The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 330 - Assimilation Isn’t Racist

Episode Date: April 11, 2019

President Obama tells immigrants to learn English, 2020 hopeful Eric Swalwell says he's us, Ilhan Omar says more terrible things, and finally the Mailbag! Date: 04-11-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The president came out swinging on Saturday, describing the need for immigrants to assimilate and learn the language of the countries that they are moving to. He also explained how there is legitimate fear among native populations over the massive influxes of newcomers. The only surprising aspect of those statements is that they were not made by President Donald Trump. They were made by President Barack Obama. That's a far cry from the open borders policies of the modern Democrat party. We will examine what that shift means for the left in 2020. Then, speaking of 2020, Democrat congressman and presidential candidate Eric Swalwell tweeted out yesterday, I am you, which contradicts my previous belief that he was he and I am me and we are the walrus, gugu, gugu, gujube.

Finally, the mailbag. I'm Eric Swalwell, and this is the Eric Swalwell show. I'm having a real identity crisis. This is so difficult with all of these Democrats telling me, I am they. Previously, I was Pedro. I think I was Beto for a while. There's a lot of identity crisis. I'm going to be speaking tonight at the University of Missouri, Kansas City on identity crises on how men are not women. We have a lot to get to, but first, let's make a little money, honey. And let's talk about a very important message paid for by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA is working hard to combat texting while driving. Cops are writing tickets for people all over the place.

Well, if they text while they drive, you drive, you text, you pay. Thousands of people will die every year in crashes related to distracted driving and cops are writing tickets for those who do it. Texting and driving isn't just a dangerous problem. It is deadly. In fact, thousands of people die

every year in crashes related to distracted driving. That's why cops are out writing tickets for those who text while they drive, and they're doing it to save lives. Between 2012 and 2017, nearly 20,000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver. And if your own safety isn't enough reason to stop driving while distracted, here's another one. It's also illegal.

So remember, if you text while driving, you will get caught. You drive, you text, you pay. Texting and driving isn't just a dangerous problem, it's deadly. And if you drive while distracted, you are three times more likely to crash. Far too many people still don't recognize the dangers. Do you know that when you send or receive a text, you take your eyes off the road for about five seconds and at 55 miles per hour, that's like driving more than the length of a football field with your eyes closed. It's why cops are writing tickets to anyone caught texting while driving

and they're doing it to save lives. Remember, if you text while driving, you will get caught, you drive, you text, you pay. It's very stupid to text while you drive. And how bad will you feel if you get into some awful accident that hurts you or hurts somebody else because you can't wait to say t-he-he-he and send an emoji. Don't be stupid. So, these comments that came out on Saturday from the president are provoking, shock, consternation, at the xenophobia, the bigotry, the hatefulness, the president of the United States saying that we should force immigrants to our countries to assimilate.

We should encourage them to assimilate. It is incumbent on them to assimilate. to learn the language. How xenophobic? Doesn't it sound just like Donald Trump, except it's not Donald Trump? It is Barack Obama. Here is him saying it himself.

If you're going to have a coherent, cohesive society, then everybody has to have some agreed upon rules. It's not racist to say, ah, if you're going to be here, then you should learn the language of the country that you just arrived at. That's not racist. It's actually true.

It's exactly true. What he is saying is exactly right. He opens up, he says, should we want to encourage newcomers to learn the language of the country they're moving to? Of course. It's not racist to say if you're going to be here, you should learn the language of the country you arrived at. Of course. We need to have some sort of common language in which all of us can work and learn and understand each other. Of course, this is simply natural in a republic such as ours, especially in a republic where you have to govern yourselves. You need to be able to talk to each other. And quite literally, You need to share a language. Even if you don't use words in exactly the same way, even if you don't share opinions, even if you don't share a view of the world, you at least need to have the same words and symbols and language that will allow you to communicate. And Barack Obama makes an even better point. He says, reducing fear on the part of people who are already there requires some levels of adaptation from the people who are coming in. There is a legitimate fear.

