed on guns.
But when the shooter's identity is politically inconvenient, When the shooter calls himself LGBT, and especially when the shooter identifies as trans, the media cover it up.
It's been 284 days since a trans-identifying criminal shot up a Nashville elementary school.
Still, the political authorities refuse to release any relevant information as to the motive.
The only hope of stopping these sorts of crimes is to tell the truth about what motivates them.
Lies and delusion endanger citizens, including the most innocent among us.
But telling the truth endangers the politically convenient narrative.
Guess which one our political and journalistic leaders are going to choose to protect.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Shia LaBeouf is now a Catholic.
He was just received into the church.
There's a little bit of good news.
Turning back to government corruption for a moment, though, you know that Colorado has kicked Trump off the ballot there.
That was a court in Colorado that did it.
The state of Maine also kicked Trump off of the ballot.
That was just a Democrat Secretary of State who did that.
Now Trump is appealing the Colorado decision.
Presumably this will have some effect for all of the blue states that want to kick him off the ballot.
He's appealing that all the way up to the Supreme Court.
He filed an appeal yesterday, or rather on Wednesday, to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision.
The appeal says the question of eligibility to serve as president of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide.
By considering the question of President Trump's eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress's authority.
That's true.
If this provision of the 14th Amendment is to be considered really at all, it would be considered and interpreted by Congress, not by some court 150 years later because they don't like the mean orange man.
What do we do about this?
Obviously, the decision to kick Trump off the ballot is completely indefensible, but the Supreme Court— Follows public opinion polls sometimes.
The Supreme Court reads the newspapers, too.
So I don't know that we could count on a Justice Gorsuch or Justice Kavanaugh, certainly not a Justice Roberts, to do the right thing here.
I don't know.
I hope we can count on them to do the right thing.
I just don't know.
So what can we do to increase the odds that Democrat operatives are not able to bar the most popular presidential candidate in the country from the ballot in the defense of democracy to prohibit the people from voting for the popular candidate?
What can we do?
I've got an idea.
And this idea is not actually my idea.
This is Jeremy's idea.
But because someday I would be really tickled if I became the president of Harvard, I'm just going to claim this as my own idea.
And we can leave it at that.
Even though Jeremy came up with it a couple nights ago and I thought it was pretty smart.
A red state governor needs to have a red state Secretary of State kick Biden off the ballot.
I guess we could just skip the first step, go right to the Red State Secretaries of State.
But the governors tend to have a little bit more political influence and a little more interest in the presidency.
So however it gets done, I don't really care.
But we need a Red State Secretary of State to kick Biden off the ballot now.
And they can come up with some explanation.
It will probably be a more credible explanation than the one that the Democrats have come up with for kicking Donald Trump off the ballot.
And then you give the Supreme Court the freedom to say, no, no, you guys can't be kicking any presidential candidates off the ballot.
We're going to let the people decide.
But you've got to give the Supreme Court some room, some some grace, some Plausible justification that will appease half of our country, which has completely lost its mind, as to why they're going to let Donald Trump remain on the ballot.
If the Supreme Court can look as though it is being neutral on partisanship here and is just defending democracy, it's going to be a lot easier for five or six justices, or more, to say, no, actually, Donald Trump gets to remain on the ballot.
And the way to do that is to use the left's tactics against them.
What they've done in Colorado is ridiculous.
What they've done in Maine is even more ridiculous.
Yeah, I agree, but in war and in politics, your opponent has a say as to how things go, and the libs are really going there.
The libs are really trying to prohibit the most popular presidential candidate in the country from appearing on the ballot.
So we've got to respond in kind, not in a way that's immoral, not in a way that's unjust.
We've got to respond in a way that will One, be justifiable in and of itself, and I think as a political operation this is, and then two, give the Supreme Court the opportunity to make a ruling that is just, that is within the American legal tradition, and that actually does defend democracy.
That's how you're going to do it.
You want to keep Trump on the ballot?
Some red state secretary of state needs to grow some gullions and kick Joe Biden off the ballot.
It would be very easy to do that.
There are so many crimes, there's so much evidence of corruption.
You could even forget about Joe Biden for a second.
I responded to Jeremy when he presented this idea that I'm now going to claim as my own because I want to be the president of Harvard.
I responded to Jeremy, I said, no one claims that Joe Biden led an insurrection.
