The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1744 - Abracadabra, You're Black!

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

President Trump’s big, beautiful bill is attacked for opposite reasons; the U.S. State Department has the greatest blog in history, and Harry Potter gets diverse.   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri   Ep.1744   - - -   DailyWire+:   Don’t miss the DailyWire+ Memorial Day Sale—get 40% off an Annual Membership with code DW40.   Check out Episode 1 of Jordan B. Peterson’s new show, Parenting, exclusively on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3Hqo6lM   Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael   - - -   Today's Sponsors:   Hammer Made - Get $50 off your first purchase of $199 or more by using code KNOWLES at checkout on https://HammerMade.com/KNOWLES   Old Glory Bank - Go to https://OldGloryBank.com/Knowles to open an account and make the switch today!   PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.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   - - -   Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump's big, beautiful bill is being attacked simultaneously for cutting too much government spending and too little government spending. King Charles gives an Indian land acknowledgement in Canada with monarchs like this who needs Democrats. And the U.S. State Department is discovered to have the greatest substack in the history of blogging on Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to this show. Harry Potter is going diverse. There's a new Harry Potter TV show that has cast at least one black actor, maybe multiple black actors in roles that are traditionally held by white people. But of course, this is ridiculous because if Harry Potter wanted to truly reflect the ethnic background of England, all the actors

would be Pakistani. I have much more to say. First, though, go to old glorybank.com slash knolls. You know some companies are just now rediscovering patriotism and treating love of country like it's a hot new trend. Not Old Glory Bank. They've been pro-America from the very beginning back when standing for faith, family, and freedom actually cost something. Now, I love Old Glory Bank. I was just actually setting up my account the other day because when I heard about it, I said, this is a wonderful financial institution, and frankly, I don't like the banks that I've used for years. This is a bank for people who remember that the Constitution is not a suggestion. Old Glory Bank won't cancel you for believing that Easter is about more than just a bunny or that women's restrooms aren't for men.

especially now that you really do have to worry about debanking if you're a conservative financial institutions booting you out. Really important to make sure you're with a bank that you trust. Your money is your money. No DEI or ESG nonsense. Only PSL. Not pumpkin spice lattes. I'm talking privacy, security and liberty because of the great mobile banking. Old Glory Bank has become the premier bank for the freedom economy with customers in all 50 states. Why are you still banking with banks that hate you and what you believe at Old Glory Bank, they do not apologize for loving the American tradition. Join me, go to old glorybank.com slash Knowles, make the switch today. Oldglorybank.com slash Knowles takes a few minutes to open an account and join the right side of banking.

The big, beautiful bill. It's kind of funny that this is the signature legislative achievement, or soon-to-be achievement of the Trump administration, and we've barely talked about it on the show. But that's because we're busy talking about all sorts of other stuff, culture and philosophy, and religion and all the principles that are undergirding this administration. So the actual bill itself, I sort of feel like we don't need to cover that much. However, it's made its way through the House by one vote. Now it's got to get through the Senate. Then they have to reconcile the two bills.

Then they need to sell it to the public. But I think the public is going to be on board. And here's my evidence. People on opposite sides of the bill are criticizing it. Obviously, the libs are, they'll whine about anything that Trump touches. But Elon Musk, the first buddy in the White House, Elon Musk, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign and campaigned with him, Elon Musk, who led the Doge efforts to trim the fat out of government. He doesn't like the bill. So, you know, I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, if not just decrease it.

And I reminds the work that the Doge team is doing. I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along. I mean, like, everything he's done on Doge gets wiped out in the first year. I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don't know if it could be both. My personal opinion. That's a good line, and it makes clear where Elon's criticism is coming from, namely that he's pretty libertarian.

So he says, well, the bill can be big or beautiful, but it can't be both. Now, conservative, traditional conservative, doesn't necessarily mind a big bill, doesn't necessarily mind government doing all sorts of stuff as long as the government is operating within its proper limits and toward justice and the common good. A libertarian says, nah, nah, the best kind of government is the smallest kind of government. I want the government to be able to fit inside my pocket. And that's Elon's criticism. He's saying, I've done all this great work on Doge, cutting out a bunch of fat, stupid spending

from the government. But now Trump is going to go spend a bunch of... bunch more money, in part because he's got to wrangle congressmen and senators to extend his tax cuts, which I'm sure Elon does like, and to extend the spending priorities of the Trump administration, not only from the first term, but also the new ones for the second term. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, you got big libs like Chris Murphy, the Democrat senator from Connecticut criticizing the bill, not because it cuts not enough spending, not because it's spending too much, but because it is cutting the spending that he wants.

