The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 720 - Social Justice Warriors at the Pentagon

Episode Date: March 15, 2021

A military leader attacks a conservative journalist for suggesting that pregnant women don’t make great soldiers, Tom Cotton turns a libs’ racial attack against her, and a leftist comedienne rips the Democrat Party. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Top military leaders are attacking a conservative journalist for suggesting that pregnant women maybe don't make the best soldiers. Very, very modest sort of claim here. Listening to PC diatribes from the Pentagon is pathetic. It is dispiriting. But it is teaching right-winger is an important lesson. When even the military goes woke, conservatives have no institutional power left. Military was sort of the last one where we thought, oh, that's kind of. of a conservative institution. Well, so much for that. Maybe it's time to start winning and wielding actual political power. Just an idea. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show.

Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment from Friday is from Michael McKay, who says 115 days to slow the spread, and then maybe Joe Biden will give a press conference. Maybe, or then maybe it'll just get extended a little while longer. It's pretty clear that at least one of the motivations for continuing to drag this out two weeks, two months, now some people saying two years is because these eggheads and these politicians want to keep their power and they don't want any accountability. A lot of these emergency powers are saying, look, in the ordinary operation of government, we wouldn't be able to do this, tell you to do this, but we have certain police powers because of a pandemic. And that is now being dragged out indefinitely.

Not so great. You're going to want to protect yourself from having people take away your rights. you're going to want to protect yourself from having people take away your data, which is why you've got to turn to ExpressVPN. I love ExpressVPN. I was using it just last night. Big Tech companies have a ton of power in our country and as private entities, they can operate pretty much as they choose. Protect your personal data from Big Tech with the VPN that I trust from my online protection, ExpressVPN. When I use ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers so that these companies cannot see my address at all. My internet activity becomes anonymized. My network data is encrypted. I recommend ExpressVPN to anyone who uses the internet, which is, I think statistically, everyone. The best part is you don't

need to be tech savvy at all to use ExpressVPN. I certainly am not. Just download the app on your phone or your computer. Tap one button. You're protected. Protect your internet activity with the VPN that I use every single day. I used to think, who cares? No one's after my data. I think that the last couple of years should have shown us that that is simply not the case. Visit expressvpn.com slash Michael to get three extra months free on a one-year package. That is, EXP, R-E-S-V-P-N.com slash Michael to get three extra months for free. That is expressvpn.com slash Michael. I never go online now without ExpressVPN.

And I strongly encourage you to go check out ExpressVPN as well. The Command Senior Enlisted Leader of the U.S. Space Command, So this is obviously the new branch of the military was announced under President Trump. But this guy's a 28-year military veteran. Scott Stalker, he got very upset because Tucker Carlson said that pregnant women are not the most lethal people on the planet. I understand some comments were made yesterday, and I watched the clip that Mr. Carlson produced as he referred to pregnant women in the military. I'll remind everyone that his opinion, which he has a right to, is based off of actually zero days of service in the armed forces.

Let me offer you my opinion. My opinion is based off of 28 years of actual service in the military, 28 years in the Marine Corps, in combat operations out at sea and in garrison. And so he was talking specifically about pregnant women in the armed forces today and how it makes us less lethal and less fit and less ready. Let me tell you where he's wrong. Those decisions were made by medical professionals, by commanders and our civilian leadership that allows for women to have more time with their children

to recuperate, to get fit and ready, to take that time that's necessary that our medical professionals know is needed, which actually makes us a more lethal and ready and fit force. Let's remember that those opinions were made by an individual who has never served a day in his life. 28 years experience this guy has. He's got an impressive credential. He's got this blue checkmark on Twitter, which is reflective of his position as a senior enlisted leader, and not one iota of common sense, not one little bit. The decision to have women in the military, the decision, more recent decision to have women in combat roles, that was a political decision. That was not a tactical decision. I understand the political arguments for it. The political arguments were that

if we're going to have true equality for women, if we're not going to have women underneath the patriarchy, then they need to be able to do all the wonderful privileges and get all the wonderful privileges that men have, including fighting in war and dodging bullets and all that sort of thing. This is considered some privilege. And so therefore, because of that, as a political matter, we need to let women fight. And now this is being taken even to the craziest extreme, which is we need to let pregnant women fight or something. We need to pretend that pregnant women are just as fit and lethal as men are. They do, I've learned, have a very lethal and acerbic tongue and wit sometimes. I've learned this through my own experience with pregnant women, but in terms of

physicality, it's just not the case. As a tactical matter, men are bigger, faster, and physically stronger than women and certainly than pregnant women. There's no question about that. The whole reason that we're even debating the trans women, right, the men playing in women's sports issue is because men beat women in women's sports, because men and women are different and men are physically stronger than women. Now, you'll notice here, this guy, stalker, he's coming there, he's in his uniform, he says, look, Tucker Carlson, that guy never served a day in his life, not like me. So that journalist, he has no right. You know, sure, he can have his opinion, but he's wrong. He's never served ever in his life. And I'm going to debunk his arguments. And then what

does he do? He never addresses his argument. He just says, women are in the military. And that's good. You're like, okay, well, yes, they are in the military. That's objectively true. You think it's good that pregnant women are fighting. I don't think that's good. I think that's bad. But you, and then he sort of says, and they need to rest up so they can be physically fit again. You say, well, that's not what anybody's even talking about, Mr. Stalker. So then there was a little bit of a backlash. Stalker decides he's going to issue a non-apology apology. Wow. Last 24 hours have been pretty intense for me, ladies and gentlemen.

