The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 157 - Nationalism: From D.C. To Jerusalem

Episode Date: May 16, 2018

As the MSM provides cover for Palestinian terrorists, we’ll analyze why President Trump’s embassy move has so infuriated Democrats and the mainstream media. Spoiler: It's about much more than just Israel. Then, actual Jerusalem resident Yoram Hazony joins to discuss The Virtue of Nationalism and why “conservative” and “classical liberal” don’t actually mean the same thing. Finally, on This Day In History, we analyze how past presidents have handled communist dictators and collapsing peace talks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the mainstream media continue to provide cover and propaganda for Palestinian terrorists, another nation, Guatemala, has followed American moral leadership and moved its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. We will analyze why President Trump's embassy move has so infuriated Democrats in the mainstream media. This is about much, much more than just Israel. Spoiler alert. Then we will speak to an actual Jerusalem resident, Yoram Hazani, Dr. Yoram Hazani, about his forthcoming book, The Virtue of Nationalism and Why Conservative and Classical Liberal don't actually mean the same thing, even though everybody says they do. Finally, on this day in history, amid little rocket man's idle threats, we analyze how past presidents have handled communist dictators and collapsing

peace talks. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Knowles Show. You can probably hear in my voice, I'm still sick and tired of winning. All of the winning of the past two weeks has kept me literally sick and tired and probably giving me a sinus infection. But that's okay. Nevertheless, I persisted. So we're going to keep trucking on this morning. I had the great pleasure, by the way, of attending Miracosta High School to give a speech about gun rights, why conservatives support the Second Amendment, what the Second Amendment means and why we need to protect it. I'm going to be streaming this from the Daily Wire. We're not quite sure when it's going to go up, but we're going to try to stream it either later today or tomorrow. Be sure to look out for this.

I have got to tell you, these kids were so smart. First of all, it was incredibly courageous of the faculty and the staff and the student groups there in the administration to have a speaker come in and defend gun rights at a high school. This was brought to us by the YAF organization at this high school. All of the students were incredibly smart, incredibly sophisticated, both the Democrats and the Republicans. There was no crazy protest. There was no shouting. Just really thoughtful students on both sides. I go to these schools and they make me worried about the future of America because of all these YACs.

yelling protester types. Then I go to this high school. Miracostin, I think, oh man, the future is bright. This is pretty good. Really, really sophisticated students. So we'll have that out for you. It was a really fun time. Good talk, good questions. So look out for that. Before we get into nationalism, this is going to be a really good topic today because the media, they're screaming, the Democrats, they're all arguing, but they're not getting to the actual problem they have, which is nationalism. We're going to discuss with an expert. Before we do that, we've got to thank you. Honey. We got to thank Honey. A wonderful sponsor helps keep the lights on. I just used honey. I use honey all the time, but I just used it like two days ago when I was making a purchase.

And it's the best. It just saves you money. Millions of people are using honey to save money while shopping online. Why wouldn't they? It's free. It takes just two clicks to add to your browser, saves you tons of money. It is this ingenious add-on. One of my absolute favorite things about honey is how much better it makes shopping on Amazon. So Honey will just You just add it to your browser. It's free. It will add all sorts of useful info right onto the Amazon page of whatever you're looking at. So you just shop like you normally do. Honey automatically searches the 2 million sellers on Amazon finds you the lowest price. It shows you items price changes in case you want to wait and decide to buy. If you decide to wait, a honey drop list will let you know if the price drops. Honey's got your back. You'll never overpay for anything on Amazon again.

Honey has saved me personally so much money. In the last few years, you would be out of your mind not to add it to your browser. There is no reason not to add honey to your browser today. It's free. It takes just two clicks to install. It will make sure that you will always get the lowest price on Amazon and other places as well. Add it free right now at join honey.com slash cofefefece, C-O-V-F-E-F-E-F-E. Join honey.com slash co-ffefefefefefe. C-O-V-F-E. Very, very co-fefefefefefe. I've been ODing on Co-F-F-F-E recently. That's why you can hear it in my nose, but it's been too good not to. the mainstream media are absolutely furious about President Trump's relocating the American embassy in Israel to the capital of Israel. Here is just a quick rundown, a quick supercut of all of the reporting on that embassy opening from CNN, Vox, Washington Post, the New York Times.