Chris Murphy, Democratic, Connecticut, serves on the Appropriations Committee, and he joins me now. Sarah, I do feel that there's a basic understanding in the public that the Republicans are cutting taxes for rich people. They're going to kick people off health care. And the approach in the House is basically saying, no, we're not. What do you think, how does this fight take shape in the Senate? Well, I mean, what they're doing is wildly unpopular. I mean, it's the most massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich in the history of the country. And I don't think anybody's fooled because they're also watching Donald Trump use sort of every vehicle and instrument available to him to enrich himself and his friends often through, you know, just old-fashioned graft and corruption.

So it's a pretty consistent story throughout this White House that whatever levers they can press to try to make themselves richer, they're going to do that. And in this case, they are throwing, you know, probably around 15 million people off of Medicaid. I mean, that's the sort of population equivalent of about 12 states. And they're going to use those savings in order to pass along a tax break to a bunch of really rich people who don't want them. Okay, so just 30,000-foot view, when you have people who are ostensibly on the right, at least the libertarian right, and people on the left criticizing a bill for opposite reasons, the bill's probably fine. It's probably pretty good. It'll probably be relatively popular. This is Chesterton's argument about the Catholic Church.

He said that the church was so interesting to him because it's criticized for opposite reasons, for being too luxurious and for being too ascetic, for being too feminine and for being too misogynistic. And he said, anything that is attacked for opposite reasons so persistently, it's not that it's necessarily good, but it's definitely a great thing. It's definitely noteworthy. It's definitely something special. Okay. So I think the big takeaway here also is that Trump,

Trump is just, he's not a libertarian. The libertarians would say the purpose of Doge is to cut government spending. A conservative would say the purpose of Doge is to cut all the bad, corrupt, stupid spending so that we can redirect government resources toward good things because power is going to be conserved, power is going to be used, and it's either going to be used by us or it's going to be used by our opponents. Now, Chris Murphy there, he says, well, I think we all understand. understand that the Trump big beautiful bill is going to kick people off health care.

First of all, I don't think we all understand that. What are you talking about? Oh, he's speaking specifically about Medicaid. Okay, well, who are those people who are supposedly being kicked off Medicaid? Mike Johnson, Speaker, the House just reveals 1.4 million illegal aliens are on Medicaid. Medicaid is for American citizens only. And only for a specific subset of American citizens. Right there, Chris Murphy whining that 1.4 million illegal aliens could be kicked off of Medicaid is Chris Williams whining, not Chris Williams, as Chris Murphy rather, whining that he, that the law is going to be enforced, that the basic aspects of the law are going to be enforced.

Then who are the other ones? Millions or millions of people could lose Medicaid. Well, who are they? It's people who are abusing the system. It's people who do not meet the criteria that should qualify them for Medicaid. Trump is not a libertarian slash the entitlements kind of guy. has been very consistent throughout his decade now at the top of American politics. He does not want to do as Paul Ryan wanted to do, as many of the reform conservatives and the libertarians and all these,

the Tea Party wanted to do, and cut entitlements. He has said, I ain't touching Social Security, I ain't touching Medicare. Even on Medicaid, I guess he's going to tweak it a little bit only so that the law is enforced. That line of attack from Democrats, not going to work. What spending is being cut? Well, here's a good example. Planned Parenthood is closing eight abortion mills. Eight across just two states, Iowa and Minnesota. Why? Because of the Big Beautiful Bill. Planned Parenthood is now citing in public a threat to its funding as the reason for the closings. Now, it's not just the Big Beautiful Bill. It's also because back in April, the Trump administration froze Title X funding to Planned Parenthood, stripping Planned Parenthood,

potentially of $20 million. According to NBC News, that was almost $3 million from Minnesota locations. And you'd say, well, okay, no big deal, right? Because Planned Parenthood says they don't take federal money to pay for abortions. Except that. We all know that money is fungible. So you say, okay, well, you're giving us $3 million to pay our light bills and our heating bills. And okay, and then, well, we're going to take the money that we would have used to pay for the light and heating bills.

We're going to use it to kill babies. So, okay, put your money where your mouth is. If the money's really not going to go toward abortions, then you're going to keep carrying out the same number of abortions, right? No, you're going to shudder eight abortion mills. Because President Trump, who was elected with the popular vote, just representing the will of the people said, we're not going to give you taxpayer dollars to murder babies anymore. And all those abortion mills are closing.

Which reminds us that culture is very often downstream of politics. It reminds us that we need to engage in politics. And I think there's a big takeaway here. Because there are all sorts of hardcore culture warriors, guys who will talk real tough on abortion and transgenderism, who knows, maybe even so-called gay marriage. They'll talk tough on the cultural issues. But they won't support the politicians who are going to get the job done. There were all sorts of really tough pro-life politicians who said they were never Trump.