And I just wanted to briefly say thank you to everyone that wrote me, that everyone that called texted, sent me a message on Twitter or Facebook. I appreciate it. And I even appreciate the fact that those of you had different opinions posted those as well. What I won't do is engage in a personal attack with Mr. Carlson or anybody. I don't believe in doing that. I think that my comments stand on themselves. I was making a non-political statement about my service members and teammates in the United States Armed Forces.

I don't make political comments and I certainly don't attack our media. I think they have a right and it's a necessity of this nation to have a fair and free press. And so Mr. Carlson and everyone that's reporting stories, please continue to do so. I think it's important that I just make a comment that I say my comments were based on 28 years of service. He doesn't have any. service, that does not mean his points aren't valid. And so I think everyone has a right to their opinion. Does not mean his points aren't valid. I mean, my whole video was about how his points aren't valid. And look, I'm saying it's not a personal attack. I mean, my whole video was personally attacking Tucker Carlson. But look, it wasn't political, okay, even though my entire

video was making political points. Notice how quick that guy took his uniform off? You know, that first one, he's got the uniform on. He's using it to make. His entire point is basically that Tucker Carlson is wrong and we shouldn't take him seriously anyway because he's never served in the military. Not like me, not like me, Mr. Stalker. Now, all that goes away because of the backlash. The whole video was claiming that Tucker's points are invalid. The military would seem to disagree though. There's a new report out. Research showed that the Army Combat Fitness Test, it's the same one for male and female soldiers, was leading to lower results for women. An early Penteenth,

study, this is according to the telegraph, said that women were failing the ACFT at a rate of 65% while 90% of men were passing the ACFT. I'm not saying this to denigrate women. I'm sure these women are extremely strong, but men and women are different and men are physically stronger than women. That is why historically speaking warriors have been men. This is outrageous. I mean, this guy should obviously lose his leadership position. There is no question about that. He should have his Twitter account taken away from him by his, by his bosses in the military, right? By the top brass. But also he should lose his leadership position. This is an incredible abuse of power. And it's also just profoundly stupid.

What he's saying doesn't make any sense. And it is so dispiriting for supporters of the military to listen to this woke nonsense out of someone who's in a leadership position. It would be good if this guy could apologize, but he can't apologize because our culture has made that almost impossible. There's a story I haven't really covered that much because I personally don't care about it, but at this point it is now actually telling us something about the culture. The Bachelor. You know The Bachelor. Apparently there's a host of The Bachelor named Chris Harrison, hadn't heard of him until about a week or two ago. He's not going to be returning to the show.

He's been hosting this thing forever, apparently. And there's a controversy because Chris Harrison made comments defending a bachelor contestant who, or a bachelorette or something, I don't know, who had attended an antebellum South party years prior when she was in college. Here was his commentary on it. What are your thoughts about Rachel Kirknell and the allegations attached to her? A couple of things. First and foremost, I don't know.

I haven't talked to Rachel about it. And this is, again, where we all need to have a little grace, a little understanding, a little compassion because I've seen some stuff online. Again, this judge, jury executioner thing where people are just tearing this girl's life apart and diving into, like, her parents and her parents' voting record. and it's unbelievably alarming to watch this. I haven't heard Rachel speak on this yet. And until I actually hear this woman have a chance to speak, who am I to say any of this?

You know, I saw a picture of her at a sorority party five years ago, and that's it. Like, boom, like, okay, well, this girl is in this book now, and she's now in this group. And I'm like, really? Oh, Chris. Oh, poor sweet Chris, you do not know what kind of a situation you were in politically right now. And unfortunately, he made, not only did he make the wrong choice there if he wanted to keep this mainstream gig to contradict the PC police, but he has subsequently made every other wrong decision. Very important to note what he actually did, because people are saying it was he made a racial comment and this and that. a girl who was on the show attended a party in college that was about the South,

the Antebellum South. And so they dressed up like the antebellum South. So you have to believe that that was vicious and vile and racist. Okay, people are debating that. You have to believe then that it matters that she went to this party years ago. And you have to believe that it is a political crime for this guy to defend this girl from having her life destroyed for something she did years ago by just showing up to a party. But Chris didn't realize that. And Chris fell into a huge PC trap, which we'll get to in just one second. But first, if you don't want to fall into any traps with all the craziness going on right now, might be worth considering investing in precious metals. The price of gold has been skyrocketing lately. Now there is a new way to buy gold for a company