Here it is. Donald J. Trump is now president of the United States. We're a great honor to be able to introduce for the first time ever anywhere. the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald. There it is. That one. That was Jim Acosta at the end, I think. That was really, basically sums up their response. They're so upset. And it is really bizarre when you think about it, because the mainstream media should not have been caught by surprise by this. Every president of the United States, practically every presidential candidate over the last several decades,

and certainly every president has promised to do exactly this to widespread applause in both parties. In case anybody forgot, here's just a quick montage of every president promising to do this. Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city accessible to all. As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel as chosen as its capital. I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, and I have to be the capital of Israel. I have said that before and I will say it again. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided. We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.

Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. while previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Could you spot the difference between all those guys? Clinton promises, Bush promises, Obama promises, they all promise. Then Trump promises and actually does it. It's not like the mainstream media haven't heard this before. They just didn't believe it. Because in the old days, politicians would just say certain things, and we knew they didn't

really mean it. And they knew that we knew that they didn't really mean it. But it's just kind of political talk. then Trump says he's going to do something and he does it and everybody loses their minds. So why are the mainstream media so angry about this? Ben had an excellent piece on this up today. He's absolutely right. It's because Jerusalem is a pillar of the West. What this says is that Jerusalem is a pillar of the West. The West is made by Jerusalem and Athens, Revelation and Greek reason. And they come together and they form the West. And what President Trump's moving the embassy

there has said is the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. This is a piece. pillar of the West. It's going to remain that way. It's not an eastern city. It doesn't belong to various Arab groups that want to claim Jerusalem. It belongs to Israel. It belongs to the West. They can't handle this. The mainstream media despises Israel. They despise Israel because they despise the West and they despise the West because they despise themselves. This is an essential aspect of the left. This self-hatred manifests as a hatred of their own culture, of their own institutions, of their own religious longings and of their own God. It comes out in all of those ways. The second reason that the mainstream media are so angry about this is because of nationalism,

because this is a manifestation of true nationalism. What Donald Trump is saying is that Jerusalem is part of Israel, and therefore it is not part of the country of Palestine. The country of Palestine, by the way, we talked about this on the conversation yesterday. The country of Palestine is to the west of Wakanda and to the east of Narnia, if you're trying to locate it on a map anywhere. But what they're saying is that Jerusalem, this city, is in this country, it's not in another country. Deal with it. Countries have borders. The Westphalian system of nation states still exists. It still defines the world order, and we're going to keep it that way. This is a huge affront to the mainstream media's project of erasing national boundaries, of blurring national

distinctions, and having just, you know, peace and love and hippie-dippy man. This is an affront to that because we're saying, no, the nation state still exists, still has capitals. There was a Washington Post op-ed about this by Kathleen Parker. This is how they, Kathleen Parker reported this. Quote, Monday started the week with a jolt in Jerusalem where the United States and Israel celebrated the U.S. embassy moved from Tel Aviv. Television spectators around the world watched as the two nations officials gathered inside a large white tent, a metaphorical bubble that seemed to protect them from the

tragedy unfolding 50 miles away in Gaza. There, Israeli soldiers opened fire on Palestinian protesters. Those quotes are from me, not from her. Protesters killing at least five dozen and wounding thousands more. Vox got even better with this. Vox said, Israelis are celebrating the U.S. embassy move. Palestinians are dying. Vox went on just 60 miles away in the starkest contrast imaginable. Israeli soldiers were firing on Palestinian protesters at the Gaza, border to protest the embassy move. Demonstrations that were part of a protest way. You notice how they keep using that word? Protest wave ongoing since March. Most of the protesters were unarmed, though some threw rocks and Molotov cocktails. But no, wait, so we won't talk about that.