He said, yeah, okay, then forget about Joe Biden, make it Kamala Harris.
Certainly we can say Kamala Harris led an insurrection.
She personally fundraised for rioters and criminals who were insurrecting against cities around the country during the George Floyd riots.
There you go.
She was raising money, she herself, on her Twitter account, said, give us money to bail out the criminals, to bail out the rioters, the people who were sowing civil discord, the people who were, you might say, engaging in an insurrection.
So okay, make it Kamala Harris, and then Kamala can't appear on the ticket, and you don't even need to go after Joe Biden.
But however you're gonna do it, give the Supreme Court the opportunity to say, This isn't about partisanship.
This isn't about Donald Trump.
It's about all political candidates of all political parties.
You don't get to just be some two-bit political hack in some random state and kick the candidate you don't like, the opposition party nominee, off the ballot.
Because that's not a good look.
When you want to look good, you've got to check out GenuCell.
Right now, go to GenuCell.com slash Knowles.
Let's make a resolution that's easy to keep and delivers immediately on its promise.
With GenuCell skincare, you can turn back the clock and look 5, 10, or even 15 years younger.
Right now!
Janusel Skin Care is celebrating 2024 with its New Year's Sales event.
You'll save over 70% off all your Janusel must-haves in their most popular package.
Say goodbye to those fine lines, forehead wrinkles, sagging jawline, dark marks, skin redness, even under eye bags.
Leave them in 2023.
GenuCell works for women and men.
It's safe for all skin types.
It is perfect for skin of any age.
Plus, with its immediate effects, GenuCell promises results that will make you smile, guaranteed, or 100% of your money back.
Right now, for a limited time, GenuCell's top-selling Hyaluronic Acid Serum is included free in every most popular package.
The girls at this office are obsessed With the hyaluronic acid.
All you hear walking around, hyaluronic acid this and hyaluronic acid that.
They can't get enough of it.
It's great.
It's a wonderful company.
They use the absolute best ingredients out there.
The founder is a Coptic Christian from Egypt who came here for the American dream.
Enjoy maximum skin hydration for a more youthful look.
Genucel.com slash NOLS.
Enter code NOLS at checkout for extra savings.
Every order automatically upgraded to free shipping.
Don't wait.
Genucel.com slash NOLS.
Speaking of the radical left, there is a leftist politician in Boston, a new Boston city councilor.
This woman is an immigrant and she has become a Boston city councilor.
Well, she was about to be sworn into office.
She and her fellow politicians were being sworn into office, but she refused to raise her hand or take the oath.
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as a member of the Boston City Council.
- Incoming on me. - Incoming on me.
- As a member of the Boston City Council.
- As a member of the Boston City Council.
- Looking down.
- According to the best of my ability and understanding. - According to the best of my ability and understanding.
and understanding, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Constitution and the laws of this common law.
So help me God.
Yeah, can't do that.
She can't do that, can she?
Because she doesn't support the political order of Boston or Massachusetts.
She's not going to do that.
She doesn't support the Constitution.
I'm not convinced she supports God.
She's not going to do any of that.
She wants to be on the Boston City Council, but she doesn't want to take the oath to uphold the very basic requirements of the job.
So she should obviously be thrown out of office.
As far as I'm concerned, she should be deported.
She doesn't like this country.
She won't uphold the absolute most basic principles of this country.
Why do we want her?
Why do we want her here?
What good is she for America?
If you come to America, and we take you in, and then you say, yeah, I won't even say that I will support the Constitution, then go away.
We don't want you here.
That should be, I think, the minimum threshold.
There should be many more requirements.
We have a country that is teeming with a non-native-born population, and that creates all sorts of social problems, because you need to assimilate if you want to have a country.
So, there are so many more layers of requirements that we should have for immigration, but I think the basic one is, hey, you like the country, you'll support the Constitution, oh no, you won't?
Okay, buh-bye, see ya, see ya later.
Her name is Tanya Fernandez-Anderson, and She's got a track record of radicalism.
She's offered resolutions in the past for September 23rd to be Boston's Hijab Day.
Which, by the way, this is going to be an unpopular take.
I'm not totally opposed to.
I guess I'm opposed to that day for Boston, because Boston is not a Muslim city and America's not a Muslim country.
But I actually don't hate the hijab.
I actually think hijabs can be kind of pretty.
It's sort of a very traditional piece of headwear.
We've had all sorts of similar pieces of headwear in the West for a long time.