Really tough anti-trans advocates who said, no, no, no, I can't vote for Trump. And it trumps the guy who gets it done. To me, the culture warriors who will not engage in the messy reality of government, I think this kind of thing shows you they're basically useless. They can talk a good game, but they're not. If you are not, if you are a culture warrior and you are not actively working the levers of politics, not just at the presidential level, but dealing with senators and congressmen and working in the actual game of politics to get stuff done, which requires you to get your hands a little messy,

and it requires you to not always look pristine and perfect, and it requires you to compromise, and it requires you to deal in reality. If you're not doing that, you're useless. If you're chasing data down instead of seeing it in one place, you need the Intuit ERP. Intuit Enterprise Suite. All your data in one place with built-in AI for real-time insights. Learn more at Intuit.com slash ERP. Electing Trump just shut down eight abortion mills in Minnesota and Iowa with probably more to come.

That's good for me. And it got Roevi Weight overruled, by the way. And it's getting a lot of other stuff done. Talk a good game, that's fine. Then get your hands a little bit dirty. my, my, my, there is one beautiful aspect of this administration that it's subtle, so people aren't talking about it all that much, but it's maybe the most inspiring thing I've seen, at least in the last week, come out of the admin.

It comes from the State Department of all places. This is supposed to be one of the most liberal parts of the government. Hold up one second. We'll get right back to the important stuff I'm saying first, though. Go to hammermaid.com slash knolls. Looking good is not just about your clothes. It's about how you feel walking into a room, whether you're heading to the office, a conference, a night out, or you just want to look sharp for school drop-off. The right shirt gives you that confident edge. I've noticed this. I think

it's actually very important. You don't want to be a fop or a dandy, but you want to look good, okay? You want to present yourself in a way that has you stand up straighter and affects the way you behave. That's where Hammer Made comes in. Hammer made shirts are designed for men. You want to make an impression wherever they go. You will find unique style. that stand out from the crowd, thanks to their small batch production approach. Once a design sells out, that's it. They partner with the same high-end manufacturers that luxury brands use, but they skip the inflated designer prices and focus on precise tailoring with cuts and finishes

that are just delivering the perfect fit. I love it. I actually have two of these shirts in my office, ready to go, whenever I want to swap out the wardrobe, which I do a few times a day around here. Do not miss out on Hammermade's latest design. before they're gone. Go to hammermaid.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-A-S.

Today, use promo code NOLS at checkout. No joke, I was sitting in a meeting yesterday, and one of the executives from Daily Wire comes in, he goes, oh, Michael, that's a really nice looking shirt. He said, I know. I know that these will be your go-to shirts, too, and then you'll get those same compliments. Right now, our listeners get 50 bucks off your first purchase

of $199 or more using code Noles at checkout. HammerMade.com slash Noles. K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Order now. HammerMade.com slash Noles. Use code Noles. We want to talk about culture warriors in government. The State Department has a

substack. Substack. You know the blogging platform? The State Department has one. You say, well, that sounds really boring. I don't read any substacks. Why do I read State Departments? It's the best one. The State Department has the best substack. They just posted a missional

statement how the United States is to interact with the rest of the world, specifically Europe. I'm going to read you just a little bit of this. You should go read the whole thing. This is beautiful. It gives me a lot of hope, even more hope in the Trump administration, but they just get it. It's from Samuel Sampson,

senior advisor for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the State Department. Listen to, listen to this. Oh, boy, just savor this. The close relationship between the United States and Europe transcends geographic proximity

and transactional politics. It represents a unique bond forged in common culture, faith, familial ties, mutual assistance in times of strife, and above all, a shared Western civilizational heritage. Yes, yes, straight into my veins, that's right. Our relationship with Europe is not just a neutral relationship as we have with every other nation of the world. We are closer to Europe than we are to Timbuck, too.

Geographically, that's true. In the way that we've helped each other in the past, that's true, but it's beyond transactional politics. We have a... common culture. In some cases a common language, we have a common faith, we are Christendom, we have common familial ties, and it's not wrong to say so. It's actually good to acknowledge that we have bonds of kinship. These people are our cousins and a shared Western civilizational heritage. Love it. The State Department goes on. Our Transatlantic Partnership is underpinned by a rich Western tradition of natural law. Let's go! Natural law. Virtue ethics? Uh-huh. And national Sovereignty. Oh, I don't know if I can continue reading this. I am getting a little too excited, I think. Yes, our partnership is not just underpinned because Churchill and FDR got along. It doesn't just exist because, you know, we trade with each other or something or because of the UN or the IMF. No. It's a Western tradition. And it's not just the tradition of John Locke and Rousseau and the Enlightenment and John Rawls and modern liberalism. No.

natural law. Then on the ethics front, it's not just a utilitarian ethics and even deontological ethics and all this modern nonsense. Virtue ethics. That's right. Aristotle to Alistair Macinty, the late great philosopher Alistair McIntyre who just recently died may rest in peace. That's right, baby. And third part, national sovereignty. The N-word.

Not that one. And not nuclear. Nation. The N-word. This tradition flows from Athens and Rome through medieval Christianity. Yes, that's right. The Libs love to deride the Middle Ages. They don't know a damn thing about the Middle Ages, but they love to deride it.