This is natural. It's hardwired into it. that when a group of people that's very different, culturally very different, has different practices, speaks a different language, when they come in, you're going to have a bit of fear because it's so unknown. You don't know what they want. They don't know what you want. You don't know how to get along together. You don't know if they're going to try to destroy your traditions or if they're going to adopt them themselves. Obama says, we are still wired to only be able to process knowing about 150 people in our brains. He's referring to aspects of,

evolutionary psychology, the ideas that come out that really we can only keep a small number of people and acquaintances in our heads at any given time, and we really can't expand beyond that. And so he points out, now suddenly we're in cities with strangers we don't know and we're asked to trust them, and it goes against some of our impulses. Yes, this is all right. Barack Obama's saying this. This is not just a Democrat, but a very left-winged Democrat. The most left-wing president we've had, certainly since Woodrow Wilson, certainly since FDR, I guess, very, and in some ways much more left-wing than they are. And he's just pointing out the obvious. So the Daily Caller went out. They did a man on the street video and they read Barack Obama's

comments to people and they pretended that they were Donald Trump's comments. And they said, what do you think? Do you think that those comments are racist? These are comments from the president about immigration from this weekend. And we're just seeing what people think and you can read it here. That's most definitely a racist idea. I don't know what he's doing. You just thought what he's going for real. It's extremely racist for him to believe that English

is the only language that we should know. I don't agree with that statement that you have to learn English in order to come to this country. So you're not in favor of any kind of assimilation at all? No, I'm not. English isn't even dominant language in the world. I'm against the idea of forcing people to learn English or saying that if you don't learn English, you can't get a job here.

Do you think people should adopt any parts of a American culture or not really? No, I really know. I think people should be free to live their life, whatever they want to live. Do you think it should be encouraged? Um, I think that the resources should be made available and accessible to everyone. Are you in favor of open borders as well? Yes.

Well, I mean, you should, you should learn the language, but you can't learn it immediately if you don't know it. All right, so of all of those people, just that woman at the end, he says, yeah, you obviously you should learn the language. I guess it's kind of hard to learn it, but you should learn it anyway. Right. Of course you should. For two reasons, by the way. On the one hand, because you should expect to try to accommodate yourself to the culture that you're trying to enter. Nobody asked you to come. Nobody's saying you have to come over here, please, please come. You wanted to come into this country. You should have the respect to learn the language and engage in some of their cultural practices and traditions. Also, if you don't learn the language,

you will not have a successful life. If you come to America and you refuse to learn English or you say, no, I'm going to take the advice of this leftists and not learn English, you're going to have a terrible life. You're not going to be able to get a good job. You're not going to be able to make strong social connections to your community. It's just awful advice. It's that classic road to hell is paved with good intentions. The left wants to say, hey, you do you. I don't want to impose my values on you. But the practical effect of that is that you create a permanent underclass of people who can work only the most difficult and low-paying jobs and who are totally isolated from the community as a whole. Now, this isn't just a fringe view. This isn't just people on the

street. This is the mainstream view of the Democrat Party. Don't assimilate. Don't learn the language. come over, open borders, come on over, don't pay any respect not only to traditions, but to laws. As recently as what, 10 years ago, you had leading Democrats, guys like Chuck Schumer, who were basically saying exactly what Donald Trump is saying on immigration and exactly what Barack Obama is now saying on immigration. Here's just a cut up of Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump, you can barely tell the difference. The American people want their government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law and creating a rational system of legal immigration that will proactively fit our needs rather than reactively responding to future waves of illegal immigration.

But we want an immigration policy that's fair, equitable, but that's going to protect our people. What the American people are pleading for is sanity and common sense in our immigration system. So that's it. Now, by the way, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer, and all those guys were quite radical in practice on immigration. In practice, they were encouraging open borders. Barack Obama gave a recklessly unconstitutional executive amnesty to illegal aliens in the country. However, in their rhetoric, they were not that radical. In their rhetoric, they were sort of normal. And this gets to this line from Roche Foucault, who famously said, hypocrisy is the tribute, vice pays to virtue. So they might have taken these vicious actions.

They might have had open borders and been encouraging people to come in and not to assimilate. But at least in their language, at least in their rhetoric, they were paying tribute to the virtue of assimilation, of enforcing the law, of making people wait in line, not letting certain people cut the line just because they're from a country closer by than, say, a would-be American immigrant from Ghana or Nigeria or Southeast Asia. So in the mainstream now we've gotten rid of even paying tribute to virtue. Nancy Pelosi is saying that physical borders to protect our national sovereignty are immoral and ineffective. Of course, that never made any sense. It could only be one or the other. If it's ineffective, it's not immoral. If it's immoral, it's not ineffective.