The Israeli military reported at least one attempt to detonate a bomb at the border during a demonstration. By the way, this is what they keep using. They keep saying, is the Israeli military reported. granted. They reported the truth. We know they reported the truth. But they say, okay, yeah, some, okay, some of the protesters were throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, but the rest were really peaceful. Well, hold on. What about the ones that were throwing bombs over Molotov cocktails? Surely that's not firing on peaceful protesters. There were 40,000 Palestinian Arabs marching, throwing rocks in Molotov cocktails. Out of all of the 40,000 marching, 50 Arabs so far have been killed. We've seen huge videos of people throwing Molotov cocktails,

and detonate bombs, burning things to the ground. So not good. We don't want to see bloodshed in that area, especially to protest something so reasonable as moving an embassy to the capital of a country. But 50 out of 40,000 could have been a lot worse. Patrick Galey from AFP News posted this tweet. There's a tweet that, it was two pictures. It said, left Jerusalem, right, Gaza, you know, and they were all smiling in Jerusalem, and then there was all this bloodshed in Gaza. pictures taken at the same time this afternoon. Vox went on and said the contrast between the events is jarring. And it is jarring. It is jarring. But maybe not for the reason that Vox thinks. It's jarring because you're seeing two cultures, two different cultures. Mitt Romney talked about this in

2012, the difference between the Palestinian Arab culture and the Israeli Jewish culture. And he got pilloried for this because they said it was Islamophobic or whatever made up word they decided to use against Mitt Romney. These are jarring. These are jarring. pictures because they're different cultures, and you see what sort of societies these two different cultures produce. A peaceful United States ally working democracy in Israel and people throwing Molotov cocktails and trying to detonate bombs and burning tires in the Arab territories in the Gaza Strip. Listen to how CNN reports this is the headline, quote. Dozens of Palestinians killed in Gaza clashes as U.S. Embassy opened. Now,

okay, dozens of Palestinians killed, that's not good. But it doesn't say how were they killed just randomly. Some Israelis were walking down the street and said, we want to kill some Palestinian Arabs today? No, they were killed, but they were killed because the Israelis were acting in self-defense. Watch how the media

twists this in an absurdly Orwellian way. The article opens up. It says, quote, Palestinian officials accused Israel of committing a horrific massacre and called on the international community to immediately intervene. So that's how it opens. The first part is, Palestinians say it's a horrific massacre. Look how awful this is, right? Only later in the article does it say, the military said the protesters through Malatov cocktails, burned tires and stones at Israeli soldiers positioned along the fence.

Now, okay, it says the military said this. We know that the protesters threw the Molotov cocktails and burned tires. How do we know? CNN has video of it on the same page as this article is written. Here's the clip. We see it very clear. we see all the tires burning people hurling these things over. But CNN can't admit the reality. So CNN, even though it's right there, it's say, don't believe your lying eyes. That's just the military said. No, you said. Well, you didn't say. You just showed it with the video. By the way, none of this coverage is helping Palestinian Arabs. None of this fanning the flames. These violent protests, they've been going on for two months now. And the mainstream media,

they're fanning the flames. They say, you deserve a country. You should have, granted, these are people who are not living in a legitimate nation state. people who in their own elections, their last election, elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, to govern them. They're fanning the flames and saying, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. We know that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Now, contrasting this, also in Jerusalem, today marks the opening of the Guatemalan embassy there. They too, Guatemala has moved the embassy two days after the United States. Pretty interesting because Guatemala is also the second country to recognize Israel in 1948. And the lesson we can take,

here is that other countries are following American moral leadership. There were a lot of embassies in Jerusalem before 1980. In 1980, the UN Security Council denounced Israel and they called on countries to move their embassies to Tel Aviv. But the U.S. today

still possesses moral leadership. We don't need to tiptoe around terrorists. People will follow us if we lead. In 2006, the Palestinian people, that imaginary country, elected Hamas. We do not need to pretend that there is equal moral footing here. We don't need to pretend that there's equal moral footing between the leaders of Hamas and between the duly elected prime minister of a country, a successful functioning democracy in the Middle East.