They don't know any, not one lick about it. They love the Renaissance, the rebirth, a polemical term in itself. And yet the glories, the real height of our civilization actually came during the high Middle Ages. Athens and Rome to medieval Christianity, to English common law, and ultimately into America's founding documents. Yes, the American Revolution. was not a break. It need not be a break with our Western tradition. It can in fact be a part of that tradition. If we understand it through what Pope Benedict the 16th would call a hermeneutic of continuity, not a rupture but continuity. The declarate, this goes on, their declaration's

revolutionary assertion that men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights echoes the thought of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and other, I love this phrase, European heavyweights, who recognize that all men possess natural rights, that no, government can arbitrate or deny, yes. Some would argue. Perhaps even some in the founding era would try to argue that the Declaration of Independence should be understood as a break with the Middle Ages, with scholasticism, with classical antiquity. No, as I've argued many times on this show, our plan of government, certainly our constitution, is in many ways an iteration of what St. Thomas Aquinas calls for as the highest form of government in the suma.

And one hopes that the American civic tradition echoes a lot of what St. Thomas writes in DeRenio on kingship. Anyway, it goes on. America remains indebted to Europe for this intellectual and cultural legacy. Then there's a lot more. I'll just give you the last few lines here. This connection between Europe and the United States is also the reason we speak honestly when we disagree and have concerns. When Vice President Vance addressed this year's Munich Security Conference, he made the reason clear saying what I worry about is a threat from within the retreat of Europe

from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. Yes, that's why J.D. Vance's speech was so good in Munich. Finally, the United States remains committed to a strong partnership with Europe and working together on shared foreign policy goals. However, this partnership must be founded upon our shared heritage rather than globalist conformity. Yes. Our relationship is too important. Our history too valuable. And the international stakes too high to allow this partnership to be undermined. Therefore, on both sides of the Atlantic, we must preserve the goods of our common culture. Not some abstract BS from the Enlightenment,

not some ideology that can connect every... No, the goods of our common culture. The goods, even to talk about goods, is so unusual, given the shallow politics of our last half century. Ensuring that Western civilization remains a source of virtue. Virtue, even the V word,

coming back into parlance. Virtue, freedom, and human flourishing for generations to come. Beautiful. It's a masterpiece of a blog post. Very inspiring. Wonderful to see this coming out of any government department, especially the Department of State, historically understood to be one of the most liberal departments. This is great. And right before the 250th anniversary of America's founding, it reminds me, as we look ahead to America 250 next, year, our understanding is going to change. It was actually a very good piece in the American Conservative the other day, which is a paleo-conservative magazine, founded by Pap Buchanan. I think it was by Dr. Mitra, who I don't pronounce his name correctly. It was very good on historical

revision. He said, you know, revision is a part of history. You were constantly revising history, uncovering new evidence, rethinking things. So that's part of it. I'll clean up his language a little bit. You don't want to do revision in a in a stupid way, which often happens with revisionists. You don't want to do it in a stupid way that's disconnected from evidence or is based primarily on some kind of contempt or prejudice or something like that. But you want to rethink things. Sure. As we enter America 250, we are going to rethink our country. That is just part of the historical process. That's part of national development. That happens. The question is, will we have a deeper understanding of America or a shallower understanding?

Will we go further in the liberal progressive direction of America being a rupture with the past and a rupture that is so radical that ultimately it turns on itself? That's what you see with the liberals. America's not only a break with the old world, but America's going to have to break with herself, and we're going to have to topple statues of Washington. That's the radicalism of the left. Or we're going to say, no, no, no. the great men who built our country need not be understood to have been breaking with the old world,

but America might be understood within the broader Western project, because if we untether ourselves from our foundations, if we no longer have that ballast of the roots, historical, cultural, philosophical, and religious of our civilization, we're going to fly off into outer space. We will be destroyed. Now, speaking of the English relationship, Speaking of the old world,

King Charles is doing land acknowledgments in Canada. I have a lot to say. First, though, go to puretalk.com slash knolls. Pure Talk, my wireless company, a veteran-led company, believes every man and woman who has faithfully served his country deserves to proudly fly an American flag that was made in America. That is why Pure Talk is on a mission to give an allegiance flag. You know how much I love allegiance flags, the highest quality American flag period,

to 1,000 U.S. veterans in time for all the United. the patriotic holidays. Just switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk this month, and a portion of every sale will go to provide these high-quality flags to deserving veterans with plans from just $25 a month for unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data. You can enjoy America's most dependable 5G network while cutting your cell phone bill in half. The average family saves over $1,000 a year. I love it. I've had Peart Talk now for years. You can even use it overseas. I am heading overseas. It's good to know. Go to Peartotalk.com slash Noles Canada, W-L-A-S. You can going to get the best, most reliable network, switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes,

puretalk.com slash knolls to support veterans and to switch to America's wireless company, Pure Talk. King Charles just shows up to Canada. He is the king of Canada, after all. He's in America's evil top hat, and he opens up his remarks with a land acknowledgement. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unseeded territory of the Algonquin and the Shinnabeg people. This land acknowledgement is a recognition of shared history as a nation. While continuing to deepen my own understanding, it is my great hope that in each of your communities and collectively as a country, a path is found to, truth and reconciliation in both word and deed. Fact check.