called Acre. Acre lets you subscribe to gold bars for as little as third. $30 a month. How is that possible, Michael? Gold costs more than $30. Well, it does. This is an ingenious way to do it. You pay each month once your gold stash reaches the price of their gold bars. They discreetly ship acre gold to your house. Just recently, Aker has introduced a new $100 a month subscription to a five gram gold bar. Acre lets you invest in physical gold without coming out of pocket all at once, and it keeps you updated on your gold stash every month and ships once you reach the price threshold with acre taking physical delivery of your gold means it's safe and sound and in your hands. I have really enjoyed investing in precious metals before in my life. And I think especially with

all the craziness that we're all seeing, it's not a not a terrible idea to do so. Also, they have this great new product. It's a 24-carat gold 9mm bullet. Obviously, don't shoot it unless you're aiming at a werewolf, but really, really cool product. Visit get acregold.com slash Michael and start investing in physical gold today. Make sure. you go to this URL because Acre is giving away a gold bar to qualify for the giveaway, tweet or post why you should be the recipient at get underscore Acre. That is getacregorogal.com slash Michael. And thank you get Acregold for supporting the show.

Acre Gold has a great new way to invest in physical gold. Go check out Acre Gold today. Chris Harrison of Bachelor fame defends the contestant for attending a party that was politically incorrect years prior. Fine. I actually sort of give him credit for saying we need a culture of grace. We shouldn't just be jumping on top of one another and trying to destroy each other's livelihoods all the time in bad faith. But then he made a fatal error and I don't think anybody's going to be defending him anymore. He apologized for encouraging grace and for defending the girl.

Why would you defend Rachel Kirkconell? I am an imperfect man. I made a mistake. And I own them. I believe that mistake doesn't reflect who I am or what I stand for. I am committed to the progress, not just for myself, also for the franchise. So this is pitiful to watch a grown man do this, but it's also despicable because he was making a principled stand to say, no, I'm going to defend this girl who was a contestant against the mob for doing something that should not cause her to have her life ruined. That was a principled stand. Now she's just, now he's throwing that all under the bus, right? He's throwing the girl under the bus. And he's also saying,

I'm throwing my past self under the bus for even considering defending her. He's totally undermining the principle. To me, I see no reason to defend this guy anymore. I'm sure the reason he did it is because he's weak and that's very sad. But what can you do? I was debating this issue with Megan Kelly last week. I was on Megan Kelly's podcast, but you can download. It's out now. And we were debating this apology. was the one who called this guy to my attention because I never, I couldn't have picked him out of a lineup. I hadn't, you know, you'd be shocked to hear I don't, I don't watch The Bachelor all the time. And Megan said, look, I get it. He's got a good gig. All these guys, we were talking about the Mumford and Sons musician.

Now his name escapes me too. All these people who were constantly being canceled and then they caved to the woke mob. And Megan said, look, it's a good gig. And so I get it. This is what traditionally is what people do. And I pointed out to her, I said, yes, in the past, even if you think it's kind of silly, you contravene whatever the fashionable political ideas are of the day. You apologize, especially if you do something actually wrong, you apologize, and then people forgive you, and that's that. But that's not what's happening right now.

The choice is not between speak out against the mob, stand up for grace, stand up for the girl, and lose your job. And don't, cave to the mob, but keep your job. that's not the choice. You've already lost your job. The only question is, are you going to degrade yourself further? It reminds me of one of the last scenes of Breaking Bad, way toward the end of the series, spoiler alert, if you haven't seen it, but it was on, what, like 10 years ago? So, you know, you missed your window for spoilers.

The brother-in-law, the cop brother-in-law, Hank, is lying there on the ground. Walter, the drug runner, is there. And he's pleading with Hank. He says, Hank, please. just tell this cartel kingpin type guy. Just tell him you'll protect him. You won't turn him in. You won't go after him.

Please, just beg for your life. And then he'll let you live. And the cop, Hank, has one of the most memorable lines in TV. Hank, send to me. You've got to tell him. You've got to tell him now that we can work that's out. Please, please. You want me to beg.

you're the smartest guy I ever met and you're too stupid to see mine 10 minutes ago. Do what you're going to do. You're the smartest guy I ever meant you're too stupid to see he made up his mind 10 minutes ago. Do what you're going to do. The mob made up their mind for all these people like Chris Harrison,

the Mumford and Sons musician. The mob already made up its mind. And more to it, the people who have crafted political correctness already made up their mind. The only question is, are you going to degrade yourself? Roger Scruton, the conservative philosopher, at this great point. I just hosted an event also last week for the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation.