But to say that it is immoral is to now say, we have no right to an immigration. regime. We have no right to expect anything from immigrants who would come to this country. We have no right to expect, not just that they would learn the language, not just that they would assimilate and take on cultural practices. We don't even have the right to expect that they would come into our country legally. We don't even have the right to expect that they would, in their first action in the country, respect a fundamental law. How do we know this for a fact? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when she was not even a congresswoman yet, when she was running, she endorsed the policy of abolishing ICE, abolishing immigration and customs enforcement.

A radical policy. And what happened? Did the Democrats laugh at her and push her away? No, they all endorsed her policy. Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Liz Warren. These are people who are now running for president. They all followed suit. They all endorsed. abolishing ICE. Now then some of them backed off of it. Kamala Harris is trying to pretend now that she didn't endorse it. She totally did. All of those guys did. We're talking about Senate Democrats. We're talking about presidential candidates. A bunch of congressmen followed suit. The far left wing Democrat mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio followed suit. He said ICE's time has come and gone. We can't have enforcement of our immigration laws. Now, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kirsten Gillibrand,

doesn't show us very much because she's a completely mediocre candidate who is probably going to be out of the Democrat presidential race before the first debate. But she's an interesting case study because she had positioned herself for her whole career as a moderate, as a middle of the road or centrist. We can all work together. She was trying to position herself like Hillary was in the 2000s and she was kind of the next Hillary Clinton. Now she is not only taking up leftward radical turn, she's actually apologizing for all of her old positions. Here she is at a town hall saying, And please forgive me for formerly saying that illegal immigration is a bad thing. So I think part of what Parker is talking about, obviously, is the dramatic change in your position on this issue over time, right?

From English, obviously, as a official language of the country, not supporting things like benefits for illegal immigrants. That's part of your record as well. What made you change? Well, when I was a member of Congress from upstate New York, I was really focused on the priorities of my district. When I became senator of the entire state, I recognized that some of my views really did need to change. They were not thoughtful enough and didn't care enough about people outside of the original upstate New York district that I represented. And so I learned.

And I think for people who aspire to be president, I think it's really important that you're able to admit when you're wrong and that you're able to grow and learn and listen and be better and be stronger. This is actually a pretty good answer from her. It's about as good an answer as she can give. She's saying, when I held those views, I had local interests that I was representing in the Congress. But then I became a senator. And I had broader interests. Okay. Now, the problem with this distinction here, the problem with this excuse is that even when you're elected to Congress, you're not just being elected to represent some petty, tiny interest, you're being elected for your judgment, for your judgment to represent a local interest and the national interest. That's why you're in the federal government. But she

actually corrects this a little bit too, and I think you're going to be hearing a lot of Democrats giving this same answer. But first, let's make a little money, honey, with purple mattress. You know, I'm on the road. You can see, I'm in a hotel room right now. My back hurts. My back hurts very much. Why does my back hurt? Because last night I didn't get to sleep on my purple mattress. I had to sleep on some stupid hotel mattress. I love my purple mattress. I've had back pain for most of my life, and the purple mattress really, really helps.

It is this amazing technology. It is not an inner spring. It is not like a memory foam. It is this proprietary space age crazy technology. It was literally developed by a rocket scientist. I don't really know how to describe it. You just have to try it out because it's both firm and soft at the same time. How is that possible?

I can't tell you. You have to experience it to believe it. It is amazing. I was super skeptical of this thing going in. I didn't want to get rid of my old mattress. Then I tried it out one night, one night. I got rid of that old mattress quickly as I possibly could. I can't say enough about purple.

You have to go try it. You get 100-night risk-free trial. If you're not fully satisfied, you can return your mattress for a full refund. Back by 10-year warranty. Free shipping and returns-free old mattress removal, free setup. You're going to love it. Right now, my listeners, get a free purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress. These pillows are fabulous too.