I'm pretty sure the land was seated. This is the unseated tersery. The Algonquin Indians. I think they seeded it because they're not there anymore and you're there. So it got seated. They might not have willingly seated it, but they seated it. It's over. This is pathetic.

Why is the King of England speaking like a blue-haired trans, pans, lesbian at Oberlin College? Why? I think I know why. You know, I'm not a Charles hater. I actually quite like King Charles. I have a healthy respect for the English crown, even though there's a little bit of problem that happened around, you know, James II, William and Mary of Orange, and, you know, the parliamentary supremacy and the... supposedly glorious revolution. We're not going to get into that right now. I have a great deal of

respect for the English crown and for King Charles, who is in many ways of traditionalist, not of the Edmund Burke variety, and maybe that too, but also of the René Guinon and the kind of philosophical traditionalism, perennialism. So anyway, our views don't totally overlap, but I have a great healthy respect for the guy. I think he's doing this, not because he's become some blue-haired left-wing radical. I think he's doing this because he thinks this is his best shot to hold on to power and prominence, that the last century at least has been an uninterrupted rehearsal of the English crown losing its privileges, losing its stature, and just trying to hold on to something as the other monarchies were essentially all destroyed in Europe 100 years ago. I think that's the calculation he's

making. Well, I have to change and adapt, or they'll throw me out and chop my head off. And so, you know, they have chopped the heads off of some of his predecessors. I think this is just a bad calculation. I see how he got there. I get it. I think it's a bad calculation. We want monarchs, some of, at least somewhere in the world. Maybe we don't want a monarch in America, but we want monarchs to exist. Americans get a kick out of the King of England, at least. We want the monarchs to be monarchs. With monarchs like this, who needs Democrats, lowercase D. If you're going to have a monarch, have him be a monarch. It's not I feel about church. If you're going to go to church, have it be church. Have there be smells and bells, investments, and serious worship. I don't need to go to church to go to a rock

concert. I can go to a rock concert any day the week. I don't need to go to church to have some guy in a tight t-shirt with a microphone on his ear speak to me in a quotidian way. I can listen to TED talks. Okay. I don't need that at church. I go to church to go to church. I go to church to worship God. If you're going to have a monarchy, have your monarch act like a monarch. He doesn't need to get down and make ridiculous apologies toward often cannibal natives who were vanquished many centuries ago.

We don't need to do that. He thinks it's going to help him hold on. I'm skeptical. I hate to tell the king how to do his job. But I think the way the monarchy holds on is by being a monarchy. by embodying the best aspects of monarchy, not trying to play act a Democrat. Now, speaking of the English

and their relationship to non-English populations, Harry Potter is going diverse. Harry Potter has cast at least one black actor to play Snape and maybe multiple black actors. It's unclear that, you know, they cast little kids to play Harry and Ron and Hermione. And it's a little unclear, as some people are saying, saying that the girl they cast to play, Hermione, is black or something.

I don't know. I don't know. It's kind of hard to tell from the pictures. And I just generally don't. I think it's kind of weird to be guessing the ethnic background of 12-year-olds or 11-year-olds or old or old. Forget about that for a second. Let's just focus on Snape.

Snape is being played by an actor, Papa Esiedu, which is pretty clearly not English. You know, it ain't Thomas or Henry. And, of course, as a... as I mentioned at the top of the show, if the TV network really wanted the cast of Harry Potter to reflect the population of England, all the actors would be Pakistani, or at least Arab. But I don't know that they'd be black, and I don't, but in the old days, and if this show is to have taken place a little while ago, shouldn't they just cast the English? Kier Starrmer, the Prime Minister, Liberal Prime Minister of the UK, had an interview and a debate with

Constantine Kisland, in which he argued, essentially, that there is no such thing as the English people, that Rishi Sunak, who is Indian and Hindu, is English, that he's just as English as, you know, Henry VIII. And that's obviously not true. Constantine's point, I thought, was quite moderate and well said, which is, well, he could be British, as a British empire. Plenty of people can be British, but he's not English. The English are people who descend from the angles and other people who have come along the way. The question that

even something is apparently trivial as Harry Potter raises is, can we accept that there is such a thing as the English people? Or no, or no, when I was writing speechless, all slow, but I snuck it in there on you, didn't I? When I was writing speechless, I was reading a book, book about, thank you, about political correctness. And in it, this book was written probably 20, 30 years ago. And they said, you know, look, certain countries are ethnic countries.

