The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2003 - Trump Is Unleashed To Kick Out Haitian Migrants

Episode Date: June 26, 2026

The Supreme Court has ruled to let President Trump remove Temporary Protected Status for Haitian nationals, Marco Rubio weighs in on the political campaign to pin the Iran deal on J.D. Vance, and incoming Democrat congressman Darializa Chevalier complains that ugly white women get all the hot black and Arab guys.  Ep. 2003 - - - Today's Sponsors: PureTalk - Go to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES to make the switch to PureTalk. America’s wireless company… Pure Talk. Homeserve - Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe. For 50% less your first year, go to https://HomeServe.com/knowles. Savings compared to renewal price. Void in Florida. - - - DailyWire+: Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🕯️🍹 The My Suit & Mai Tai candle is now available! https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles/products/knowles-seasonal-candle ☀️🪕🌴 This candle comes with a QR code leading you to the exclusive original My Suit & Mai Tai music video - a true gift from paradise. 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One of the strangest things about the modern economy is that everyone claims to love small businesses, but the systems that we've built may get harder and harder for small businesses to actually survive. Over 70% of small businesses need additional capital at least once a year. Meanwhile, banks are tightening underwriting and approving fewer loans than ever, even while small business revenue is at record highs. So what happens? Business owners get trapped in limbo. But if you want bank rates without the bank delays, you need to check out cardiff.

dot CO slash Knowles for up to half a million dollars in same-day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the United States. Since 2004, they've funded more than $12 billion for businesses. The application takes under five minutes. There's no impact on personal credit, and businesses can often get approved in minutes and funded the very same day. Big banks may not want to approve your business loans. Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to half a million dollars in same-day business funding at cardiff.co.co.co.com slash knolls. Cardiff.coms. Real growth, funding Cardiff, borrow better.

The Supreme Court has ruled to let President Trump remove temporary protected status for Haitian nationals after 16 years of extensions. Now, I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that this case hinges less on abstruse interpretations of the Constitution and more on understanding the meaning of the word temporary, a test that many prominent Democrats seem to be failing. Then, Secretary of State Marker Rubio weighs in on the political campaign to pin the Iran deal on J.D. Vance. And incoming Democrat congressman Darya Lisa Chevalier complains that ugly white women get all the hot black and Arab guys.

I am not joking. Those are almost her words verbatim. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Nulls show. Welcome back to the show. Theo Vaughn does not want data centers being built around America. And I've noticed other people talking about this too. And I consider myself rather fluent in populism and actually rather sympathetic to populism. A little bit of a populist myself. And I don't get the data thing. I don't get the reason people hate the data centers. In fact, I think I do get the reason. and people hate the data centers, but I don't think the people who hate the data centers understand the reason that they hate them. We will get to that in a moment. First, though,

very exciting news from the Supreme Court. Six-three decisions, the Supreme Court says that after, what has it been? Eight years at this point, Trump can finally remove the temporary protected status from the Haitians who were brought here in 2010. 2010, you get that big earthquake and the United States says, okay, some Haitians can come here if you want and be protected. And then Trump comes into office after 20, he enters in 2017 and says, okay, you know, it's been long enough. We're going to remove the temporary protected status. And the courts have been gumming this up ever since. And now in the year of our Lord, 2006, finally the courts say, yes, the president can remove the temporary protected status of the people who have been here for 16 years. This overturns decisions by federal judges in New York and D.C. The number of people we're talking about here, it's not just 5,000 or 10,000 Haitians. We're talking about 350,000 Haitians plus another 6,100 people from Syria who have TPS, that after last year, the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to remove the TPS from 300,000 Venezuelans. So even just in the last year or so, you're talking about some

650, 660,000 foreigners who were here who President Trump has removed, on top of formally deporting another 700,000 plus people in the first term, with 1.5 million people self-deporting because of tightening up on the rules, in addition to shutting down the border, which stopped the influx of 3 million people a year. So you are seeing at this point a massive shift in people who were here or would. have been here to not being here, which is a really, really good thing. I mean, we're talking about what is that? Six million people almost in about a year and a half. That's actually pretty good, as far as I'm concerned. The question that on a lot of people's minds is, how could it have taken this long? Why does it require an order of the Supreme Court to say that the president is

allowed to remove the people who were here temporarily? It would seem like that's the meaning of the word temporary. You remember that old clip of Ben when Ben was doing this, the college speeches, and he said, girls shouldn't be in the Boy Scouts. And some liberal girl said, well, how do you know, where does it say that? And he says, it says that in the word Boy Scouts. That's the same thing with TPS. Where does it say that the president can remove these people from the country?