The only way to get this purple pillow right now is to text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S to 848-8-8-8. That's in addition to all the great free gifts they offer site-wide. Only way to get the pillow, Knowles to 8-4-8-8-8-8-Message and data rates may apply. So Kirsten Gillibrand, this is her excuse. She says, well, I represented a local interest, and then I represented a bigger interest and I changed my views. That doesn't quite explain it. Because basically what she's admitting is I had poor judgment and I was petty and selfish, and then I became, I don't know, still petty and selfish, but my circumstances changed.

Not a great answer. So she actually does go further and she says, yeah, I realized I was wrong. I was wrong. She says she was wrong to encourage immigrants to learn English, to encourage immigrants to assimilate, to oppose illegal immigration. That she was wrong. I'm sorry. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

That's what she's saying. How pathetic. But this is the way that the whole race is going to go. When you look at these candidates who are like wind, not windmills, what am I? Oh, weather vines. When you look at the weather vane candidates, like Kamala Harris is one of them, Kirsten Gillibrand is very much one of them, Beto is one of them, a lot of weather vane candidates out there. The ones who say, make me into whatever candidate you want,

Shape me, however you want to shape me. Eric Swalwell, I am you, Eric Swalwell. For those weather-vane candidates, they're telling us which way the party is going. And it is very clear the wind is all blowing in the direction of open borders and illegal immigration. And this creates a big problem for Democrats in 2020. Americans hate illegal immigration. By the way, Americans hate large-scale legal immigration, too. There was a study that came out from Harvard Harris at the end of last year.

it showed that the majority of Americans want to radically reduce even the number of legal immigrants coming into this country. They want to reduce it by over 50%, upwards of 60%, down to about half a million per year. We're at about 1.2 million per year right now. So it shows you this isn't just about illegal immigration. This isn't just about people violating our laws at the border. There actually are broader questions here of assimilation, learning the language, integrating people into society so that you don't have permanent underclasses so that you don't have people isolating themselves. Barack Obama gets this. Barack Obama is talking about that. That's why he's not just speaking about illegal immigration. Sometimes President Trump, he only wants to talk about illegal immigration and he says, I'm so pro-immigration. I want more people coming here legally than ever.

It's kind of missing the point. The point is not just this narrow question of illegal immigration. Poll after poll shows that immigration broadly, not just illegal aliens, is the number one issue for Americans. And this creates a big problem for Democrats in 2020 because they've gone so radical on it. If Barack Obama ran today with his current stated views on immigration, he would not win the Democrat nomination. He could not say what he said on Saturday at his town hall in Berlin and win the Democrat nomination. and win the Democrat nomination this year. It would not happen. Why have the Democrats gone so radical on this?

They've gone so radical because they are reflexively opposing Trump, which is a bad idea. In some ways, it's a good idea because Donald Trump is personally unlikable to a lot of people. A lot of people find him personally offensive. But his policies are very, very popular. I know you can find some poll, oh, no, really, people hate. X, Y, and Z provision of the wall or X, Y, and Z, BS. They hate the tax law. Okay, fine, whatever. What that is reflecting is people's aversion to Donald Trump's personality. People like his policies,

which is why these issues, immigration, illegal aliens, the economy, taxation, that's why they always rank at the top of people's concerns. Donald Trump knew that. He knew that when he was running for office. He's a very smart politician in many ways. And so he picks these very popular issues and stances that only he is taking that actually oppose the kind of broad political consensus. And he wins on those issues, not on his personality, on his issues. And Democrats stupidly say, well, we're going to reflexively oppose Trump because he's personally unlikable. And so by opposing him, we're going to oppose all of his issues, which does what? It backs you into this awful corner where now they've got to defend illegal immigration. They've got to

defend not learning English. They've got to defend not assimilating. They've got to defend open borders. How are they going to be able to defend all of that? Who is going to vote for them? They're going to win some plaudits from pundits and hardline activists. But if Barack Obama today is too conservative to win the Democrat nomination, Barack Obama, then who is going to win it? Who's going to get that nomination? And who do they think is going to vote for that person to be president of the United States? What voters in Wyoming and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, who do they think are going to vote for those people? It's a, I think the reason Barack Obama is making these comments is he's trying to

open the door for Democrats to moderate on this issue because he's looking down the path and he's saying this is electoral suicide for them. The question is, are Democrats going to heed his warning or is Barack Obama old news? And they're moving on. They're moving on to some new candidate. Who are they moving on to? They're moving on to Eric Swalwell. And this is sort of just by definition. Eric Swalwell is a Democrat congressman who is a nobody, but he's decided to be. He's decided to he's running for president this year because everybody's running for president this year. And Eric Swolewell really is the answer, I think, to this conundrum for Democrats. Because Eric Swolewell tweeted out yesterday, he said, I am running for president of the United States, I see you,