It's between Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, and Robbie George, Professor of Princeton. I think you can find it on YouTube. Scruton made this point, we discussed it during the event. Society is based on confession and forgiveness. the ability for me to say, hey, I did something wrong, I'm sorry, I sacrifice my pride by confessing that, and then for everybody else, for them to be able to say, okay, I forgive you, and they sacrifice their resentment. And both people are giving up something that they cherish, our pride

and our resentments, but we trust one another, we move on because we're interested in moving forward as a people. And this is all conditioned and impelled by grace, by this. By the this Christian religion that undergirds our whole civilization. When you lose that, you lose that ability for confession and forgiveness. That's where we are now. Never, never, never give in. I wish we could live in a society where we can, we don't want to apologize for things we're not sorry for. But where we could all say, ah, yeah, I said that a little wrong, I did that a little wrong,

I'm sorry, please forgive me. Okay, we forgive you. America's the land of second chance is great. But we ain't there anymore. that's over. The only question is, are you going to humiliate yourself before the mob before they destroy your livelihood? Speaking of racial bias, actual racial bias, not this kind of Chris Harrison stuff, Tom Cotton just absolutely wrecked one of Joe Biden's nominees, nominee for Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. Vanita Gupta believes in something called implicit racial bias, that we all have

implicit racial biases. She's spoken about this at length publicly. So Tom Cotton had a simple question for her. He asked her, if everyone's got these racial biases, what are yours? Last summer, nine months ago, you are in front of this committee and Senator Gordon said, do you believe that all Americans are racist? You replied, yes, I think that we all have implicit biases and racial biases. Yes, I do. So Ms. Gupta, I ask you, against which racist? do you harbor racial bias? Senator Cotton, I do not. The yes was to say that all of us have implicit bias.

This was an exchange also that Judge Garland had with Senator Kennedy during his hearing. I believe that we all have implicit bias. It doesn't mean that we are harboring any racism at all. These are unconscious assumptions and stereotypes that can get made. And I remember that summer in the exchange with Senator Cornyn that we were discussing systemic racism and implicit bias. And my response was to say that all of us have implicit bias. Yeah, yes, I know that you said all of us have implicit bias. Did you, it was just that word

salad meant absolutely nothing. She said, yes, we all have implicit racial biases, but it doesn't mean we're racist because they're implicit and we all have them. Yeah, yeah, I know we all have them. I don't agree with that, by the way. I don't think that I have them. But you're saying everybody, including you, has the biases. So the question is, what are your biases? Well, to be precise, you said we all have implicit biases and racial biases. That's all. Every single American you're accused of implicit bias and racial bias. So I'm asking you again against which races do you harbor racial bias? I am quite aware that I know that I hold stereotypes that I have to manage.

I'm a product of my culture. I'm a product. It's part of the human condition. And I believe that, you know, one of the reasons I believe that all of us are able to manage implicit bias, but only if we can acknowledge our own. And I am not above anyone else in that matter. I think implicit bias is something that is part of the shared human condition. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So you believe you're not above anyone. You have them. Right. That's not what we're asking. We're not asking, do you have them? You've already stated that. We're asking which ones? Get specific. What do you think about black people? Well, it's implicit.

Okay, so what are, because you acknowledge them, they can't be totally implicit, right? They've got to be somewhat explicit. That's the only way you could be conscious enough of them to acknowledge that you have them. So what are they? What do you think about Mexicans? What do you think about Asians? Let's get specific. No, I don't think I'm better than, no. Okay, good. I acknowledge them. Yeah, okay, acknowledge them right now then. Go on the record. Then Cotton ends up. So in the Trump administration, you strongly opposed the nominations to the federal courts of the following persons. Patrick Bumetay. Michael Park and Ada Brown, a Filipino American, a Korean American, and an African American.

Should members of those communities be worried that you harbor racial bias against them since you oppose those judges' nominations? I'm not sure I see how that connection is being made, Senator. The leadership conference for decades has reviewed the civil rights records of individual judicial nominees in Democratic and Republican administrations. there were judges that we opposed based on their civil rights record. No, Senator, I oppose those racial minorities because of their record. It wasn't because of their race. Well, how can you know that for sure when you've just said that everyone has implicit racial biases? You, what you're saying is, because when Vanita Gupta says all of us,

she really just means all you people, not me. So she says, look, you all think that you're acting in good faith and you think you have all this. good decision-making apparatus and this fact that's a reason. But no, it's all your implicit racism that you're not even aware of. Well, okay, what if I apply that logic to you? When you voted against those racial minorities, isn't that evidence, according to your own theory, isn't that evidence that you were racially discriminatory? Well, no. No, because I'm aware of my implicit biases. Okay, so then the implicit biases don't exist for you. No, everybody has the implicit biases. I think we ought to be able to conclude from Vanita Gupta's meandering testimony

that this ideology, the implicit bias, the stuff that's affecting boardrooms, universities, all of it is not a coherent theory of human nature, of politics, of race. It is a weapon to be wielded against one's political opponents. And the left is shocked that someone like Tom Cotton would have finally had the idea, and you believe it took us all this long, would have had the idea to use that same weapon against the people who invented it. Absolutely wonderful thing to listen to. When I want to listen to great stuff, I love checking out Raycon. Whether you're catching up on your favorite podcast, ahem, ahem, binging an audio book or powering through your workout with a pumped-up playlist, a pair of Raycons in your ears can make all the difference. No dangling wires or stems to get in