It's very modest.
It's not a full burqa, okay?
Not even a niqab.
It's just a nice little headscarf.
I have no problem with it.
I don't think we need hijab day in Boston, but okay.
Actually, that's probably the best thing this woman's ever done in politics.
No, it's like a further eastern Mantilla.
That's okay.
She has called on Boston to apologize for the Atlantic slave trade.
Boston had very little to do with the Atlantic slave trade compared to other parts of the Western Hemisphere.
Had basically nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.
And by the way, slavery has existed everywhere on Earth for all of human history.
What distinguishes the West from the rest of the world is that we actually ended slavery.
Slavery still exists in a large part of the world today.
The place it is least likely to be found is in the West, so that's obviously ridiculous.
This woman has a history of anti-white tweets.
She doesn't like white people.
She doesn't like white people holding government positions, so that's no good.
Oh, she married a murderer.
She married a convicted murderer while he was in prison for life.
This is crazy.
This is just according to news reports.
It's hard to believe all this stuff.
She referred to the October 7th pogrom by Hamas onto the State of Israel as simply a military operation.
Which, if it was anything, it was not simply a military operation because it targeted civilians, so it was a terrorist attack.
There are military operations that are just, there are military operations that are unjust, but something that would distinguish a mere military operation from a terrorist attack would be the targeting of civilians, which Hamas obviously engaged in.
So anyway, the woman seems like a complete nut, and a just society would not only remove her from the city council, but would deport her.
Okay, we have a major, major immigration crisis.
I like all sorts of immigrants.
A lot of us descend, at least in some part of our family, from immigrants, so I'm not saying I'm totally anti-immigrant, but immigration always, we see this in political philosophy and history going back to antiquity, all the way consistently through up to the present day, immigration creates many, many political problems.
And so while we will tolerate and sometimes even encourage some degree of immigration, we've got to be very, very careful about it.
And people who come to your country and say, and demonstrate quite clearly that they hate everything about your country, they gotta go.
They gotta go, man.
Now, we're not bringing the best, we're not hiring the best, and speaking of not hiring the best, DEI is facing a major credibility crisis.
Brought on largely by this Harvard president debacle because the Harvard president, the former Harvard president, was a big promoter of DEI.
She herself is a DEI or proto-DEI kind of hire.
She had a ridiculously pathetic academic record.
She had 11 scholarly publications.
She seemed to have copied a lot of it.
But even if she hadn't plagiarized much of her publication history, to have 11 publications By the time you reach the pinnacle of academia is very sad.
You should have 11 academic publications when you're in graduate school, okay?
Forget about throughout your faculty career and then becoming the president of Harvard.
It's pathetic.
We all know that this woman got her job because she ticked all the politically correct boxes and that's why it was difficult to fire her.
Until it wasn't.
Until finally she was out.
So a big DEI debate has erupted.
And Mark Cuban, who is the liberal owner of the Dallas Mavericks, he comes out and he defends DEI.
So J.D.
Vance, the conservative senator from Ohio, he says, hey Mark, did the Dallas Mavericks reflect the demographics of America as a whole?
This is one of the lines from the DEI people, including Mark Cuban.
We need to have racial quotas in our companies, in our schools, in our organizations, because we need these organizations to reflect the diversity of America.
And by diversity, we mean certain racial and sexual criteria.
Now, it turns out the Dallas Mavericks do not reflect the racial demographics of America.
They don't reflect all sorts of demographics of America.
So, Cuban response to him.
And he doesn't actually respond to the point.
He doesn't acknowledge the point, he just goes on a tirade.
But the tirade, I think, undermines the whole DEI movement.
Mark Cuban says, if you were trying to make a stupid comment, you nailed it.
First, as an organization as a whole, yes we do.
What does that mean?
The executives are white, but the players are black?
Is that what he's saying?
I don't know that that reflects very well on him either.
He says, yes, we do.
More importantly, though, if you understand the value of DEI, it's not in checklists and quotas.
It's in understanding how to best compete as a company.
We hire the people who put us in the best position to succeed.
Now, we all know that that isn't true.
Mark Cuban, I think, knows that that isn't true.
I think he's got to be lying here.
It's the most charitable read I can have here, is that he's lying.
He couldn't possibly be this stupid.
If it were the case that DEI policies make companies more competitive, Then why do the big activist investor funds and the government regulators have to mandate the DEI policies?