I think it's in the word temporary. So now this has triggered the libs into saying that this is awful. This is tantamount to killing these people. It's not safe to go back to Haiti. And Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, was asked if it is safe, if it is okay for the Haitians to be returned to Haiti. And he gives what I think might be the very perfect answer. The administration consider Haiti a safe country. For Haitians, absolutely.

For Haitians. Yes. Yes. Haitians live in Haiti. It's not a position that Haitians should leave Haiti. I mean, it would be crazy for us to say that Haitians couldn't live in Haiti. their country. Of course Haitians should live in Haiti. There's no viable asylum, or use a technical term here, cat claim or withholding claim for any Haitian seeking relief from going back to Haiti, to their homeland. The fact that there might be pockets of Haiti where there's higher crime rates, guess what? There's pockets of Chicago with crime rates just as high, right?

There's pockets of cities like St. Louis with crime just as high. Pockets of Los Angeles crime just as high. It has never been the case that having communities that have high crime rates is a basis for asylum. Never has been. Never will be. Okay. Now listen, he gives the kind of more normal political answer there at the end where he says, look, you're saying it's very unsafe in Haiti. Yeah, sure. I mean, I would say Haiti, not the nicest country in the world. But look, there are even parts of America, the country that these people have received asylum in, temporary asylum, temporary protected status, temporary. Did I say temporary? There are parts of America that are just as dangerous. So, come on, you know, that's not a, that's not a good argument. All of you

libs who want to keep the Haitians here forever. But the better point that Miller makes is at the very top of this. And it's brilliant, actually. Stephen Miller is making a teleological argument for getting rid of the Haitians. He's making a natural law argument for getting rid of the Haitians. The lib journalists think they have him in a gotcha, because everyone knows, that Haiti is not a nice place. Haiti is a voodoo-cursed island that has been absolutely awful, effectively hell on earth

since Toussaint's voodoo slave rebellion. It's just terrible, and everybody knows it. So the lib journalist says, well, how can you send the Haitians back to Haiti? The State Department encourages Americans not to travel to Haiti. So is Haiti really safe?

should these Haitians go back to Haiti? And Stephen Miller says, well, yes, Haiti is safe for Haitians. Haitians should go back to Haiti. That's what Haiti's for. These are the kinds of classical arguments and the classical way of understanding things that is totally foreign to modern people. But a lot of it boils down to things are for things. The leftist-year's Tumblr is four. the leftist ears are in this case my fruity millennial selzer. The microphone is for conducting my molyphalo's voice to your ears. And Haiti is for Haitians. So there's no double standard. There's no hypocrisy in the State Department discouraging Americans from going on vacation to Haiti. And the White House saying the Haitians need to go back to Haiti. Haiti is for the Haitians. And what is implied in this argument is America is not for all. all the Haitians, any Haitian who wants to come here. Because if the principle that the left is

promoting here were to be applied universally, we would have to throw open our borders and let in the entire world. Because statistically, the entire rest of the world sucks compared to America. Statistically, other than in those cities like Chicago and wherever else, parts of L.A., statistically, every place in the world is less safe than America, less prosperous than America, less stable than America. So if you apply the principle that the lib journalists are trying to advocate here universally, we would throw open our borders, which is exactly what they want. So how do you get out of that? You point out what countries are for. Countries are not for a dumping grounds of anyone from anywhere who wants to come in and make a buck. Countries are for a people, the people of that

country. And you can fiddle around with immigration rates, but there's no eternal law that says you have to let everybody in. Furthermore, when the Haitians were brought here in 2010, it was supposed to be a temporary measure. They were supposed to be here for 18 months. That was 16 years ago. The Libs don't want it to be temporary. And every time a president who was elected by the people tries to exercise the most basic aspects of his duty, which is to run the country, police the country, determine who comes in and out, the courts have said no for years and years and years now. Finally, they say, sorry, you're out. On top of the Venezuelans. This is really, really good stuff. The Democrats, of course, are objecting, not just the media, but Chuck Schumer. Listen to what Chuck Schumer said.

In a cruel and inhumane decision, the Supreme Court just turned its back on more than 300,000 Haitians and thousands of Syrians who've worked and raised families here. because they faced violence and instability back home. Put a pause. How have they raised families here? I thought they were only supposed to be here for 18 months. They're supposed to be here temporarily. They don't have green cards.

They're not supposed to be here for 20 years. You can't raise a family in 18 months. The only way that they would have raised families here, the only way to get to the premise of your outrage, is if you've already abused the law, you Democrats, which is exactly what happened. TPS exists for exactly this reason. Put a pause.

TPS exists so that Haitians can raise their families here? No, that would be PPS. That would be permanent protected status. This is TPS. This is temporary. It's what happens when an earthquake occurs and then you go back home. Chuck Schumer says, no. Haiti and Syria remain unsafe today instead of showing basic humanity.