your way there. Raycons come in a range of stylish colorways, always with a comfortable in-ear fit for a more discreet look. Raycons are built to perform anywhere and anytime with water and sweat-resistant construction and Bluetooth that pairs quickly and seamlessly. Also, got enough battery light for six hours of playtime. That means you can unplug for quite a while. The best part of this, Raycon makes great sound available to everyone with wireless earbuds starting and half the price of other premium audio brands. I'm just going to put this very bluntly. Raycon is superior to the competition.

It's a superior product, okay, and just save a lot of money. Raycon's offering 15% off all their products for my listeners, and here's what you've got to do to get it. Go to Buyraycon.com slash Knowles, and that's it. You'll get 15% off your entire Raycon order, so feel free to grab a pair and a spare. That's 15% off at Buyraycon.com. Slash Noles.

Raycon earbuds. Oh, man, are they great? Head on over, go check out. Raycon. So speaking of, before we get to Dr. Fetchy, I do want to get to Dr. Fouchie, but before we get to him, we've been talking about this for a week now. This is where it gets really exciting, because this Friday, March 19th, is the premiere of Candace. Daily Wire's new talk show hosted by conservative lightning rod, Candice Owens. In her new show, Candice shows her personal side to her guests and her live audience while she tackles the big political and cultural topics of the

week with her signature blend of humor and insight. Don't forget, Candace starts this Friday, March 19th. It will be exclusive to the DailyWire, meaning the actual members. Now, we love all of you who listen out there in Radio Land and we love people who are watching on YouTube, but this is for DailyWire members. If you're not a member yet, go to DailyWire.com slash subscribe, use code Candice for 25% off. That's DailyWire.com slash subscribe. Use code Candice for 25% off. We'll be right back with a lot more. This idea of implicit racial bias, and all the kind of race hustling nonsense that we're hearing from Biden appointees and the left more broadly. It is a myth. It's the sort of myth that people begin their politics with.

You know, we're going to just agree on these kind of stories that we're going to tell ourselves, and that is going to lead us to making further political decisions. So because we all have implicit racial biases, what's the evidence of that? we don't have any. What is the meaning of that? We can't find any. How does it even make sense if we're consciously talking about something that is by definition implicit? It doesn't make any sense. But we're just going to start there. And then the policy is going to flow from it. Right? And the policy all favors this kind of crazy left wing view. Rand Paul is calling this tactic out in, not in the race arena, but in the public health arena. Rand Paul is pointing out that Dr. Fauci

It's not presenting the science so much as he's presenting noble lies. A noble lie is a concept that has been a part of our politics for a long time. It goes back to ancient Greece. Fauci is making himself a sort of philosopher king imposing noble lies on us for our own good. People are afraid of, you know, scientists, and he's put on a pedestal. But you have to remember that his lies are noble lies, Laura. He's not telling you this because he's a mean man. He's telling you lies because he feels sorry for you because you don't understand and Americans aren't smart enough to make informed decision.

So he fashions himself some sort of Greek philosopher. He tells you these noble lies. So at first he told you that all the masks don't work, but he told you that because he wanted to protect the N95 masks, which actually in a health setting, do work. But then later on he said all masks do work, but that's also a lie also because really only the N95 masks work. But it's a compilation of lies, but they're all done to protect you because he doesn't think you're smart enough to make any of these decisions on your own. Absolutely right. Dr. Fauci admitted this himself when he had to answer for his early admonition, telling everybody that we should not wear masks, it's crazy to wear masks, don't wear masks. When he had to answer for that after he changed his mind, he said, well, the fear at that time was that we weren't going to have enough masks for the health care workers. and I felt it was more important to save them for the health care workers.

So I told everybody else not to wear masks and that they shouldn't wear masks and it wouldn't help them. But I don't really believe that. I believe it will help them. So now you should disregard what I previously said and believe my new guidance, which contradicts what I had previously said. He was making a political statement there, right? He was saying this group of people should get the masks, but not this group of people. This is the way that he convinced people to do this is through this sort of a noble lie, goes back to Plato's Republic, the idea that there are some lies that you tell the people

that are actually salutary, they're actually for their benefit. And this concept has been debated for a long time. Well, here's the modern incarnation. The modern incarnation is Dr. Fauci. And the media are promoting these noble lies. Fauci was just doing an interview on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. And Chuck Todd asked what we were doing in the next pandemic, which he further asserted would be caused by climate change. You know, when you think about sadly having to prepare for this again, right? And I know there's a lot of folks who think that, you know, due to climate change and due to the globalization in general, it's inevitable. We're going to deal with more and more viruses like