Why do they have to ram them down the company's throats?
Why do they have to threaten the companies if the companies don't comply with DEI?
Why do the activist investor funds have to say, we're going to pull our money out of your company, we're going to tank your stock price if you don't comply with DEI, if DEI is so good for the company?
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
If DEI policies just naturally made a company better, the companies would eagerly adopt them.
It's the same error that you see when feminist activists say that women make 75 cents on the dollar, that men do.
And we just know that isn't true.
That might literally be true in that women Leave the workforce to become mothers, in that women are less aggressive about negotiating raises, in that women work shorter hours as a whole.
And that's true.
Men and women are different.
They behave differently.
So maybe, ultimately, they get paid differently.
But the feminists claim that women make 75 cents on the dollar for doing the exact same work as men.
That's obviously ridiculous.
If that were the case, companies would only hire women.
You think companies hate women or something?
You think you tell a Fortune 500 company, hey, you can save 25% of your labor costs if you hire women.
But Rich Uncle Pennybags in the C-suite says, no, I hate those women.
You kidding me?
I'm not letting some skirt in here.
No way.
I don't pay.
I don't care if we have to pay 200% more for our labor costs.
I just hate those bras, those ladies.
I don't think so.
I think they would hire the women in two seconds.
But it's just not true.
And the DEI thing is not true.
And it's very clear, DEI is being exposed here.
DEI policies prioritize leftist social engineering over competitiveness, over productivity, and over, this is the important part, over fairness.
We all know that this is so deeply unfair.
Most people have been raised to believe that racial discrimination, that being He told you, you can't do something, you can't get a job, you can't go to a certain school because of the color of your skin, that that is unfair and ugly and not nice.
And what DEI does is exactly that.
It says, oh yeah, you're a little too pale.
Sorry, no job.
Sorry, no admission to schools.
Yeah, oh no, you're a little too straight.
If you gay yourself up a little bit, then maybe we'll consider you, but no, you straight guy.
Oh no, you're a Christian?
Nah, not gonna work, sorry.
We all know that's unfair.
And so the best defenses they have are the bloviations of a guy like Mark Cuban, which is not very persuasive.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Eric K. He says, I hate how right you are about the Epstein prediction.
I know.
There was a moment.
When I made my predictions for the new year, Noel Stradamus took out his crystal ball.
I made my predictions.
And then, truly within 24 hours, I said, we're not going to get any significant new information on Epstein.
We're not going to really see the client list.
24 hours later, the headlines, we're going to see the client list.
We're going to get the documents.
I said, oh darn, maybe I was wrong.
Nah, I'm not wrong.
This is a total fake out.
This is a total psy-op.
And then, sorry to tell you, I was totally right.
Speaking of hiring people on criteria other than merit, there's a woman who works for MSNBC.
She's an anchor there.
Perhaps a perfectly nice woman.
I have nothing against her, but she was just put in a very bad position.
Her name is Alicia Menendez, and she was conducting an interview on MSNBC.
But she had to stop because there was breaking news and it was breaking news that she could not really break herself.
It was already awkward enough as it is.
She had to hand off the news cast to one of her colleagues because the breaking news was that her father is being brought up on even more corruption charges.
Thank you so much for your expertise and for spending some time with us.
We're going to take a quick break and we're back with some breaking news right after this.
Hello, I'm Ari Melber with some breaking legal news.
New Jersey United States Senator Robert Menendez now facing new allegations in a second superseding indictment that was filed by a federal grand jury from his DOJ prosecution.
Pretty awkward.
Pretty awkward and it's not the first time that we've seen this.
Do you remember during COVID?
You had Chris Cuomo, the Fredo of the Cuomo family.
He was on CNN.
He was a journalist, a neutral, serious news anchor.
And you had his brother, Andy Cuomo, who was the governor of New York.
Who had a pretty good PR team, at least at first, and everyone said that he was doing the greatest job.
Even though people kept dying in New York at really high rates, somehow everyone said, oh, Cuomo, he's doing the best.
Oh, I'm so attracted to what Cuomo's doing here.
There was a video that went viral.
A girl said, I'm a Cuomo sexual.
That's how beautiful and attractive what he's doing is.
And then it turned out he was cooking the books.
He was killing senior citizens in nursing homes.
He just completely blew it.
And ultimately, they threw him out of office.