I hear you, I'm for you, I am you. He's me. Okay. But this does solve a problem for Democrats. Because right now, none of their candidates are going to be elected president. There's no chance. And so, if they keep running on this radical platform. So, let's say Donald Trump gets reelected. Everybody votes for Donald Trump. If Eric Swalwell is all of us and one of us is Donald Trump, then that means that Donald Trump is Eric Swalwell, which means no matter who wins the election,

Eric Swalwell becomes president Touche, Eric, very, very well done. Now, the slogan itself, pretty bad. Pretty stupid slogan. Actually, the most tedious and cliche slogan, probably in all of politics. Because it's so on the nose. I've been saying this now for days.

I've been saying this since he announced he was running. Eric Swalwell is not a presidential candidate. He's a parody of a presidential candidate. If there were a presidential candidate on the Simpsons, if there were a presidential candidate on South Park, it would be Eric Swalwell. He's taking this fact of campaigning, which is that you need to show that you empathize with people. And he's just putting it so on the nose. He's saying, I am you. I am you.

See, I empathize. It's not believable if you have to say it. It's like so many things. If you have to say it, it's probably not true. the most famous version of this stupid slogan, I'm You, comes from one of the most hilariously awful campaigns in modern political history. This was from the Tea Party wave, I believe it was 2010. Christine O'Donnell was running for the Senate. There was an accusation out somewhere that she's a witch.

And she decided, first of all, she decided to answer this accusation, which was probably not advisable. But then she decided to answer it with this same awkward. awful slogan, I'm you. I'm not a witch. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you. None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us. Politicians who think spending, trading favors, and backroom deals are the ways to stay in

office. I'll go to Washington and do what you'd do. I'm Christine O'Donnell, and I approve this message. I'm you. I'm you, and you're a witch, and you're going to cast spells on everybody. So awkward. So now Eric Swalwell has two campaign slogans. He has, I am you, and the other one that he has, he put it in his video and it's on his materials.

Do good. I am you, do good. Because the writers of the Simpsons are the top campaign. advisors to Eric Swalwell, I guess. A parody of a presidential campaign. Norm McDonald, the greatest living comedian, had a great tweet on this. Eric Swalwell tweeted out. He said, I'm running for president. I'm you. And Norm responds, he says, this is fine news indeed. It explains my self-loathing. Bad start for Eric Swalwell. A really bad start, actually. Because we ding Kirsten Gillibrand. She's a total mediocrity. She'll probably be out.

she's starting out way better than Eric Swalwell. Joe Biden's starting out a little bit better, Beto a little bit better. You don't want to start out as a joke. And he's starting out as a joke. He can't afford to do that, especially as an unknown candidate. At least if you're a superstar candidate like Joe Biden, you can afford a little bit of being a joke. You can't do that when you're nobody. The only impression people have of Swalwell now is that he's a joke. At least Kirsten Jillibrand is lying low enough to maybe be considered for, I don't know, VP or some position in some Democrat administration, she's kind of a non-entity. Swalwell is a punchline. Hard to imagine where he goes from here. Where will we go from here? We have a lot more to get to. We have got to get to

the mailbag. But first, let's say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube. You got to go to dailywire.com. Dailywire.com. 10 bucks a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me. You get the Andrew Playven show, you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get the Matt Wall Show, you get to ask questions in the mailbag coming right up, you get to ask questions on the backstage show, you get another kingdom, and you get something much better than this totally faceless white coffee cup that I have in this hotel room. You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr. The Leftist Tears Tumblr is very important because now it's actually doubly important. Previously, the Leftist Tears Tumblr was a great vessel for Leftist Tears, nice and salty and delicious in your dream.

them. But now that Eric Swalwell, who is a leftist, is you, then I guess that means the leftist Tears Tumblr is a vessel for all of our tears. You've just gotten, it's a tufer. You've doubled your usage of the Leftist Tears Tumblr. You can't afford not to get it. Go to DailyWire.com. We will be right back with the mailback. All right. We have got much more to get to, but first, let's make a little money, honey, with an important message for your safety. I am talking, of course, about the, who is sponsoring this ad, paid for by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA is working hard to combat texting while driving. Cops are writing tickets for people who are texting while driving. You drive, you text, you pay. Simple as that.