this. The biggest lesson you're going to take away to prepare for the next one. climate change is going to give us more viruses. Not the bat market in Wuhan, not the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that those sorts of things, but there's no chance that anything like that is responsible for the virus. It's because of climate change, which could either be global cooling, which we were warned about by the experts in the 70s, or it could be global warming, or it could be global warming, or or once the warming kind of stopped for a while. It could be just the climate change. That's what causes it. Climate change, like this public health tyranny that we're living under now, is this

kind of a catch-all, regardless of the scientific reasoning. The scientific reasoning always seems to change, but the effect of it is always the same. With global cooling, they said the earth is going to head into a new ice age, and therefore we need to stop having as many babies, use contraception, expand abortion, give the government much more control over our lives, seed political rights, not just to our national governments, but to international governments as well. Then the scientific argument completely reversed itself within the following two decades, and what happened? The political consequence is exactly the same. Then when the warming kind of stopped for a little bit, What happened? The scientific reasoning changed, but the political consequence is exactly the same.

I've often referred to the lockdowns over COVID-19 as the Green New Deal through the back door because it gave the technocratic left everything they wanted, all the kind of stuff that they wanted in their environmental proposals. Policies reminiscent of those called for in the Green New Deal, massive redistribution of wealth, a massive surrendering of constitutional rights, an expansion of, international government. It just got that through the back door, right? It was a different, okay, it's, yeah, forget it. It's global warming or it's the Wuhan virus or yeah, whatever. Just do what we say that you should do. The problem here is if you have a public health apparatus, a political apparatus more broadly,

that is operating on these sorts of noble lies, that believes that it can with impunity, lie to you, tell you things that it knows, are not true because it feels that it's in your best interest, then, one, we've totally undermined constitutional government, but two, we have no more basis for our trust in these institutions because they've already told us that they're misleading us. So we can't, even if we wanted to believe them, we can't really do that anymore. Speaking of which, by the way, Dr. Fauci, Christmas came early. He's giving us a little present. We can now reduce social distancing from six feet to three feet. because of, you know, the science or whatever.

In terms of CDC guidance, as you know, the guidance for social distancing for how far people should be is a discrepancy. Some places, some health organizations say three feet or a meter is enough. But here in the United States, we say six feet. There's this new study from researchers in Massachusetts just out this week. It found no significant difference in coronavirus spreading in schools where there was six feet of distancing versus three feet of distancing. But that's six-foot requirement. That's one of the main hurdles to reopening schools.

Right. Does this study suggest to you that three feet is good enough? It does indeed. And that's exactly the point on making, Chuck. What the CDC wants to do is they want to accumulate data. And when the data shows that there is an ability to be three feet, they will act accordingly. Absolutely, Dr. Jake. that is a very profound scientific observation.

Now you only require three feet to slow the spread. Until next week when I just pick another number out of a hat and talk about all the data that show that. How does anybody fall for this? You get these two politicians, Jake Tapper, who's a politician working in journalism, but he's been a political animal his whole life. he's worked for politicians. And you get Dr. Fauci, who just is a politician, right? He's,

he's check assigned by the government. He's served under multiple presidents. He's got longer political staying power than just about anybody in public life. And these two guys are espousing their political points of view and grabbing a lot of political power. But because they put glasses on and they try to sound like their nerds or something, now we're supposed to pretend this is not political at all. This is all just the science. What was the argument for the social distancing in Orwellian terms? that I never use earnestly. The argument for the social distancing, this contradiction in terms, is that you might have a droplet that leaves your mouth and, you know, it lands on somebody. And he's got the mask, so hopefully that'll protect it. But still, you know, it could land on him.

And so therefore, we need to stand a little further apart. Now you can stand a little closer. Are people spitting less forcefully now? Is that the idea that our plosive sort of sounds that we make out of our mouth, they're a little less plosive or something? What on earth could the argument be that now into this, a year into the pandemic, once people in most demographic groups are not really getting that sick from it, and once people are now getting the vaccine, now it's three feet for what? There's no, this is obviously partaking of the same political strategy that Fauci has been employing. since the very beginning, in which he's even admitted. People beginning, I think, to wake up a little

bit to this. Obviously, some people on the right have been woke to this from the top, but even some people on the left are waking up to the oligarchic tendencies, technocratic oligarchic tendencies, this tendency to take power for a handful of elites on the left. Sarah Silverman, a left-wing comedian, certainly not a conservative this last. lady. She was just complaining about the Democratic Party and how elitist it's all become. It's the absolutistness of the party I am in. That is such a turnoff to me. It's so a little elitist. For something called progressive, it allows for zero progress. It's all or nothing. no steps toward all or

nothing. So I sympathize with her exasperation. I guess I empathize with it too. But I don't think she's right. I don't think what she's saying is exactly. I don't think it's all or nothing. I think the way the left has won in this country, at least on the cultural matters,