Donald Trump in this court have chosen fear, chaos, and cruelty. Basic humanity. basic humanity to let in one of the most criminal populations on earth to just remain here totally in violation of the law. In other words, the president should not show basic humanity to American citizens. He should not show basic humanity to his constituents, to his voters who elected him with the popular vote. No, no, no. He needs to show extraordinary humanity, I think, ultimately injustice to everyone by letting the Haitians stay here forever. But do you recognize the problem with the Libs argument here? So the Libs argued in the Supreme Court case, they argued that Trump was violating equal protection and he was unjustly discriminating against the Haitians because he called Haiti an S-H-I-T whole country.

So they said he's racist, he's bigoted, he's prejudiced, he's not applying the law fairly, he's targeting these people. and that's why they need to be able to stay for another 16, 20 years. But Chuck Schumer is admitting that Trump was right. When he says Haiti is not safe today, what he's saying is Haiti is an SHIT whole country. When the reporter says

that you can't send the Haitians back to Stephen Miller, the reporter is admitting Haiti is an SHIT whole country. But wait, wait, wait, I seem to recall all of the libs, when Trump originally made that claim, all of the libs are arguing that Haiti was some kind of Caribbean in paradise.

This past Saturday, we aired our Conan in Haiti special, and while we were in Haiti, we offered Haitians, their own version of Make America Great Again Hats. It's a hat that says Haiti is great already. We offered it to them and they were quite happy to have it. People

really like the slogan in Haiti. They liked it so much so that Omease.com is now exclusively offering this Haiti is great already t-shirt. Haiti is great already.

We had a great trip to Haiti and Haiti's great already. And then you get all these guys, Bill Maher, Susan Sarandon, Conan, wearing these stupid shirts that say Haiti is great already. Well, great. How charitable is Trump? He's sending the Haitians back to this island paradise. He should win an award. He should be lauded by Conan and Bill Maher and Susan Sarandon, right?

Or no, or is Haiti really dangerous so much so that it's some crime against humanity to send Haitians back to Haiti? Which is it? Because the exact same people have been arguing the totally opposite points with regard to this issue whenever it suits them. Were they lying then or are they lying now? It's actually neither. It's even more insidious than that. So much of liberalism comes down to the belief that saying false things can make them true. Liberalism, it occurs to me, ultimately is a voluntarist religion and ideology. It didn't totally start out that way. The liberal project, going back to the Enlightenment, started out kind of hyper-rationalist, this idea that you could disenchant the world, reduce everything to the level of pure economic calculation,

and we would all live in great prosperity. But over the first, time, liberalism has adopted, because that is fundamentally contrary to the way the world really works, liberalism over time has morphed, and it's become essentially a voluntarist ideology. An ideology based purely on will, whatever I want to be true just is going to be true. If I want a man to be a woman, the man's going to be a woman. If I don't want the man to be a woman, he won't be a woman. This is why their arguments on transgenderism were always so confused. when they would try to talk about at what age you could transition

or in what context on what sports teams and which bathrooms. There wasn't a ton of consistency, one, because the ideology was absurd, but two, because fundamentally they believe that they can just totally change the world with their own words, like Humpty Dumpty. So they believe when they say Haiti is great to own Trump, Haiti really is great. And you can see the videos of Conan O'Brien swimming in the Caribbean.

And then when they say that Haiti is hell on earth also to own Trump, then Haiti really is hell on earth. And the determining factor is not the nature of Haiti. It's not anything real or objective in the world. It's just whatever they say. The meaning of words is whatever they want it to be. Which is why it's so brilliant that Stephen Miller is making this kind of natural law argument for sending the Haitians back. He says, no, no, I'm not saying it would be safe for Americans to go to Haiti. I'm saying it's safe for Haitians to go to Haiti because that's what Haiti is for. Haiti is for the Haitians. And now we can all admit, at least this week, that Haiti is an SHIT whole country and we don't want to become like Haiti. We've been more than generous with the Haitians. We've allowed them to overstay their temporary status by approximately 14 and a half years, and now they have to go home.

There are elected politicians now who are saying they're going to fight the federal government to protect the Haitians in violation, not just of the Trump administration, not just of the Congress, in what temporary protected status is, but also in violation of the Supreme Court. So in violation of all three branches of the federal government, you have Zohran Mamdani coming to the rescue of the Haitians. And this, I think, could actually really affect the midterms in 2028. We'll get to that momentarily. First, I want to tell you about Pure Talk. Go to Peartot.com slash Knowles, K&WLES, are great nations.