Thousands of people die every year in crashes related to distracted driving and cops are now writing tickets for people who text while they drive. Texting and driving is not just a dangerous problem. It is a deadly problem. In fact, thousands of people die every year in these crashes related to distracted driving. So the cops are out writing tickets to those who text while driving. They're doing it rather to save lives. Between 2012 and 2017, nearly 20,000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver. If your own safety isn't enough reason to stop driving while distracted, here's another one. It is illegal. If you text while driving, you will get caught. You drive, you text, you pay.

Texting and driving isn't just a dangerous problem. It is a deadly problem. You are three times more likely to crash if you drive while distracted. That is why the cops are writing tickets to anyone caught texting while driving. They're doing it to save lives. When you send or receive a text, you take your eyes

off the road for about five seconds at 55 miles an hour. That's more than the length of a football field that you're driving with your eyes closed. If you text while driving, you will get caught. You drive, you text, you pay. All right, let's get to the mailbag. So, we've got so much more to get to, but we're just going to have to wait.

Maybe I'll talk about it tonight in my speech. I'm going to be speaking at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. If you are in Kansas City, come on by. The doors are going to open at 7.30 central time. We're going to try to stream that out. The speech will start at 8 o'clock central. So what is that? 6 p.m. Pacific, 9 p.m. Eastern.

The topic of discussion tonight is men are. are not women. This should not be a crazy topic, but apparently it's the most controversial thing in the world. So come check it out. On to the mailbag. From Garland. Question. Two questions. First, what would your ideal humanities department look like in a university? Second, do you know of any good studies regarding bias in academia? Thanks a lot. Yeah, I know of about a million studies regarding bias in academia. The most important study is just open your own eyes and you can see it pretty clearly. My ideal humanities department for the first

question would focus on the core liberal arts. Things like the classics, things like history, things like literature. It would not focus on silly non-academic fields, pseudo-academic fields, ideological fields like

lesbian dance studies. I don't know. Women's gender studies, race and migration studies, studies, all of those studies things I would basically get rid of and I would go back to core aspects of the humanities. Languages, art, literature, history. Those are the things that are really going to form the basis of your education. And this is important for conservatives too. It's not just that we get to spend all our time on our own ideological reading. We should also go back

to those classics. That is going to form the best education you can get. As far as these studies go, just a few of them, there was a poll that came out. Sixty-one percent. of all Americans have a negative view of higher education. So that means it's not just conservatives, it's not just Republicans. It's a majority of all Americans. There was an Oxford study in 2018 that identified significant what they called scholar activism in fields such as sociology and polysci, highly politicized fields. There was a study from Brooklyn College and George Mason University found that at colleges, liberal professors outnumber conservative professors, 12 to 1. It gets worse. In certain departments, like history, very important departments, that number

rises to 33 to 1, 33 liberal professors for every one conservative professor. The National Association of Scholars found nearly 40% of top-ranked liberal arts colleges have how many Republican professors? Give you a guess. Zero. Zero, 40% of the top-ranked schools. Another study of sociology professors found just 2% identify as conservative. When you add in libertarians, it gets up to 4%. 83% say they are liberal or radical. And there was a study from Queens University of Charlotte. It found that conservative students self-censor during class discussions. They parrot what their liberal professors say. This was backed up. I think there was another study by the foundation for individual rights in education said exactly the same thing. A lot of studies

to show this. It's not a conspiracy. I think everybody knows it. I think the majority of Americans know it. And so how do you fix that? It's not that you're all of a sudden going to get super conservative professors. You should just stop the liberal indoctrination. You should stop those ideological

majors and ideological pseudo departments and get back to the classics. At least then that's one way to rein it in. From James. Hi Michael. Do you have a favorite passage or phrase from the Bible? Thanks, James. Yes, I do. Leviticus 177