The leaders of Hamas and Bibi Netanyahu. Not true. The United States can lead. People can follow or they can fall in line. We don't need multinational, open borders, world federations to accomplish these things. In fact, very often those institutions hamper progress and hamper security. is amazing, even today where nationalism is a bad word, it's amazing how well the nation state still works. That product of the Westphalian system of the world order, it still works very, very well. On that point, let's bring on our guest. Dr. Yeram Hazani is an Israeli philosopher, Bible scholar and political theorist, president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, and the author of the forthcoming book, The Virtue of Nationalism. Dr. Hazani, thank you so much for being here. great to have you so dr hasani you're a you're a bona fide jerusalem resident uh what is the

significance just from your own perspective for israeli citizens of having the united states recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel it's huge it's it's it's historical it's a it's a massive thing i mean uh the united states as you as you were saying the united States still possesses immense moral leadership, but more important than that maybe even is it possesses immense power. And Israel is still a small country. Thank God it's growing. It's probably in a better position now than it's been at any point since its founding. But when the entire world, when all of Europe and all of Asia and America is beating on you and saying you're an occupier,

in your own capital. Look, that's an extremely difficult. It's extremely difficult. People in Israel are grateful. My wife and I were at the reception for the moving of the embassy on Monday night. I can't tell you people were crying. It was unbelievably moving to have this vote of confidence and of faith from the greatest power on earth. It's incredibly important to us. And it's amazing how long it took. It's amazing how murky politicians have been able to make this clear moral issue.

There's a reason that all of these presidential candidates over time have promised we're going to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Jerusalem's the capital of Israel. And then they don't do it. They say, oh, well, you know, it's complicated. I don't know. And this guy comes in and he says, no, this is the capital. The nation state is a legitimate construct. And this brings us to a second point. You've written extensively recently and excellent articles. I'm a huge fan of your writing, criticizing what we could call the New World Order, the Open Borders, the European Union, the World Federation type liberalism. And you've been defending what I'll call the old New World Order, which is to say nationalism, the Westphalian system. In a word, in a phrase, what is so great

about nationalism? Nationalism is, as you know, a biblical, a biblical. A biblical. A biblical. A biblical vision, the idea that the peoples should be free. What does it mean for a people to be free? It means today we use words like sovereignty. We've got all these technical terms. But in Hebrew scripture, the vision of the prophets is that Israel and other nations will have borders. They'll govern themselves.

And they'll be independent of the Egyptian empire, the Babylonian empire, the Assyrian empire. All these empires had a clear vision for how to. bring peace to the world by conquering it. And scripture, the philosophy of the Hebrew Bible, is in fact this idea that justice depends on people's being able to be free. That's such an important point because we hear now, we think of the nation state as this modern construct because the world order is being totally divided into apparent nation states. That comes relatively in the modern era. But the idea of the nation is certainly not a modern concept. You're right. It comes relatively in the modern. I mean, there are harbingers in medieval Catholicism, but the big push is definitely with Protestantism.

Protestantism reads Hebrew scripture in some respects with new eyes and says this is a roadmap to how to bring justice to our world. Right. That's exactly right. And that point is frequently lost. Another point that is frequently lost, and it's why I really like your writing. I've recently been buffing up again on my Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott and some of those conservative writers. I saw that you tweeted out Michael Oakshot. I did. I think you're the only person probably who appreciated that. You just aren't that many of us.

But this is a real problem because we frequently hear, you know, even on the right, that conservatives, they're actually classical liberals. Those are the same thing. Bill Crystal said this recently. as I think you noted, he said, conservatives should rebrand as liberals. We're the real liberals. But you point out that there is a difference. What is the difference between conservative thought and classical liberalism? I just want to add on the point you're making. At some point in the last generation, you start to, we've reached this point where you talk to somebody who's a conservative

and you say, well, can you tell me what you stand for? And it takes them about seven seconds before before they start telling you how liberal they are. And no, seriously. So I believe in freedom. I believe in freedom of speech. And I believe in limited government. And I believe in free markets. And maybe freedom of immigration.

And I'm like, okay, well, I believe in those things. Those are good things. But what makes you conservative? It's like, oh, no, no, no. Conservatism is liberalism. This is like, no, this is like a monstrous confusion. I don't want to just play semantical games because, you know, playing words with labels.