But at the time, it was awkward for Fredo Cuomo on CNN because he would interview his brother and give him these puff piece interviews.
Oh, you're doing a great job, brother.
Don't forget to call mom.
Anyway, you're doing amazing, bro.
Oh, yeah.
Backslap, backslap.
And then the news comes out that it was all a big lie.
And Chris is stuck on air.
He's, uh, all right, we got to go.
We're going to cut to someone else now because he can't cover his brother critically.
Just like Alicia Menendez, you can't expect her to cover her father's newest corruption allegations.
But the reason this is a problem for people like CNN and MSNBC is because of the incestuous political environment where the journalists, the so-called fourth estate, and the politician class, and the lobbyists, they're all related.
Sometimes they're literally in bed together, because they're sleeping with each other.
Sometimes they're under the same roof, because they're brothers or sisters or fathers or sons or married or whatever.
But they're all just related.
The Democrats have a very incestuous political apparatus.
The Republicans really don't.
But it really knocks their credibility.
Because while CNN and MSNBC claim to be the intrepid journalists doing a dangerous job speaking truth to power, they can't do that.
They can't even speak truth to their brother.
They can't even speak truth to their father.
Then how did they get their jobs?
Chris Cuomo, he's a somewhat articulate, decent enough looking guy, and I guess he could be on TV.
But did he get his job because he's the greatest TV presenter ever, or did he get his job because he's a Cuomo, and his dad was the governor of New York, and then his brother became the governor of New York, and he's a very prominent Democrat?
How did it happen?
The Menendez family, there are many other political families where the big star is a politician, and then a lot of the rest of the family goes into journalism.
How much can we trust that journalism?
Not very much, I think.
Speaking of the Democrats' political apparatus, Democrats are facing Major crisis of popularity.
A lot of it driven by immigration.
Immigration, we're not really allowed to say it, but immigration is the issue.
It is the issue that is motivating major populist uprisings, not just in America, but throughout the West.
It motivated the Brexit.
It has fueled Viktor Orban's prime ministership in Hungary.
It fueled Giorgio Meloni's election in Italy.
It's fueled Donald Trump's election.
Don't forget, his big issue, and we're going to build the wall.
Mexicans are rapists and murderers and some, I assume, are good people.
It's a big issue.
And you just look at the numbers now.
If you look on any chart of U.S.
border encounters, illegal immigration was pretty high under Obama, and then it dropped for a little bit under Trump, and it spiked up again because the libs wouldn't let Trump enforce border policies.
It kind of went down, though.
It was roughly on par with Obama's.
And then under Biden, it just shoots through the roof.
It doubles.
The only explanation for that is that the Biden administration is encouraging mass migration.
And we know that.
I mean, Joe Biden said, come, please, surge, come, come to the border.
We're not going to enforce the Trump policies anymore.
We're not going to build it.
We're going to dismantle this wall, actually.
And now he's had to kind of try to reverse course and say, well, maybe we'll build part of the wall.
But they have no idea what they want to do.
The message is totally contradictory.
And then we hear the real story from the DHS secretary, Alejandra Mayorkas, who says, That they're not going to implement policies that discourage immigration.
We need additional asylum officers to really accelerate the asylum adjudication process so people are not waiting six years before they receive their results, which is, in effect, a pull factor.
The fact that people can stay here for six years before their asylum case is adjudicated is a powerful example of how broken our immigration system is and has been for so long.
We are focused on the fundamental solution.
to a long existing problem and that fundamental solution is legislation.
We have taken actions already to build lawful pathways to deliver consequences and do what we can.
We've promulgated regulations to do what we can within the confines of the law, but fundamentally the laws themselves must change and this is something about which everyone agrees and that is quite rare when one is speaking about immigration.
Hey, did you hear anything practical in that rambling nothingness?
I can't.
I didn't.
You know what I heard from Alejandro Mayorkas?
Alejandro Mayorkas was asked, will you re-implement the Remain in Mexico policy?
It was a policy that Trump re-instituted, which said, hey, If you say that you're fleeing Guatemala or Honduras or Nicaragua or wherever because of political persecution, then all right, you got to stop in countries where you're free from political persecution.
You don't need to go through 10 different countries.
Unless you're an economic migrant, you want to come to the U.S.
to make a buck, which is obviously what a lot of this is about.
But if it's about fleeing persecution, if it's about fleeing disease or whatever it is, then okay.