is through incremental change. This is actually the topic of my upcoming book, speechless controlling words, controlling minds, which you can pre-order now until it's canceled and then you can't pre-order it. which is that for at least 60, 80 years, the left was gaining ground, engaging in what a brilliant leftist theorist called a war of position where you infiltrate the institutions, you gain power and then slowly, slowly, gradually, gradually, you begin to exercise that power. And then when you've got

enough leverage, you can suddenly spring a lot of social changes on people. This to attain what he called the cultural hegemony, which was the big impediment to leftist radicals upending society. I want to focus, though, on this elitism thing, because creating a new elitism is the point of progressivism. She's saying it like it's a contradiction. It's so weird. We're supposed to be progressives, but we're elitist. The whole point of progressism, you can read this in Woodrow Wilson's essay, What is Progress, he's our first left-wing progressive president. He said, the constitutional order was under the laws of Isaac Newton, fixed laws, permanent laws to the universe, permanent human nature. But now we're living under the world of Darwin, where everything is

mutable and changeable and evolving. And in that world, the Constitution is outdated. So what we need to do is instead of being governed by the people, according to the Constitution, we need a group of intellectual, progressive elites to make all of our decisions for us. And we're going to outsource this to something called the administrative state. And then we're going to, you know, still have politics, kind of. We're going to debate pointless stuff, but really the decisions are going to be made by experts such as Dr. Fauci. Sarah Silverman goes on. Again, righteousness porn. And I've been thinking about this a lot, just in general, I just, I don't know that I want to be associated with any party. I really, I think I don't want to be associated with any party anymore. It just, it comes with

too much baggage. Every party. It comes with so much f***ing baggage that no ideas can be taken at face value. And without ideas, what are we? Without a common truth, how can we talk about it? You know, Dante actually makes this point in the Divine Comedy when he's talking to his ancestor, Caciguida, talks about becoming a party of one because the parties are always going to disappoint you because they're these institutions. So there's something profound in what she's saying, and I'm glad she wants to break away from her own party. But the thing is, she's accusing progressives of falling into this trap of dithering because everything's got to be

perfect and it's all or nothing and so they don't get anything done. She's falling into this same dithering trap because in politics, if you want to do anything, you need to operate in tandem with other people. And the way that we do that is we form associations that we call political parties. and that's how you build a consensus and get things accomplished. You need political parties to do stuff in governments such as ours. Even further, though, even further. This whole, both parties are terrible thing. I'm too good for all these parties.

To me, this whole schick is so arrogant and presumptuous. Statistically, 100% of voters fall into one of the two major political parties. You're talking now about 150 million people in this last election. depending on the numbers you're looking at, it could be 160 million people fall into these two parties. Those are just the voters, even more than that, identify with the parties. If all those people are in one of the two parties and you're not, is it possible that you're the one with the problem? It can't possibly be you, right? It's got to be 150 million people totally wrong, me, totally right. Generally speaking, the reason people fall into these parties, the reason the parties form is because there's some coherence to the ideas.

The idea that I would protect life and protect my property, the idea that I would protect life through social policy and protect my property through economic policy, those things go together. They come from a coherent base that forms a political vision that then expresses itself in various policies. Same thing on the left. The idea that you would upend various social policies and upend the economic institutions of government and upend our foreign policy. Sure, it comes from the same broad political vision. And maybe you have a problem with that. But I think it's so arrogant to say, and now whatever heterodox views I hold, that's my real opinion. No, maybe you're just beginning to question your old political vision, but you haven't taken the time and the effort to follow your new curiosities to their logical conclusion, which might not leave you alone outside of the political system. It just might flip you over to the other side. some guys are able to evade political categorization, guys like Bill Mar. Now, Bill Mar, he's a left winger, he's a Democrat, but more than most left-wingers and Democrats, he sort of contradicts his own group every now and again, and it's won some respect

from right-wingers. Usually I disagree with Bill Mar, but occasionally I agree with him, and he's made this point, getting back all the way to what we were talking about at the top with that military guy prattling on about how women are pregnant women are just as lethal as men. He says Americans are becoming a silly people. And finally, new rule, you're not going to win the battle for the 21st century if you are a silly people. And Americans are a silly people. That's the classic phrase from Lawrence of Arabia when Lawrence tells his Bedou and allies that as long as they day a bunch of squabbling tribes, they will remain a silly people. Well, we're the silly people now.

Do you know who doesn't care that there's a stereotype of a Chinese man in a Dr. Seuss book, China? All 1.4 billion of them could give a crouching tiger flying f***le. RBC Training Ground has discovered potential in over 20,000 Canadian athletes and counting. Your story could be next. If you've got the drive, they'll help you find your path to the Olympics. Let's see what you've got. Sign up for free at rBC training ground.ca. Because they're not a silly people. If anything, they are as serious as a prison fight.

Look, we all know China does bad stuff. They break promises about Hong Kong autonomy. They put Uyghurs in camps and punished dissent, and we don't want to be that. But it's got to be something between authoritarian government that tells everyone what to do and a representative government that can't do anything at all. Thank you, Bill.