But there really are two extremely different historical worldviews that clashed over many, many centuries. And what's happened is that in the conservative movement today, there's kind of like this, you know, you're just not supposed to talk about, you know, I don't know if they're talking about paleo or this or that or Russell Kirk. It's just, look, it's just not that long ago. We're talking about, I was in college in the 19. 1980s, Ronald Reagan was president. Margaret Thatcher was prime minister in the UK. And we had, you know, like a conservative movement.

We founded a conservative magazine. Irving Crystal had this organization that inducted us into the conservative movement. And we knew what we stood for. Of course, we were for free markets. But Crystal taught us, Irving Crystal, that conservatism was built on three things. Right. I'm quoting on religion, on nationalism, and on economic growth. And he emphasized repeatedly, not just him, this, everybody understood this, that freedom is a wonderful thing, but it's also corrosive.

It opens up a space, but it's also corrosive. Anybody who raises children knows you can't just give them endless freedom. You can't, there have to be boundaries, and those boundaries are drawn by religious tradition, national tradition. To be a conservative has always been to balance those things. And the Anglo-American conservative tradition is a balancing, a common sense balancing among nationalism and religion and all of these crucial freedoms that this tradition has developed. So they're liberals today. Fine. You want to be liberal. Go ahead. I respect that. I know lots of really bright people are liberals. But do we have a right to be a conservative too? I really think that's a question today. That is such a good point because you see these writers, even relatively recent writers, like Russell Kirk, for instance, and they're sort of pushed to the side. So now it's very cool to be on the left. And it's even sort of cool to say, I'm no longer on the left, but I'm a classical liberal. Okay, that's okay. But the minute you bring up Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk or Oak Shot or those guys, they say, oh, no, they've been written out. That's no, no, no, no. where all of us...

Yeah, they've been written out, or I have an alternative for you. A lot of people saying these days, no, you'll hear it in the movement, you'll hear this. Oh, Burke, Burke grew out of John Locke. Burke grew out of liberalism. Burke believed in freedom and freedom is liberalism. So Burke is really just a liberal. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. I don't know.

It's like invasion of the body snatchers. What are you talking about? I wonder if it comes because, you know, conservatives, we tend to be this very sort of timid in modern political conservatism, self-flagellating. You say, no, I'm really a liberal. No, all of my forebears are really liberals. And this gets to another historical misconception, which you've written about very well. Everyone today, all you see everywhere is just how great the Enlightenment was. There's that Stephen Pinker book about how great the Enlightenment was. Every good thing in history had to come from the Enlightenment. And everything

before that were in the big, bad, old times. And you write and say that the Enlightenment wasn't really all that great, but didn't, you know, these people who extoll the virtues of the Enlightenment, they say it gave us modern science, modern medicine, technology, modern philosophy, liberty, political order. What do you say? I say, well, look, these are sincere people. I don't, I don't mean to challenge. No, I actually like and respect Steve Pinker as a scientist and as a person and Jonah Goldberg. And There's all sorts of people pushing this enlightenment line now. And I really just unfortunately think that what it's kind of a historical sleight of hand. What they do is they take all of these great scientific figures like Newton or Boyle or Harvey.

They say, oh, look, they were free thinkers, therefore they were liberals. And there isn't, I mean, there isn't even like a shred of truth to this. It's just false that there were no open-minded creative people all through history. And modern science and medicine was created by those people, but it doesn't mean that they were liberals. They had plenty of opportunity to adopt fundamental enlightenment principles and declare them. And they didn't because they were one kind or another of conservative. So what are enlightenment principles? Let me quickly name them.

I think everybody knows them, but it's worth naming them. Enlightenment means, number one, all human beings are born free, born perfectly free, Locke says, and perfectly equal, whatever exactly that means. They're perfectly free and perfectly equal from birth. Number two, number two, you don't receive, you don't take on any moral obligation unless you've freely chosen it, unless you've consented to it. Okay, and number three, Every human being all through history has had the power of reason that if they only exercised it, Locke says.