50th birthday's coming up. This summer is a time to reflect on the sacrifices made then for our lives today. Men and women gave up their homes, their safety, their lives to pursue the American dream and give us the home that we love. To honor their sacrifices and the sacrifices of the veterans today that continue to protect our home, Pure Talk is raising $250,000 for America's Warrior Partnership by the end of July. America's Warrior Partnership mission is to protect and improve veterans' lives, preventing veterans suicide by helping communities to serve and care for these men and women. By covering the basics, housing, access to VA benefits, transportation counseling, the organization stops suicides provides the tangible resources that give veterans a hand up.

Switch on over today. The service is great, the people are great, the customer service is great, you're getting the best towers and you're getting the best price. It's just you, everything is better with Peer Talk. Every single thing is noticeably better, not the least of which is supporting a company that supports you. Make Pure Talk your wireless network today make a difference in veterans life. Could a Peartotoc.com slash Knowles, Ken at WLS, S. Make the switch to Peartalk. That is, Peartotalk.com slash Knowles, Kennaw LAS,

to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. Zoran, the Ugandan Muslim Communist sitting in his office in front of a gay pride flag and a soccer ball. Man, oh man, wouldn't the founding fathers be confused? Zoran Mamdani

says that he will stand up against the Supreme Court. and keep the Haitians here indefinitely. We saw today the Supreme Court make a decision that is putting so many people's lives in jeopardy. And I just came back from a rally with 1199 as I stood alongside a number of Haitian New Yorkers who are concerned about what this means for their status in our city. And we stand here ready to be in solidarity with all of those who are concerned by today's

decision and beyond just the language of solidarity, actions of solidarity. Now, what that means when it comes to our city is if you are worried about what this means for your status, if you're worried about what this means for your family, I would encourage you to call our mayor's office of immigrant affairs hotline. Not just words of solidarity, but actions of solidarity. Call our hotline. He doesn't want to be too explicit and put himself in legal jeopardy. But what he's saying is, we will help you violate federal law. We'll help you evade the police. We're already a sanctuary city. We've already undermined immigration enforcement. And we're going to help you. all three branches of the federal government. This dovetails on something we were talking about yesterday, which is, this is maybe the clearest sign yet that we need to drastically restrict all immigration, not just illegal but legal too. This whole problem is caused by immigration, by mass migration, the whole problem.

There's this cope that the New York Post was posting yesterday, which is that, you know, we can just blame liberal white women. They're the most irrational, crazy liberal group. All things are the fault of liberal white women. It's not the immigrants. It's not foreign peoples that are hostile to our country. No, no, it's just liberal white women. And the reason you even hear many conservatives go after them is because it's the safest way to seem edgy.

No one's going to be angry with you for attacking liberal white women. But you don't want to be called a xenophobia. You don't want to be called racist, do you? You can't touch the immigrants. But it's an immigration problem. Zoranamamdani is not American. He's Ugandan. His culture is quite foreign. He came to America. He's used and abused our system. And he is now undermining our entire constitutional order at a very basic level. He himself is an immigrant. He is undermining federal law and the Supreme Court's decision in order to protect other immigrants. They're not even really immigrants. There would be immigrants who were here on temporary protected status. But because of the politics of mass migration and factionalism and tribal loyalty, they're going to undermine all of that. You can't have a country like this.

It's not even anything against the Haitians in particular. It is a weird voodoo country that does seem to be cursed, but it's not even anything against the Haitians in particular. This is true going back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome and the scholastics. You just can't have that many immigrants in a country and have a stable country. You can have some immigrants, but a very small number. when you have too many, you have to greatly restrict all of it. It's not just a problem of breaking our law or not waiting in line or not filling out the right paperwork.

It's one, the sheer number of them because we have the highest foreign-borne percentage of the population ever. Too many. Whether they filled out the right paperwork or not, we have too many of them. And two, this is the one you're really not allowed to say. It's the type of immigrant. Some immigrants are better for the country than others. Some immigrants are more assimilable to the country. than others. Some immigrants bring with them cultural habits and religious beliefs that are more in line with the country than others. It's easier to assimilate a Brit than it is to assimilate someone from Djibouti. Okay. It's easier to assimilate a Christian than it is to assimilate a Muslim. It's easier to assimilate a lot of people, a Canadian even, America's Evil Top Hat,

another dark voodoo country. But it is easier to assimilate even a Canadian than it is to assimilate a Haitian to the American culture. It's just a fact. And so there is a quantitative aspect and a qualitative aspect of immigrants. But it does not hinge merely on legality or illegality. Mass migration generally, even in its legal forms, is clearly largely illegal anyway. The way that they're trying to force these hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Venezuelans and thousands of Syrians to stay here is through legal processes while abusing the law. And it's just too much. and we need to get down to the heart of the matter and stop dancing around with a bunch of babble about procedural norms when really what we're talking about is substantive goods. Do you want Muslim foreigners taking over your cities