And certain countries are multi-ethnic, multicultural liberal democracies like America and England. I thought, hold on. Maybe America in the late 20th century, you could make that argument. But England? No English anymore? I don't. This is the question now, is there's so much racial identitarianism for every other race other than white people. The question is, is that really sustainable? Or can we recognize that there are white races? And just as there are ethnic countries with every other race, they're ethnic countries with at least vaguely white people. You know, I know the Italians are a liminal case, but can we accept that or no? I suspect we're heading more into that because I don't think you can have a situation where every race has greater than 50% racial ID,

social consciousness and have white people be the only group that don't. I just don't. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, I just don't think that's sustainable. Now, speaking of the Commonwealth, before we get into the mailbag, the South African president who's been under fire because he was in the Oval Office, President Trump played those clips of South African politicians and crowds calling to murder white farmers, the Boas, the farmers, the white people. And then Trump administration says they're going to take in a very small number of refugees who are

being targeted for rape and murder. And that's the one group of refugees that the left apparently doesn't like. They want to send them back. So the South African president has just revealed himself to be a little bit of a liar, a little bit dishonest because in the Oval Office, Trump showed him the videos of the South African politician, cheney, kill the boy, kill the farmer, shoot to kill. And the South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, looked bewildered, kind of smiled. a little lat chuckled, a little, didn't, what? What, what? What's that? I don't,

now he is explicitly defending the calls to kill the white people. For us, and when it comes to the issues of arresting anyone for any slogan, that is a sovereign issue. It's not a matter where we need to be instructed by anyone that go and arrest this one. We are a very proud sovereign country that has its own. laws that has its own processes and we take into account what the constitutional court also decided when it said

that, you know, that slogan killed a boer, kill the farmer is a liberation chant and slogan. And it's not meant to be a message that elicits or calls upon anyone

to go and be killed. And that is what our court decided. So, they will probably want to arrest people willy-neilly. We follow the dictates of our Constitution because we are a constitutional state. We follow the Constitution. How about you follow the English language?

We follow the... And the courts have said that that slogan, kill the boa, kill the farmer, shoot to kill! That does not mean that anybody should be killed. Where did you get that silly idea? Now you want to arrest people willy-nilly. That is so great. Where did you get the idea?

The courts have said that when we chant by the thousands, kill the boy, shrew to kill, chop his freaking head off. They don't quite say that, but they are a little, we'll kill them. That does not mean we want to kill them. How silly, what a silly misunderstanding. Okay. All right, that's fine.

I get it. You know, there's a little bit of a tense history and fraud political situation. Africa, whatever. What I care more about is the political situation in America, which is that, just as we've been talking about all week, how Trump is really good at getting his enemies to defend the indefensible, the libs who oppose the Afrikaner refugees, that 59 of them, however many there are. The libs in America who oppose taking them in his refugees are now going to have to defend the kill all the white people chant. They're going to have to defend that because the justification for taking the refugees

is that top South African politicians are chanting, kill the Bowers, kill the farmer, shoot to kill, effectively kill all the white people. The libs who are opposing that and Trump's putting that on the big international stage, Oval Office meeting, playing the videos. He wants this to be a topic of conversation. The libs who oppose that policy are now on the side of people chanting, shoot the white people. Good luck in the midterms. Good luck, Dems. Have a good time. Right now, all DailyWR Plus annual memberships are 40% off, including all access memberships.

That means ad-free daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media. Access to our full library of original films, documentaries, and series, early access to offers and announcements before anyone else. And members-only content you will not find anywhere else. Now it's time to join and save 40%. Go to DailyWRplus.com. Use code DW40 now. my favorite comment yesterday is from Isaac Cubes, who said, not to be confused with Ice Cube, but Isaac Cubes, who says, isn't it great to see two people with illegitimate

supposed PhDs in the same room? Okay, I don't have an illegitimate PhD. I have a very legitimate doctorate of humane letters on Rizcausa. D-LIT-H-C or I think D-H-L, which means I'm sort of like a shipping company. Professor Jacob, we've never said that he has a doctorate. He's a professor. Finally, finally, we get to my favorite time that we're, the mailbag, which is sponsored by Pure Talk.

Switch to Pure Talk at PureTalk.com slash Knowles Kennedy, Wally. Ask it a year of DailyWR Plus for free with a qualifying plan. Take it away. Hi, Michael. My question is in regard to your recent take on that pro-Palestine activist who murdered two people in D.C. And your response was that, you know, we don't want to be on the side of violence. We don't want to be on the side of, you know, the people who are wearing kaffia's going to violent. protests. We just want to avoid sidestep, all of that. And you've diplomatically placed yourself

in a neutral zone in this conflict. And I would say that I and many of my peers find ourselves in a similar spot. What would you say to someone who argues that we could say something similar about siding with Israel, that Israel has performed a bunch of atrocities against the Gossens. And we don't want to be on the side of, you know, people murdering women and children. It just kind of seems like the snowball of violence just goes so far back that it's impossible to pick a side, at least for me. But I'm just, I guess I'm just curious for those people who are intent on picking a side and their intent on finding a good and a bad or at least like an overall good and against an overall evil. What would you say to those people? Well, a couple of little