Stay in Mexico.
The very latest.
Remain there.
And Mayorca says, no, we're not going to do that.
Because they want to flood the country with migrants, because they think it gives them a political advantage, and in fact it does.
Now before we get to my favorite time of the week, the mailbag, a little bit of happy news.
Speaking of bringing people in, which is that Shia LaBeouf.
Shia LaBeouf is now a Catholic.
He was received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Barron, who was on this show a couple of weeks ago.
And this is really great news.
We'd heard while Shia was making this movie about Padre Pio.
That he was interested in converting to Catholicism.
He said that the traditional Latin Mass is what really attracted him.
That's true of so many young people and young converts.
They're not attracted by the Church trying to wed herself to the Spirit of the Age, which leaves... When you wed yourself to the Spirit of the Age, you become a widow in the next age.
Isaiah was attracted to the Mass of the Ages, the enduring Mass that formed the vast majority of saints throughout history, and now he's been received into the Church, and that's really great news.
And the reason I mention it?
It's not just because I think it's good for Shia, or because I'm on mackerel snapping papers myself, but because it's a reminder that the worst times are often the best times.
We're living through very, very difficult times for the country, for our culture, in the church.
There's a crisis in the church going on right now.
And yet, think about this in your own life.
The worst times, the most stressful times, the most difficult times, you look back on them often.
You say, well, those were the best times.
Why?
Because they can either destroy you, I guess that's not good, or if you survive them, those are often the most edifying times.
Those are often the most sanctifying times.
Those are the decisive moments.
And, you know, we believe in providence.
You're here for a reason.
It's a great honor to be placed in the world at a difficult and challenging time, and so that's good.
It might be the worst time, but the worst times are often the best times.
Okay.
It's no question that we are living in a clown world.
Basic notions of right, wrong, justice, truth, even reality itself have been thrown out the window.
How are we to make sense of all of this?
Well, join my friend Jonathan Pageau in the new four-part series, End of the World, as he explains why the world as we know it is ending, how to survive it, how we can plant the seeds for the next world today.
Jonathan Pageau is an iconographer, a public speaker, a YouTuber, a very close friend of Jordan Peterson, You might remember Peugeot from his illuminating comments in Jordan's series on Exodus.
Now he's back and will draw upon his deep knowledge of Christian tradition, stories, mythology, and history to explain the contradictions in our society, wacky phenomena, and how this pattern will reach its conclusion.
In End of the World, you'll receive a thoughtful framework to make sense of these confusing times and a roadmap to lead us out of the clown world and restore order.
All episodes are available now exclusively on Daily Wire.
Plus, if you haven't become a member, this is the perfect time.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe, unmask the carnies, See Beyond the End.
Watch End of the World today.
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 sponsored by Pure Talk.
Go to puretalk.com slash knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S, today.
Take it away.
My best friend has a doctorate in English and spent much of his education studying feminism and gender theory, so he maintains that gender is a purely social construct that is in no way informed by biological sex.
I attempted to argue the idea that a majority of men or women would inform the idea of the genders at a base level, and he denied that, stating that there is no individual aspect of either masculinity or femininity that holds up under concentrated scrutiny.
For example, women are more likely to desire to be the primary child care provider is not something he'd agree with, because he'd say that there's no objective way to prove that this is true from a biological standpoint as opposed to cultural influence.
Just because a majority conforms to those characteristics or believes they exist doesn't mean that they are rooted in reality.
He points to supposedly gender-based concepts throughout history that have been proven false, like the belief that women are less intelligent than men, as evidence that my argumentation methodology is flawed, and that because it's based in the concept of the majority, it doesn't hold up to his counterarguments.
I know that he would welcome a compelling and intellectually sound rebuttal.
Your friend seems rather confused.
He says that you can't prove that women are more likely to desire a certain thing, but of course you can prove that.
You would just take a public opinion poll.
Hey, women, are you more likely than men to desire to be mothers?
Obviously, the vast majority of women would say yes.
So that proves it.
He says, well, there's no scientific way to prove it.
What are you talking about?
What's the scientific way to prove desire?
You ask somebody, and they describe their will and their desire to you, and then you have your answer.
Well, okay, but they shouldn't desire that.
That's the next question, right?
Well, there's nothing natural about that desire.
Well, I don't know.
Most women, for all of history, have desired that.
So, is there not something natural about that?