He's 90% right here. 10% he's confused, but 90% right. Thank you. First of all, this dichotomy he's making between authoritarian government and free representative government, I think it's kind of a false dichotomy. Because America has always been a representative government.

I think we're less representative now than we used to be during the founding era. Now we have government largely by administrative fiat, not by the will of the people as we vote. But do you think that America in 2021 is more or less authoritarian than we were in 1790? I think a lot of people would say that we are less authoritarian, right? We can say more things. We have less strict social mores.

Just on the example of free speech. we can now burn the American flag while downloading high-speed porn, probably in public in some places, while smoking a fat blunt, and nobody will say boo about it. All of those various activities are in various ways protected by the law. You couldn't have done that in 1790s. So then you'd say, okay, well, it was more authoritarian way back then. But in some ways, it's much more authoritarian in now because we can vote and we can vote and we can vote. And if our votes, if our expressed will, either that of the people or of our representatives, contradicts the politically correct, bureaucratically entrenched orthodoxy, it's not going to go anywhere. That's why these things

often die in the courts. That's why President Trump, you elect President Trump, but he can't even control the executive branch in many ways because the bureaucracy functions on its own. according to progressivism as it was established 100 years ago. That is some useless, I think, sort of a dichotomy. Question is, do we have purpose? Do we not have purpose? In the 1790s, I think we had purpose as a country. I think we had a shared sense of national identity, and I think we understood our purpose as a country,

our ideals, how we were going to put them into practice. Now I don't think we do. This is a sign of decadent cultures. and we, I think, have certainly fallen into decadence. Decadent and decay describe the same sort of things. So what we do is we turn inward. This is expressed in declining birth rates. We're not really as focused on the next generation.

This is expressed in exploding debt. We're not focused on the next generation, right? We're just focused on spending, spending, spending, and ourselves having a luxurious sort of lifestyle. We're focused on our own appetites. So much of our national debate revolves around which of our sexual desires we're allowed to pursue today and which new desires will be able to pursue tomorrow. We're not talking about broader things. We're not talking about virtue,

all that much. We're not talking about our international, our geopolitical ends. We're not talking about higher ideals. Silly, silly, silly stuff. Coca-Cola just announced, great example of this in corporate America. They announced they're only going to hire law firms with a a certain quota of black lawyers. They want only law firms that commit to providing 15% of build time from black attorneys. This is a higher percentage than the percentage of black people in America. Talk about institutional racism. They're saying we need a higher percentage of black lawyers, black lawyers time than we have black people in America. A serious corporation in a serious country would say that our criteria for our law firms involve having the best lawyers.

That's the only criterion that matters. We want the absolute best lawyers to get us the best deals and to get us the best cases made in courts. And so that's what we're going to do. But now that's not what it's about. For the military, in a serious country, the only criterion is lethality, force. What is the purpose of? the military. If you had asked people 10 years ago, they would have said, the purpose of the military is to kill our enemies. That's it. To kill our enemies and thereby to make a credible show of

force that means that hopefully the military won't need to be used all that much. But now, the purpose of the military is to what? To make certain people feel good about themselves? If we're really at this point where it is a political crime, where we'll be attacked actually in public by the military, if we say that maybe pregnant women shouldn't be shooting, you know, AR-15s down the range, maybe that's like not the smartest thing to do. Maybe that doesn't help military preparedness or the women. If we're now at that point, then we've had some mission drift somewhere, haven't we? Now the purpose of the military is to make everyone feel really good about themselves based on their sexual, impulses, their desires, their identity, their sex itself, natural sex. The purpose of the law firm is to make people feel good about themselves or some sort of social experiment. That is unserious stuff. And a brief study of history shows that decadent cultures don't get to last that long in their present form because decadent cultures are not strong. I don't think this is a problem that pervades all the people, all the enlisted guys, all the officers in the military.

I don't think that the corruption at the FBI involves all of the officers or the corruption. But there are people in power who have attained power in all of these institutions, including the military, who are utterly subverting the purpose and mission, not only of those institutions, but then collectively of society, might be time for us to finally win and wield some political power. I'm Michael Nolz. It's the Michael Nulls Show. See you tomorrow. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.

Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Klaven Show, and the Matt Walsh Show. The Michael Noles Show is produced by... at Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Bore. Our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producers, Mathis Glover, and Robert Sterling, production manager, Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny Domeco, audio mixer, Mike Coramina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production coordinator McKenna Waters. The Michael Knoll's show is a Daily Wire Production, Copyright Daily Wire 2021. The United States Military will now condemn and try to intimidate

journalists who criticizes its policies. The outrage mob is offended by a joke about feminists that was told at the Grammys. The Vatican makes headlines by affirming church teaching that's been in place for 2,000 years, and a woke school in New York has now banned the words mom and dad on grounds that they aren't inclusive enough. All of that and more today on the Matt Wall show.