only getting elected because 40% of the voters in your city are not from here and 60% of the voters in your city are not from here or their parents are not from here saying that they're going to undermine federal orders to bring in more people who don't belong here? Do you want that? Is that, does that seem to, like take your feelings of America aside. Obviously, if you're watching the show, you probably love America. But even if you hate America, just abstract it out. Is that a reasonable demand to make of any nation ever? Of course not. Now, speaking of immigration and cultural decay, there's a new movie coming out that you need to get very excited for. First, though, I want to tell you about homeserve. Go to homeserve.com slash Knowles, KennaW-L-L-A-S. there is a moment every homeowner eventually experiences.

Something breaks, and for approximately 15 minutes, you become convinced you can fix it yourself. So you watch two YouTube videos, you locate a wrench, you develop a level of confidence that is totally unsupported by your actual qualifications, and then reality arrives. I might have tried this once or twice to varying degrees of success. The problem is not just that things break, it's that they never break at a convenient time. A water heater doesn't fail when your schedule's clear. A pipe doesn't burst when you've set aside money specifically for plumbing emergencies. One thing many homeowners discover is that standard homeowners insurance often does not cover a lot of the day-to-day wear and tear issues that can cause major headaches. That is where homeserve comes in.

HomeServe offers plans covering various home systems and helps take some of the panic out of unexpected repairs. Instead of scrambling to find help in the middle of a stressful situation, you can call their 24-7 hotline start the repair process. They've been helping homeowners for more than 20 years and work with a national network of more than 2,600 local contractors. nearly four and a half million customers, a 4.8 out of five post-repair rating, and an A-plus with the Better Business Bureau. These are people you can trust. Join the millions of customers who trust homeserved for 50% off your first year. Go to homeserve.com slash Knowles. That is homeserve.com slash Knowles for 50% off savings compared to renewal price void in Florida. There is a principle at work in Medicare that should bother you. The people advising you on your plan are often

incentivized to recommend what pays you the most, not what fits you the best. Most people make this decision once and never revisit it, even though plans change every single year. Millions are into coverage that no longer makes sense for them. They don't even know it. Chapter is structured differently. They're independent, the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. Not a selection, every plan. They look at your doctors, your prescriptions, your priorities, and they tell you the truth. If you're on the right plan, they will say so. If you're not, they'll help you switch. No pressure, no sales pitch. People who have found new plans through Chapter have saved over $1,100 a year on average. Go to DailyWire.com slash chapter. It's free. It takes under 20 minutes. You'll walk away

actually knowing whether your plan fits your life, which is more than the system was designed to give you. We're talking about, on the one hand, mass migration, lack of assimilation, cultures that are not really fit with our culture. And we're also talking about the decay of institutions and the rot within our own nation that led us to be even more susceptible to these problems. And it just so happens that there is a movie coming out from the Daily Wire taking on this very point. and that would be run-hide fight infidels. Check it out. We have a terror warning in northern Virginia. Radical Islam has designs openly on the west.

The FBI thwarted a terror plot on New Year's Eve. Violence attack over the Halloween weekend in Michigan. Protests on college campus is showing no signs of stopping. Now this is not a sequel to Run Hide Fight, probably our most successful movie we've ever released, because there are no returning characters. It's not really in the nature of these stories to have returning characters. This is totally different, much more timely, and it's coming soon. Do we have a date on when that's coming?

I want to see that movie. When is the movie coming? You're not going to tell me. We don't have a date. Okay, that's fine. In any case, I think the theme of the movie is only going to be more pertinent as time goes on. Now, speaking of Arabs, DAC, she's the new AOC. She's the lady who won the Democrat congressional primary in New York's 13th district.

Daria Liza Chavallier has some really interesting commentary. No one had ever heard of her until she won this primary. Now people are looking back at some of her past public statements. And there's a lot of the communism and the weird leftist politics. But there's one post in particular that is going viral. This is from her real Twitter account, Daria Liza Bonnet. And she posted it in 2019. and it says black men, Arab men, shaking hands, what do they agree on?