You shall no longer worship the goat demons After whom you whore This will be a statute for all times Also translated as You shall no longer sacrifice your sacrifices to goat demons After whom you whore There's just something about that The language is very evocative

In where is it in Exodus Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live if that's a good one, or is that Deuteronomy? I don't know. There are many, many good passages of the Bible, but broadly speaking, you should read the Bible as a whole. I'm actually quite, I would caution one against pulling out just one part of the Bible and saying, ah, yes, this is the be-all and end-all. You know, in the parable of the prodigal son, that that parable has been described as the gospel within the gospel. John 316, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him might not perish but might have everlasting life. That's been described as the gospel within the gospel. There are important passages, but really you've got to take it all together. What a lot of shallow thinking atheists do when they try to debunk the Bible is they say, ah, but how do you defend this line? You defend it in the light of all of revelation, in the light of all scripture and in the light of sacred tradition, and in the light of natural law, and in the light of

philosophy. And so if we don't take that whole view, we're likely to take ourselves down shallow paths. From Logan, dear Michael, I've got an audiobook credit for my audible account. I need a good American history recommendation or a recommendation on history that leads up to the American Revolution, something along the lines of the great Christopher Columbus or early colonization. Thank you. God bless Logan. Yes, I. Yes, I. I have two books, both of which will be good unaudible. If you want Columbus, you should read Admiral of the Ocean Sea by Samuel Elliott Morrison, one of the greatest American historians ever, and a fabulous, very long, but fabulous biography of Columbus.

And if you're interested in colonization, say, from the time of the Mayflower and the early, the early more United States American experiment, you can, you should read Nathaniel Philbrick's book, Mayflower. Fabulous book. Really good about the voyage on the Mayflower in the early Plymouth Colony. And it's very readable. Both of those are very readable books. So highly recommended for both of those while you're driving or working out or whatever. From Sarah. Hello, Michael. I go to a lot of baseball games. I often wear a baseball hat with my long hair tied up in the back. Is it rude not to take my hat off during the anthem or is it different for girls? Love listening to you and Claibon. Thank you, Sarah. I'm sorry to tell you this. You asked the question on etiquette.

so I'll give you the answer. You have to take your baseball cap off. The rules are different for women and girls. Women are generally speaking permitted to wear hats indoors or in houses of worship or even when the national anthem is playing or the flag is being paraded by. Except when it's a baseball cap. Except when it is a unisex cap. In that case, you are expected to take the hat off when the flag passes by in a parade or when the anthem is playing. I don't make the rules I just enforce them. Take it up with Emily Post. From Joel, dapper debonair of the Daily Wire,

I come to you with a fashion question, another fashion question, that plagues me whenever a special occasion is upon me. What is the point of wearing a tie? They just seem to be upside-down nooses that always want to choke your neck. I never have to dress formally from my occupation, and when a special event arrives that warrants me wearing one, I always have to look up how to tie a tie on my search engine. Should this pointless piece of fabric die like powdered wigs?

No, learn how to tie a tie. Act like a man. What's the matter with you? Ties are very important. Where do ties come from? Ties have a pretty interesting history, actually. Ties come from Croat migrants. Why I know this? I don't know.

When Croat migrants came during the Manichian persecution of 1700. or so years, 1,800 years ago, something like that, I guess 1,700 years ago. They come over into, I guess, what you would call Croatia, and they wore to identify themselves handkerchiefs around their necks. So they called themselves Croats, they called themselves Corvats, and this phrase evolved into cravat. That's in Italian cravata is what you say for Thai. You wear a cravat, it's a certain type of tie.

When did this become popular in the West? It became popular during the 30 years war when Croat mercenaries were used. And the young boy king, Louis XIV, took a liking to this style trend, the cravat. And he started wearing one. And then, like everything Louis XIV did, it became very popular. Ties tie everything together. I don't wear one nearly as much as I should. Highly recommend wearing a tie.