If they only exercised it, they would all come to the same answer about what the exactly right constitution is. So it's actually this extremely rigid set of axioms. And that's not the same thing as science. That's not the same thing as modern medicine. It's not even the same thing as the American constitution. But what it is is the foundation for dogmatic, doctrinaire liberalism of the kind that brings people to say, well, really, we don't need any of the traditions that were handed down by our forefathers. We don't need biblical tradition. We don't need the national state. We don't need religion. We don't even need the traditional family because I've got reason and I can take on moral obligation according to my consent. And John Locke told me so I don't need anybody else. That's a different, yeah. That's absolutely right.

You can look at all of those premises and say, no, I don't remember being born perfectly free without any obligations to family or culture or institutions. And now there seems to be this big battle waging. There was this big burst of nationalism, the Brexit, the election of Donald Trump in many ways. And it's so funny to read, as you said earlier, Irving Crystal's words, that the three pillars of modern conservatism or religion nationalism, and, economic growth. Do you think that, do you, not to ask you to make predictions, you're not Nostradamus exactly, but as you look around the political scene, are we moving in the right direction

or is this just a random blip, a random little resurgence of religion and nationalism and good economic growth for the last year? Or are we inevitably going to fall back into liberal malaise. Look, all the forces, all the forces of, as you know, the forces are not in the good direction. Liberalism as distinct from the old conservative American or British religious nationalist tradition of freedom, let's just arbitrarily say that since World War II, what we're calling liberalism is kind of pushed the old conservative tradition. They used to call Republican in America.

The old Republican tradition is pushed it aside. And we've had pretty much 70 years, I think you could say, of dismantling any kind of public commitment, one piece after another, to religious tradition first, to the family, then to the national states. And we're at this point, we've reached a point where if you go to an excellent university and you want to study conservative thought, you basically can't find somebody to teach it to you. And I'm including the token Republicans that some college campuses have because they'll tell you, well, here, I'm going to teach you conservatism. here, let's study liberalism.

So we're at the point where people don't even know, they don't even know that they don't know what the old conservative tradition was. So if you add that to, you know, the overwhelming liberalism or further left in the media and Hollywood, I mean, the entire public sphere is flooded with anything but conservatism. So people who complain, you know, Brexit, Brexit isn't pretty.

It's not led by the right people. You know, the Trump movement, it's not pretty. It's not led by the right people. Maybe they have, you know, maybe they have a point. Maybe if you let it, it would look a little bit more. Right. I don't know. You're not.

But guess what? You didn't lead it. I didn't lead it. Right. So it was left to people who are, they're not the educated, you know, the most educated. They're not the most polished. They're not the people who, you know, went to Ivy League schools like some of us did and, you know, studied, you know, exactly how you're supposed to speak and exactly what you're supposed to say. And not only that, but they kind of, they're kind of sick and tired of all of that.

Right. And I understand that. I really do. I love that point. That I love that point that, you know, they say, oh, it shouldn't be that guy. Oh, it'd be better if it were this guy leading. Oh, blah, blah, blah. But they aren't.

We have what we have. The Brexit was led by the people it was led by. the Trump movement is led by Donald Trump, and he doesn't hold his shard an egg glass in the correct way, but he seems to be doing something that is distinct and different and hopeful from what we've seen recently. I agree with that, and I'd add, he and the Brexiteers, they've opened up a space for other people. I mean, if you want to step forward and now and describe an intellectually articulated conservatism that harkens back to the you know to the to the great Anglo-American tradition you're free to do that the the space is open wide to do that except for the

fact i mean we'll see when this book on nationalism appears whether people are going to be willing to talk about it because you know i do here i'm bringing all the footnotes i'm following all the conventions i'm not going to say anything that's that's the wrong thing to say let's see if people can actually put up with it. I don't know if they can. I really, I really don't know. We might be, you ask what's going to happen? Well, I definitely don't know. But when I, when I look at the field, I just think people are so, people who are my historic friends, even in the conservative movement, not just not just Democrats, Republicans. And in Britain, it's the same thing. People are so afraid and they're so angry

and they're so upset that I mean you can barely talk to them about anything so I you guys stay you stand for reason so I want a reason and they're like shut up you know you you're you're trying to reason but not about that because it's not liberalism

and I'm like I never said I was a liberal I never did never never I mean you made me say yeah you want me to say that you want me to say I'm a liberal so I can be part of your show but but I was never a liberal And I'm not, it was never a fascist either. I'm a conservative. Can you deal with that?