corrections here. I am not opposed to violence. I support justified violence. So I'm not afraid of being on the side of violence. The United States commits a lot of violence, but I like justified violence. Violence and self-defense would be justified. Violence by a legitimate civil authority against convicted criminals. That would be legitimate violence. So it's not that I'm against violence. That helps to work you out of the apparent conundrum. I don't think it's much of a conundrum. I don't think it's much of a conundrum that you say there at the end, which is, well, Israel commits a lot of violence. Yeah, yeah, it's not, not all violence is made equal. Now, you say I'm neutral on the Israel-Gaza conflict. That's not exactly true. I am, I guess, broadly supportive of Israel, but in a way that is different

from most of the pro-Israel people. I don't believe the religious premises of Zionism. I don't believe the historical premises of Zionism. I'm Christian, so I don't really buy that. However, broadly speaking, my rule of thumb is an even more modest version of what you've articulated, which is more or less, whichever side Greta Thunberg's on, I'm on the opposite side. I'm not saying that's 100% effective, but it's 99% effective. Whatever side, most of the Democrats are on, and Greta Thunberg and the shrieking Columbia graduate students and the people who engage in unjust violence and terrorism, which is targeting civilians to affect political ends,

I'm on the opposite side. But that doesn't mean that my interests are exactly aligned with Israel's. The state of Israel would have it in its rational self-interest to probably glass Gaza or at least remove the entire population of Gaza, put them somewhere else, and have regime change in Iran. I'm not sure that that's exactly in the American interest. So my interest as an American is to wrap that war up quickly. And you're seeing that play out right now in the reported tensions between Trump and Netanyahu.

It's not that Trump is anti-Israel. They have a town named after him in Israel. But his interests are a little different from Netanyahu's interests, and they're trying to come to a practical prudential solution. That's the side that I'm on. It's not exactly neutrality. It's prudence. It's prudence, which is the paramount political virtue. Next one.

Hi, Michael. This question is in regard to the Afakhanis coming to the United States, the fact that they're white, all this push back. I'm with you. Everything that you were saying, I'm like nodding along. Yes, I totally get it. That makes sense. But now I'm kind of confused about the counter argument that it does seem kind of random that we're accepting them into this country when I'm sure there are other countries that have refugees. The one that my friends bring up most often is the gauzens and why aren't we accepting innocent citizen gauzin refugees. And to that, I've kind of just been saying,

okay, well, that's a war zone. It's a little bit different. This is not a war zone. This is like people fleeing from their government. It's kind of a different thing. I guess I just appreciate it if you could flesh out your thoughts a little bit more on this and like what you would say to our liberal friends. Because it does seem kind of odd to me that we haven't accepted other refugees or maybe it just hasn't been as much of a new story and I'm unaware. Yeah, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you. Sure. The reason is that we have more in common with them. There are vastly fewer of them, and they're more easily assimilable. That's why. We have more in common with them. We speak the same language.

Even though they say they speak a little bit of crisis, we basically understand them. And they're Christian, and they descend, at least in part, the British as we descend from the British, and we just have more in common with them, which means they'll be more easily assimilable, and also there are many fewer of them. There's something like 59 South African refugees who are trying to come here right now. At most there would be 70,000, I think.

There are 2 million people in Gaza. The South African Boers are Christian broadly. The Gazans are almost entirely Muslim. How many Christians are left in Gaza? Sometimes the pro-Palestine propaganda tries to promote the notion that Gaza has this flourishing Christian population. I think they're like 600 to 1,000 of them. So if it were Ghazan Christians, I would be much more inclined to say, yeah, bring them over here. But we have much less in common with the Ghazans.

And there are over 2 million of them. We're going to take 2 million Gazans in? I don't think so. We're going to take 2 million people who don't share our religion, don't share our language, who broadly speaking are not so friendly toward the United States. sometimes dance in the streets when our towers toppled, that's not going to work. That's just not going to work. And there's nothing wrong with observing that. There's nothing wrong with giving greater care and greater concern to people who share your beliefs, share your history,

share your language, share your religion. There's nothing wrong with that. We want to have charity for everyone around the world, but we need, well, we need prudence too. I guess prudence is the theme of this mailback. Next mailback question. Hey Michael, this is Jeff, and I'm getting married tomorrow. I used to be an atheist, but I'm not so sure about that anymore. She doesn't practice any religion either, and really neither do either of our families. And between listening to you and Jordan Peterson, I've started to open up to religion some more. And I'm not really sure how to reconcile everything.

I was also hoping to get some tips to follow as a new. newlywood couple. Thank you for your helping your insight. As the crispy chicken sandwich from 7-Eleven, people always call me loud. And I'm like, yeah, I know. I'm crispy. Did you expect me to whisper? If you want quiet, go eat some soup and reflect.