More to the point, is there not something natural about culture?
Are these things totally divorced, one from the other?
Your friend brings up this argument, he says, for a lot of history, people thought women were stupider than men.
Women are different from men.
Women's brains work differently from men.
Women reason in a different way than men do.
Larry Summers got fired from Harvard, another president of Harvard who got fired.
He was pushed out of the Harvard presidency for making this point in 2006.
He just pointed at a chart and said that the IQ bell curve for men and women are different.
And for men it's just, it's wider.
So, he said, at the absolute highest levels of intelligence, levels much higher than the IQs of me or anyone else that we're talking about today, the very, very highest IQ people on earth, almost certainly to be men.
And the dumbest people on earth, almost certainly to be men.
Because the bell curve is just wider.
And some evidence for this would be that no woman had ever won the Fields Prize, the Fields Medal, which is the highest award in mathematics.
Until this became a big controversy, and then something like ten years after that, a woman finally won the Fields Medal.
But that would be it, because women have won all sorts of prizes and done all sorts of great scholarly work.
I'm not denying any of that, but at the very, very, very highest outlier peak, there are some differences.
Yeah.
It's politically incorrect to say, but, you know, if your buddy's so obsessed with science, you know, I suppose one would want to follow the science.
Though when you do follow the science, then you get fired from Harvard, if you're Larry Summers.
Other people get fired from Harvard for other reasons.
I guess what I would ask your friend is, where does culture come from?
Where does society come from?
Why do we do the things that we do that are socially constructed?
Do those social constructions have any basis in reality, in physical reality even?
Do physical things imply metaphysical things?
Is this Leftist Tears Tumblr, can we deduce from the physical characteristics of the Leftist Tears Tumblr that it is good for certain things and bad for other things?
That it's better for some things than for other things?
Can we deduce just looking at the Tumblr that the Tumblr is better for bringing Leftist Tears into my mouth than it is for playing guitar?
We can do that.
Okay.
Can we not say the same thing about people and our roles in society?
I think we probably can.
Next one.
Good morning, Michael.
This is Arun.
A year ago, you gave an epically triggering and based speech entitled, Science is Fake, in which you made a distinction between reality and what we think of as objective physical truth.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I was bothered by the potential loss of objective truth.
Your colleague, Dr. Spencer Clavin, recently cited a passage from Einstein's book on the theory of relativity, which may help explain your view.
Einstein states that in Newtonian physics, and even the special theory of relativity, so, you know, relativity with no gravity, any point in the universe can be uniquely defined by its coordinates, so three spatial and one temporal.
But, in the general theory of relativity, this no longer holds, because any matter distribution that is present will create a gravitational field that warps the coordinate system itself.
Einstein states that the unique definition of a point can thus no longer be defined solely by its coordinates, but by its encounters with other points, with other matter.
What I think he means here is that while the objective truth of a point's coordinates can be faked, simply by doing a coordinate transformation, I suppose, It's interactions with other matter cannot be.
So we cannot say whether the Earth or the Sun is the center of any defined coordinate system, but we can say that the Earth and Sun are definitely orbiting each other around some common barycenter.
Would you say that this is the equivalent of defining reality in terms of objective reality coupled with the subjective reality of our experience with it?
And does that better comport with your understanding of truth?
Thank you, as always, for your insight.
It's a very astute and erudite way to put it, Arun, as always.
And yes, that's quite good.
The way I put it, because I don't have all that good science jargon, would be a phrase like Owen Barfield's Saving the appearances, or Pierre Duhem's keeping the phenomena, I forget which way, but they're saying much the same thing.
And that's what you're describing as well.
Very good.
As always, very good.
Next one.
Michael, in episode 1187, you talked about who Democrats could field that could beat Trump, whether it was only Biden who could do so, or somebody else.
Actually, nobody really cares who Democrats put up for their nominee.
We know Biden didn't beat Trump first time.
Trump won by over 15 million votes, but their mail ballot fraud machine made up 20 million votes.
Biden is just a puppet for Democrats' Marxist shadow government.
Their mail ballot fraud has enabled them to win the last three years, as well as squashing Republican hopes by falsely blaming Trump policies that 80% of the country wants brought back.
If Republicans don't do something to stop them from cheating, then even Trump can't win in 2024.
They could nominate a cockroach and win, unless their ballot fraud machine is dismantled.
I agree in principle.