Fetishizing, ugly, colonizer women. Frame it, frame it. This is definitely left-wing racial identity lady politics. This is the perfect encapsulation of that. But the more I look at the tweet, the more I wonder if this is a perfect encapsulation of politics generally. When she says colonizer here, what she means is white women. And so she's very, very angry at black men and Arab men for finding white women attractive. And this is, you know, this is backed up by a lot of social scientific data, data that have come out of some

of the dating apps like Tinder, that it turns out that white women get the most swipes and other races get fewer positive swipes from all races than white women. So this woman, Darya Lisa Chevalier, is very angry about this. She is not a white woman, and she seems very, very angry that the white ladies are getting all the hot, black, and Arab guys. Your next congressman, New York, your next congressman focusing on the issues that matter, namely her envy at those white women, who she calls ugly, for getting all those hot black and Arab fellas. it is a reminder, not just that the libs are totally freaking nuts and they're getting more nuts by the day. This is actually a deeper reminder about politics, that a lot of politics is psychological. A lot of politics is psychological.

I have a friend of mine. I won't say who, who says that facts don't care about your feelings. But I have another friend. We used to have a rejoinder. We'd say, yeah, but politics exclusively cares about your feelings. And I've even changed my views on this over the years. I remember some years ago, I was talking to a political psychologist. This was someone who studies this supposed psychology of politics.

And he was at a university in California. And I remember thinking this is such ridiculous psychobabble nonsense. Politics is a matter of reason. You know, people have different political views because they have reasoned differently. And they have differing competencies and aptitude. for reason. But if we could only make better arguments, then everybody would agree with us politically. Then everybody would be a conservative Republican. And the older I get, the clearer, it seems to me, that that is not, in fact, the case. We do have reason. I wish we would use our reason more.

We have a limited sort of reason as human beings. But that is not chiefly what political identity is about, nor should it be. Forget about the libs who make it all about their subjective, intersectional feelings and relativism. But even the conservatives, the smartest conservative political philosophers ever have observed that conservatism is not really a set of ideas. You know, this is the point I made. They're starting to post some of my events from when I was at Oxford a few weeks ago. The last one to drop, it hasn't come up yet, is the formal debate that evening on whether or not Trump has betrayed conservatism. My speech was very much on this subject. Conservatism is not a bunch of policies. A lot of ideologues will argue that it is. I say it's free trade and strong national

defense and this and that, but it's, it's not a set of policies. Conservatives have embraced free trade and protectionism. They've embraced less migration, more migration. They've embraced a hawkish foreign policy and a dubbish foreign policy. It's not, if conservatism is just policy, there is no conservatism, nor is conservatism even some abstract set of moral principles. even those are a little bit ambiguous. And there are plenty of religious beliefs that can lead into a kind of conservatism. According to people like Edmund Burke, the founder of Anglo-American conservatism, or people like Michael Oakeshott, or people like Russell Kirk, or people like Roger Scruton,

according to some of the best conservative thinkers over the last 300 years, conservatism, this is Scruton's line, is less an idea than an inclination. you can look at someone and know, are they conservative or libs? You can just kind of see it in the way they behave, in the way they dress, in the way they comport themselves. And leftism, I was reading yesterday, I'm kind of telling on myself, I was reading old Uncle Ted's Unabomber manifesto, you know, Ted Kaczynski, the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, that whole thing. And I was reading it for a separate project I was working on. But anyway, I was going through it. and Kaczynski diagnoses leftism. He was a little kooky himself, obviously, but he did make some interesting observations. And he realized that leftism is largely a matter of psychology. It's people who have low self-esteem and in a way kind of hate themselves and people who are overly socialized. So they're more inclined to go with the crowd and they're not, they don't really think for themselves and their ideas aren't totally grounded on sound first principles. And in that way, Uncle Ted was wrong about a lot of things, but in that one he was right.

politics is largely psychological. And I think one of the reasons, to put a little bow on this and bring it all full circle, one of the reasons that conservatives have just gotten absolutely routed on the immigration issue is because we fail to recognize that politics comes down not just to rationalist principles that we deduce from pure reason and write on the tabla rasa of our polities. but politics is about loyalties. It's really an extension of family bonds. And it's about loyalties that are in some ways sentimental, that are tribal, surely, that do involve

overlapping intersectional identities, not in the way the left means it, but in the sense that they involve a lot more than just pure reason. Never underestimate how much a woman's jealousy. can inform her politics. In this case of Garia Liza Chevalier, never underestimate the fury, hell has no fury like a woman scorned,

but never underestimate the power of these sorts of psychosexual animosities and how they play out in politics of race, in politics of gender, in politics of migration, and you add all those things together, and increasingly, that is the politics

of the Democrat Party and potentially of our country. Ignore that those realities is at your own risk. Okay, one thing I really want to get to, but I, ah, do I have time? Do I have to, I want to get to it. I'm getting to it. Theo Vaughan on the data centers. We'll get to Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance and this whole totally contrived campaign to go after the vice president, largely driven by what used to be never Trump. But this whole contrived idea that Rubio and Vance hate each other or something, both of these men and Trump keep dispelling this time and time again. But the one thing I do want to get to before we goes,