Like, I know I'm a handful. I'm bold, I'm juicy. Throw some pickles and barbecue sauce on me, and baby I'm a whole meal. And with seven rewards, I'm just $4. Quiet, no. Crispy, saucy, and $4? Very. Only at 7-Eleven.

through 62326, participating stores only while supplies lastly out for full terms. Beautiful, wonderful. Congratulations on the wedding. You're in the position of a lot of people,

especially millennial and zoomers who were not really raised with religion. Then they realized the old gods of the copy book headings keep coming back. They start to really take seriously eternal questions.

And they realize, oh, turns out that all the great thinkers and saints were right. That, you know, it's true, God exists. And we should do something about it. So you say, well, I don't know what to do with that.

Okay, here's what I would do. Go to church. You know, my view is I'm a mackerel snapping papist, went 10 years in the wilderness as a atheist, came back in, explored different flavors of Christianity. So I would recommend you go to a Catholic church and then avail yourself of the sacraments, because we have, I think, a sacramental faith, and read your Bible and read the doctors of the church. And, you know, I'd encourage all of that. But if you're not, I don't know, if you're not totally sure, you're not totally ready,

you just kind of want to dip your toe in. Just do it. Just do it. Just go to church. Just pick up that Bible. Just watch a lecture from, I don't know, the Thomistic Institute or the Augustine Institute or some... Listen to, Father Mike Schmidt's Bible in ear. Just kind of do it. Don't worry that you don't know everything. Don't worry that you have questions. I think it was St. John Henry Newman. Probably the greatest theologian ever to write in English who said 10,000 questions don't make one doubt. Just do it. Okay, last question. Hey Michael. As another year of my life has gone by, I couldn't help but think about life itself. My question to you is, what is your philosophy on how one should live and how long one should live?

Obviously, we should not be in a hurry to die, but at the same time, we should not be afraid to die. Our purpose on the earth is to repopulate and carry on our bloodline, which I want to do more than anything but is impossible. but with life itself, are we to live every day like it was our last? Do we have to earn our keep in heaven? Or are we to enjoy life on earth that the Lord gave us before it becomes a thing of the past? I know this is a rather deep question, but I really appreciate your insight. Okay, well, good question. My philosophy of life is this.

Credo in unum deum, patrem omnipotentem, Factorium cheliotere, to translate, for those of you, probably actually many of you have much better Latin than I do. My Latin is a little bit weak. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was seen by the Holy Spirit, born and the Virgin Mary, suffered in a bunch of it, who's crucified died and was buried. He rose again on the third day. Some of you know the rest. I believe, my philosophy of life is the Catholic faith.

And that's going to be unsatisfying. Ultimately, it will be very satisfying. But to some people, they're going to say, no, I want something original. What's your own zesty little spin on the philosophy of life? Come on, I want a self-help guru who's going to, come on, I want a guy to give me something new. No, ain't nothing new under the sun, kid. And if you find something new, some new philosophy of life is wrong. That's what it is. Because we know the scope of history. We know how it starts. We know the pivot of history, which is the incarnation. We even know how it's going to end. And yet here we are in the suspended time of history, doing our best to cooperate with God's grace. So, no, I'm not looking for anything new. I'm looking for things.

are old, that are paradoxically ever ancient and ever new. That's my philosophy of life. You say that the purpose of life is to pass on your genes. No, that's what a materialist might say. That's what a, I don't know, someone for whom Darwinian evolution is the highest truth. That's not what I would say. That's part of life often, but I don't think a priest has failed in his life by the opposite. I don't think someone who is single or who is infertile has failed to fulfill his or her purpose. Far from it. The purpose of life, ultimately, is to know God, serve him in this world, and enjoy him forever. And that even is knowable by reason, because we know that there's more to life than mere matter.

So to reduce the ultimate things to matter is incoherent. It's irrational. That's what I recommend. The Carpe Diem religion, you say, should we just seize the day? Chesterton also wrote about that. the Carpe Diem religion. He said it's not the religion of happy people. It's the religion of very unhappy people who are grasping, who are desperate, who just want to feel anything, one little titillation. Please give me some joy. But it's not going to give them ultimate satisfaction.

It's a very, it's a myopic religion. You got to get a deeper one. Okay. Speaking of, it's Theology Thursday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member in Use Code Knowles, KennaWLAS, check out for two months free on all annual plans. places can expose you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts,

we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash special offer. Terms apply. Hey, sweetie, your mother showed me this Carvana thing for selling the car. I'm going to give it a try. Wish me luck. Me again, I put in the license plate. It gave me an offer. Unbelievable. Okay, I accepted the offer. They're picking it up Tuesday from the driveway. I haven't even left my chair.

It's done. The car is gone. I'm holding a check. Anyway, Carvana. Give it a whirl. Love you. So good, you'll want to leave a voicemail about it. Sell your car today on... Carvana. Pick up fees may apply.