I love that point. But there is such a thing. I love that point. It's just an open, conservative, articulating conservative thought and saying, I'm not part, you can't put me into this box. There is a tradition. It's a tradition that isn't taught. And there might be a glimmer of hope. You know, there's obviously, it might be part of the conservative disposition to say, things

aren't looking great, you know, best days are behind us. But maybe there's a glimmer. of hope and worse case than the conservative point of view is right. Dr. Hazani, thank you so much. This is such a good talk, so good to talk to you. I've taken up way too much of your time, and we'll have to have you back when the book comes out. I love that. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Yoram Hazani. How smart is that guy? I love nobody is saying what he is saying, and it's so important to conservatives. Okay, I got a second about to Facebook and YouTube. We're running late as it is. But be sure to tune in to that.

Miracosta high school speech, we're going to get that up tomorrow, and you'll be really impressed with these kids. Maybe if Dr. Hazani sees it, he'll have some more hope for the future. Right now, go to dailywire.com. Do it, do it, walk, run, don't walk. We thank you for everybody who's already there. You help keep the lights on. Really appreciate that. Keep cofefe in my cup. I've obviously overdone it a little on the cofefefe in the last few days. If you're on Facebook or YouTube, you've got to go over there right now. Why? What do you get? You get me. You get the Andrew Claven Show. You get the Ben Shapiro show. You get to ask questions. in the conversation. Next up is the big boss himself, Ben Shapiro. None of that matters.

This is the really special, this is a religious vintage. This could be used as the wine of ritual, the wine of religious observance, because this is the special embassy in Jerusalem vintage of leftist tears. And it's really, it's salty. They're always salty. But these are sweet. These are sweet as well. They're so good. Go over to dailywire.com. Get your leftist tears. Tumblr. We'll be right back. I could talk to Dr. Hazani all day. I could go on with that guy for three hours. His perspective is so important for conservatives.

It's totally overlooked these days on both the left and the right. I really urge everybody to go out and read his articles, his op-eds, and his books. Before we get to this day in history, we'll just mention the stay in history a little bit. I have to say, I gave this talk at the high school today on the virtues of gun ownership. And it was really brave of the school to invite me because now the whole thing at high schools is, if you support the Second Amendment, you want to kill kids. That's the narrative by the mainstream media. As I was speaking at this high school, a news report broke.

Unfortunately, I didn't get it on my phone, that a police officer at Dixon High School was able to shoot and wound a student who started to open fire today. So an old student shows up, a graduated student, shows up to graduation practice, 19-year-old, former student, and just starts firing several shots outside the gym. Fortunately, they had an armed police officer there, and that cop took him out.

And it gets even better because he didn't even kill the kid. He shot the student. The student was then taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries and he will hopefully face trial and have to pay for what he did. This could have been a massacre. This could have been an absolute disaster if that school were a gun-free zone. But that school isn't a gun-free zone because a cop had a gun there and the cop wasn't a coward like the Broward County Sheriff's Office.

The cop went out there and he started shooting and he saved a lot of lives. This is tremendous stuff, and it's a perfect articulation of one of the great reasons to have our second amendment and to preserve our right to keep and bear arms, because ultimately it's about preserving liberty from tyranny. But it's also about preserving our life and liberty in very particular circumstances at a high school, at what could have been a gun-free zone. Get out there, save a lot of lives, really, really good stuff, and it really underscores why we need to keep our guns. You can see the rest of the speech tomorrow on this day in history. I want to get to this day in history because it's deja vu all over again. Those people who don't learn from the past, they're bound to repeat it. It seems like, what is the other quote?

History repeats itself. First is tragedy. Second is farce. Well, we're seeing the farce with a little rocket man right now, because on this day in history in 1960, American negotiations with a crazed communist dictator broke down after an American military exercise ticked off the red menace. This is exactly what is happening today.