Theo Vaughn, because Theo Vaughn made an interesting observation on his show that is reflective of, I think, a lot of populist sentiment. And it's one that I just, I can't get behind. Take it away. We don't want any data, bro. We don't want any. Nobody wants a data center. Do you? Nobody wants it. And the people that want them to me, brother, they seem kind of evil. I believe this is my a hypothesis theory that they're going to all it's all going to be locked in with uh these flock cameras or some company like this palantir one of these companies is going to be owning all of this information they're going to put it all in it's all going to be we're all going to be locked down everybody you're not going to be able to live or do anything that feels human right there's

going to become this kind of score this sort of like social and even emotional sort of credit score and then AI is going to become, it won't ever really, but it's going to try to become like our new God. Okay. I get a real kick out of Theo Vaughn. He seems like a real nice guy. I'm trying to, I don't know that I've ever actually met him in person, but he seems like a real nice guy. He probably has very good intentions. He raises important questions that we should think about in the abstract, like whether or not we're making an idol out of AI, whether or not we've allowed government surveillance to go too far or whatever. But his, discrete point here on the data centers, which is becoming a bigger political issue, should we build

data centers in states and municipalities or should we not? His argument on the data centers is just Chinese propaganda. That's all it is. I don't think he knows that. I don't think he's getting paid off by the Chinese. I don't think it's any of that. But that's what it is. That's where that idea comes from. It's the only explanation I can come up with for it. There has been this populist appeal over the last six months or so, against data centers. And the thing about good propaganda is good propaganda isn't just totally made up. It's not that it comes completely out of nowhere. It plays on existing anxieties.

It plays on existing divisions. When the Soviet Union is pumping a lot of racial propaganda and civil rights propaganda into the U.S. in the 60s and 70s, it's not that they invented racial strife in America. There was racial strife. They just really exacerbated it to create divisions. That's what's going on here. Yeah, there are anxieties in America about over surveillance. That's not a problem that came around with data centers.

That's a problem that came around with the Internet and with the Patriot Act and with fitting cameras into tiny little glass frames and having cameras everywhere in our lives. It has very little to do with the rise of data centers, but it does make people anxious. The fact that we seem to be making gods in our increasingly irreligious society, we make gods out of technology. That's true. Again, I was mentioning Ted Kaczynski earlier. That has been an anxiety for many decades at this point. The discrete political issue should, what are the data centers for? The data centers are for technology, specifically AI, AI, which is propping up our entire stock market, AI, which is the arms race that we are currently in with China, China, a nation that is currently at war with us. They're in a kind of low-grade, sneaky Chinese kind of war in the sense that they're not firing missiles at us, but they are sending their spies to infect our crops with bio-weapons like all the time. And then these stories pop up in the news and we just kind of forget about them after a week or two. But we are effectively in a war with China, and we are especially in an arms race, especially when it comes to AI. And so the question you have to ask yourself when some new political argument or some new political idea comes up, the first question I would recommend asking yourself is, who benefits from this? Cui Bono. Who benefits? Who benefits? benefits. That is going to be a really good guide to how you can think about politics. And when it comes to the

anti-data center stuff, there are legitimate concerns. Will the data centers raise energy prices? Will they affect water or something? I don't know. Will they displace other jobs in a municipality? I think the answer to that largely is no. But those are interesting questions worth considering, worth debating before you greenlight the data center. But should we build data centers, period? It depends. Do you want to lose a war to China or do you want to win a war with China? Or do you want to have a chance of winning a war with China? I'm not even sure if we can win. Who most benefits from American popular sentiment turning against America supporting the thing that is propping up our whole stock market and which is the only thing that we're really fighting China over right now?

the chief thing. We're fighting them over a lot of things, but the chief thing that we're fighting China. Who benefits? China does. And there are lots of influence network. It's so funny. People will be so quick to point out the Qatari influencer campaigns, but they'll never recognize the Israeli influencer campaigns. In other words, they'll never recognize it coming from the other side. They'll recognize that America pushes a lot of state propaganda. They won't recognize that China pushes a lot of state propaganda on us or Russia, but everybody does it. And on this thing, Theo Vaughn seems like a real nice guy, and I'm glad he's raising interesting questions. But let's not fall for a thing that would not only collapse our stock market, not only collapse our economy, but we're a nation.