I don't know about the numbers and the extent and, you know, I actually don't think they need to generate all those millions of fake ballots or, you know, do anything in some shadowy bunker all throughout the country.
I think really elections come down to like three places in the country and tens of thousands of votes, hundreds of thousands at the most could swing elections.
I agree that there was obviously rigging, and I think there's solid evidence of fraud in crucial places.
There's no question about any of that.
So, where does that leave us for 2024?
I don't think that they could run, you know, a snail.
I don't think they could put a literal corpse up there and win.
I mean, I do think either the rules have to be so thrown up in the air, or elections have to be somewhat close.
in order for fraud, really, to make a difference.
Now, they haven't done COVID again.
They've tried to do COVID again, and people haven't really gone for it.
But they did try to push, okay, we're going to mask a little more and social distance a little more.
And they obviously wanted to push the widespread mail-ins.
It didn't really take...
It would be very difficult for them to say, oh, Joe Biden wins by 50 gazillion votes at a time when all the public opinion polls reflect that he's the least popular president ever by a long shot.
So, I agree.
The ballot fraud is a major issue.
Some of that's been tightened up, and barring another pandemic, perhaps that'll be enough to make it through.
Next one.
Hey Dirty Mike, Mr. Reality here.
I wanted to talk to you about something you said on Monday about January 6, 2020, running on that sort of issue, how you can't really move on and the only way to get past it is through.
My question is, for Trump or DeSantis or Haley, ugh, whoever ends up winning the nomination, couldn't they just not talk about January 6 with the running, since it's proven Uh, pretty much that people in the middle, moderates, independents, nobody wants to talk about that anymore.
They want to be done.
They want to move on.
It seems like constantly harping on 2020 is going to cost whoever is on our side the election.
So why don't they just not talk about it and then do something about it when they're actually in office?
So, I don't think anybody's going to actually stop the election from being rigged.
Trump doesn't seem to be doing anything about it.
DeSantis has said he would use leftist tactics against them like ballot harvesting and stuff where it's legal.
But regardless, wouldn't it be better to not talk about something that will cost you an election and just do something about it once you're elected?
Thanks.
It would be, we just don't have that opportunity because they're prosecuting the president for January 6th.
So, you know, it will be in the news.
It will be an issue.
It will be a major issue.
And so the way to respond, I guess it's one of two ways.
Trump can say, look, Look, I want to move on.
I just want to talk about taxes, okay?
I don't want to talk about 2020.
That's behind us.
Kumbaya.
Or he can say, they rigged it and they're trying to throw me in the can because they're the most corrupt people ever.
And I think not only is he certainly going to say the latter response, but he kind of has to.
The prosecutions are an issue, and they're all around January 6th.
And I don't think it necessarily will cost us the election.
There's a poll that just came out, I forget which outlet put it out, which showed that among all three political groups, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Americans today are less likely to believe that the Biden election was legitimate than they were in 2021.
In 2021, the numbers were anywhere from three to six points higher.
In terms of believing that the election was credible.
So, the January 6th propaganda really hasn't worked for the Democrats.
Why?
Because they told us that a Capitol officer was murdered by a crazy right-winger who threw a fire extinguisher at his head.
We know that was a lie.
We were told that this was an insurrection to overthrow the government.
We know that these people didn't have any weapons.
We were told that they overran the cops.
We know that the cops led them through the Capitol in certain cases.
We were told that poor public servants were killed as a result of this.
We know the one person who was killed in the political violence of January 6th was a Trump supporter killed by a trigger-happy cop.
We were told that these were racist neo-Nazi people.
It wasn't.
It was Midwestern grannies and eccentric people wearing horn hats.
It was all lies, you know.
And we now know that they're lies because we've gotten some of that footage.
We've seen some of the prosecutions.
We've seen that these guys have been held in solitary confinement for a very, very long time.
And most Americans, including Democrats, think that the prosecutions of Trump are politically motivated and banana republic kind of stuff.
So, you know, ironically, the focus on January 6th has really, I think, helped the Republicans.
Now, would it be better if we could just avoid it all together and just focus on what a terrible President Biden is?
Yeah, I guess so.
But we can't.
We don't have that opportunity because the Democrats are not going to let us have that opportunity.
All right, the rest of the show continues now.
It's Fake Headline Friday.
You do not want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code Knolls.
K-N-N-O-W-L-L-E-S at checkout for two months free.