The problem in our society is not that we're too casual. That is definitely not the problem. The problem in our society is we're... Or I'm sorry, the problem is that we're too casual. The problem is not that we're too formal. We are too casual. We're too casual in our speech. We're too casual in our conversation.

We're too casual in our dress. We're too casual in our dancing, in our singing, in our attire. Tie it all together. Act like a man. Be civilized. We're a tie. From Norman. Hi, Michael.

According to his latest book, Ben seems to think that the very essence of paganism is polytheism. Thus, for him, the Greek philosopher's discovery of a single unmoved mover and cosmic telos were an escape from the pagan worldview. Dante, however, famously kept the pagan philosophers out of paradise

because, regardless of their heady intellectual knowledge, they still needed conversion through Christ. Who is right? Who is right? Ben or Dante? Dante, buddy.

And if Dante, what is it that philosophical pagans still lack that makes them not fully converted to a Judeo-Christian worldview? Thanks, Norm. Okay. here in this question, but it's a very, very good question. So what Ben is saying in his book is

paganism is polytheism. And then the Greeks like Plato, Aristotle, think of the unmoved mover, the cosmic telos, this idea of a single god. And this escapes them from the pagan worldview. Except Dante doesn't put them in paradise. He puts them in hell. This is so. sort of true. He actually puts the Greek philosophers, the virtuous pagans, broadly speaking, which included Saladin a Muslim, it included some Romans. He puts them in the first

circle of hell, but it's really just sort of fine. It's sort of nice. It's called the Elysian Fields. And he puts them there, not to punish them for their transgressions, he puts them there because they don't have hope. They're pagans. They don't have hope of the resurrection.

They don't have the hope of Christianity. And actually, you use the phrase Judeo-Christian worldview here. That's a very apt phrase because Dante doesn't put the Jews in hell. Why doesn't Dante put the Jews in hell? He doesn't put the Jews in hell because the Jews are a

messianic people. They are awaiting the coming of the Messiah. They have hope. But the pagans and the Romans, by definition, do not have hope. So even if they can recognize the unmoved mover, the cosmic telos, whatever, they recognize these important intellectual aspects of God.

They lack a living faith. They lack hope. And so, through their own ideas, they preclude themselves from paradise. That's the difference there. And fortunately, those who have a messianic religion do have hope. From Scott. Hello, Michael.

My two questions for you. First, do you think the left wants to be like the book 1984 and Animal Farm with how they are controlling the government and media. Second, do you think the left wants to bring segregation back with intersectionality? Thank you and keep doing great work, big fan of you and The Daily Wire. Yes, yes, yes. Is that clear enough if they want to do all of those things? Yeah, they do. Of course they do.

They want to. What do you mean? Do they want to bring 1984 in Animal Farm? do they want to have a centralized power associated with the government that controls you? Yes, not just controls you as a mechanism of politics, but controls you even in your thought, but controls you even in your culture, but controls what you can say, what controls your personal behavior, controls your personal opinions. Yes, they're openly advocating for that.

They're openly advocating for that. Now, do they want to bring segregation back with intersection action? Yes. I mean, they are literally doing that. They are literally segregating campuses and giving black students black only dorm rooms, black only study areas. That is obviously what they're doing. They might say, we're doing it for the best of intentions. Okay, maybe you are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure people had good intentions when they were segregating the country 50 years ago. Sure people had good intentions when they were at advocating for totalitarian systems. Sure. We judge others on their actions. We judge ourselves on our

intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. All right, I got to go finish writing my speech. Come on out tonight. It's going to be a lot of fun at University of Missouri, Kansas City. We will analyze the most controversial, deep, difficult question of our age, are men, women? Come check it out then. In the meantime, I'm Eric Swalwell. This is the Eric's Wall Well Show. The Michael Nol's show is produced by Robert Sterling. Executive producer Jeremy Boring. Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.

Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. And our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Danny Domeco. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. Production assistant Nick Sheehan. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall show today. Pope Benedict has emerged from seclusion to discuss the sex abuse crisis, and he has some insights that are true, but also pretty startling. And we'll talk about that. Also, according to a recent report, Google has a running blacklist, and you'll never guess who's on it. We'll discuss. Also, we'll talk about black holes and the Lion King and biblical end times prophecies. There's a lot to cover on the show today. So come over and check it out.