You know, we're not a people that serves an economy. The economy serves the people. More to the point at a geopolitical level, let's not allow China to demoralize us into winning the most important competition we're fighting with them. right now. That's where it comes from. You want to know what these issues are really about, figure out who most benefits. Okay, I did not pick the comment today. The comment was picked by the producers on Spotify. We'll see how they did. This is from DJ Pund. Michael, since the producers keep failing and refuse to make up Tee-He-He-T-H-T-H-T-E Tuesday, they should be forced to do an entire week of T-Hee-Hee-Hee-E. Every day should be based on the normal theme, music, videos for Monday,

religion videos for Thursday, and so on. I agree-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-I-I with the T-Hee-Hee-Hee-week. But before we get to Teahee-Hea Friday, our mailbag is sponsored by Peartock.com to PIRTOP.com slash Knowles, KnaWLAS, to switch to my wireless company. Take it away. Hi, Michael. It's Joe. Isabel Brown has taken this on. The internet has taken this on. But I don't believe you have and would love your take. I'm a father of three young daughters, one who's almost five, one who's almost three, and one who just turned six months.

And I keep seeing videos circulating on whether girl dads like me should take. their daughters into the women's or men's restroom. From what I can tell, the general consensus is the women's restroom. However, both make me a little uncomfortable. As a father, what do you think the right approach is? Do I announce my presence before entering and only proceed if the women's restroom is empty, or if there are women in there, ask if they're comfortable with me taking my daughters in there? In other words, WWMKD. What would Michael Knowles think? do. Thank you. You choose the restroom based on the sex of the adult. That's the answer. I'm not a girl dad yet.

I guess I am, actually. My future daughter is my current daughter, who is in the womb right now. But I have not had the experience yet of acting as a father to a daughter. So I haven't had to deal with this issue. But I soon will. You do it, you pick the bathroom based on the sex of the adult. Because if you were to go with your suggestion that the father takes the little girls into the women's restroom, then at the population level, there is no such thing as women's restrooms anymore because adult men will be in the women's room all the time. And that's totally ridiculous and abolishes women's bathrooms. Now, the ideal scenario is that your wife takes the girls into the bathroom. That is not always possible. In very sad cases, you know, a mother has died or people get divorced.

Or so it's not, again, I recognize it's not always possible. In as much as it is possible, you should, you should just have the mother take the girls in. But it's based on the sex of the adult. When you think about this, when your wife is taking your three and five-year-old son to go to the bathroom at the amusement park or the airport or whatever, does she go into the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom? She goes into the women's bathroom. You would go into the men's bathroom. because you are the one who is autonomous, you are the one who is of maturity, you are the one really fully acting here, and the kids are sort of coming along with you. So that's what you would do. I guess it's complicated if the bathroom only has urinals or something, but I don't

know, that seems rare. That's an edge case. Yeah, no, don't, you should not go into the women's bathroom ever. Next question. Michael, congratulations on 2,000 episodes. That's incredible. I looked up your first episode and you were talking about Al Gore. This was eight years ago and you're like, hey, guess what? El Gore wasn't right about anything. And like a little while ago, you were like, hey, guys, El Gore still isn't right about anything. So I appreciate the consistency. In that same vein, where do you think the Democrat Party is going to go?

Because they just continue to double down. They haven't learned anything. Like, where do they go from here? Yeah, Trump is a Nazi. I know eventually it'll be J.D. as a Nazi. Republicans in general are Nazis. But like, where as a party are they heading as it straight into socialism, communism? What are they going to do? Great question. And just to the first point, I'm glad someone caught the Easter egg, the Al Gore Easter egg. Because as I was preparing for my 2000 episode was, I don't think it was on episode 2000. I think it was 1999 or 1999. I included the Al Gore story thinking of the first episode of this show which was largely about Al Gore

and I'm glad no one else caught the Al Gore Easter egg except for you a highly sophisticated member of the Crem de la Crem. As for the, what was your actual question? What was the actual question about? It's been a long week, man. Mr. Davies, what was the actual question about? Hello? Is anybody there?

I'm glad I have one listener from the Crem de la Crem. who is paying attention to every episode of my show going back to episode one, and I have my producer falling asleep in the control room. Doesn't know the answer. Can we play that again? I want to get the second part of the question. Michael, congratulations on 2,000 episodes. That's incredible.

I looked up your first episode, and you were talking about Al Gore. This was eight years ago, and you're like, hey, guess what Al Gore wasn't right about anything? Why doesn't someone just tell me what the second part of the question? Hey, guys, El Gore still isn't right about anything. That's fine. What was the second part of the question? You have to listen to the whole voice now. I don't want to listen to the whole thing.

What are you doing? Just tell me the thing that she asked. I don't want to listen to the whole thing. All right, we'll get to the whole question in the member of segmentum, because today is Fee-Hee-Hie-H Friday. And fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code, Noles, KnaW, LAS, a checkout for two months free and all annual plans.