Deja vu all over. again. On May 1st, 1960, Soviets took down a U-2 U.S. spy plane. So Khrushchev, the head of the Soviet Union, tore into Eisenhower. They were at a summit meeting in Paris, and he tears into him. And let me tell you something. Nobody talks to Ike Eisenhower that way. No way. It totally doomed the summit, because they were able to shoot down the spy plane. At first, Eisenhower denied that the U-2 plane was being used to spy. He said, oh, that old thing? No, that obvious spy plane? No, that's a weather plane. We just wanted to figure out the weather in Moscow. We're really nervous.

We hope you guys didn't get too much rain. But what he didn't realize is the Soviets had captured the plane and the pilot, Gary Francis Powers, who admitted what was going on. Ultimately, President Eisenhower had to admit it. This was followed then by another public dressing down

by Khrushchev and the negotiations were off the table for a while. We're seeing hints of this right now, but we're seeing it as farce. We're not seeing it as tragedy. We're seeing it as farce. Anything involving Little Rocket Man is usually a farce. A little rocket man over in Korea is threatening to cancel the long promised peace talks that are supposed to take place June 15th, I believe, in Singapore. He says, the U.S. and South Korea, they're conducting regular military exercises,

and I don't like it. They have to call it off, and we're going to cancel the summit. This is the big wrench in the peace talks. Sarah Sanders, the greatest press secretary ever. She's so good. She handled this perfectly. She said, quote, if they want to meet, we'll be ready. If they don't, that's okay too. This is something that we fully expected. And of course they expected it. Of course we knew that this crazed little dictator was going to try to throw a wrench in things at the end and try to trick us and get a leg up on the United States. That's fine. They can do it. We don't need this. We don't actually need these peace talks. Donald Trump doesn't need these peace talks. He doesn't, you know,

Barack Obama had absolutely no legacy. He knew that his legacy was going to be erased by the end of his presidency. So he pushed for that Iran deal so hard because he needed something. He needed that legacy. He was dead. Even if it means we fly airplanes full of cash and free up sanctions and give them a path to a nuclear weapon, even if it means all that, just give me a legacy, give me a deal. Trump doesn't need that. He's already got a lot of accomplishments. And we're not going to make a bad deal. We're not going to say, okay, we're not going to make Iran deal part two. No way. Absolutely not. Because by the way, Barack Obama doesn't have the Iran deal now anyway. He just has zero legacy. He's just like a gaping hole in president.

history. Just a vacuum of light just, you know, goes in. It goes from Clinton to Bush to something that used to be here and then to Trump. So Donald Trump doesn't need it. If Kim Jong-un is serious about canceling the talks, that's fine. We're no worse off than we were before. We have a few options. We can either continue to use strategic patience, or we can go in and take him out, take care of him. And that will assess various risks to Seoul. That will assess various military risks. That's exactly where we were before these peace talks. Or Kim Jong-un could take the only step that's in front of him, which is to try to engage the United States. But he's not going to get one over on the American, the administration that's currently in charge.

He might have gotten one over on the Obama administration. He isn't going to get one over on John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump. It just isn't going to happen. So we'll see what happens here. We won the Cold War. The peace talks broke down in 1960. We won the Cold War. It's okay. It might take a little longer, but American Resolve will not, certainly should not crack here, and I think it will not crack, because we've seen this coming out of the White House, we've seen

wonderful strength from Sarah Sanders, Pompeo, Bolton, and Trump. I hope we continue to see that, and I think we will. This is very good news. That glimmer of hope that the generally sort of dower conservative disposition is looking at. Good things all around. Okay, this

is our show. That's our whole show on nationalism, on the nation state. Maybe we'll end up taking a nation stayed away from North Korea. We'll see. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Noel Show. Check out that speech that's coming up tomorrow. I will see you then. The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Sennia Villa Real. Executive producer Jeremy Bore. Senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover. And our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Jim Nickel. Audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Forward Publishing production.

Copyright Forward Publishing 2018.