The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 773 - “Our Democracy” or Their Oligarchy?

Episode Date: May 27, 2021

The CDC is investigating possible heart problems in young people brought on by the COVID vaccine, Dr. Fauci admits he was wrong about Wuhan Institute funding, and a liberal commentator wants to know your favorite thing about being white. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New reports show that the coronavirus vaccine may be causing inflammation of the heart, myocarditis, in some teens and young adults. Teens and young adults who face statistically very, very, very little risk from the virus itself. This is not some kooky conspiracy theory or some unsubstantiated meme floating around the internet. This is according to a report from the CDC's advisory committee on immunization practices. Rand Paul gets Dr. Fauci to change his story again on Wuhan Institute funding, an anti-cop radio host kills a cop, and Democrat Senator Tammy Duckworth spills crocodile tears over the Republican threat to our democracy. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show, my favorite comment yesterday from Clint Beastwood. It's a great name. They aren't afraid of the NRA. They are afraid of we the people being armed. This is true. You know, The NRA is the largest, I guess oldest gun lobby in America.

And the way the left always tries to attack the NRA, as they say, it's the gun manufacturers lobby. It's just the gun makers screwing over those dumb rubs like all you deplorable irredeemables out there. I am a lifetime member of the NRA. I know many of you are members of the NRA. The NRA, sure, in some ways it represents the interests of the gun makers, but the gunmakers are there because we keep buying all the guns. So who are they really speaking for?

We, the people who cherish our Second Amendment rights. One of those very important, very American ways to defend our other rights, especially in times of chaos and craziness. One great way to defend yourself in times of chaos and craziness. Invest in physical precious metals, such as acre gold. You want to buy gold bars, but you don't necessarily have all the cash at once to buy gold bars. Gold bars are not, you know, they cost a little bit of money, don't they? What if I told you you could invest in gold bars for as little as $30 a month? Michael, you would say you're crazy. That's impossible. Gold costs more than that. Acre gold has figured out an ingenious way. You send Acre gold, 30 bucks a month. You invest in your gold

stash. When the gold stash reaches the price of their gold bars, they will discreetly ship acre gold to your house. Acre has a new $100 a month subscription. to a 5 gram gold bar, they've got lots of great products that will help you get started investing in physical gold. I have really enjoyed investing in physical precious metals. Great way also to hedge when things start to get a little crazy in the economy. Head on over. Head on over to getacregold.com slash knolls. Start investing in physical gold today. Make sure you go to this URL because Acre is Acre is giving away a gold bar to qualify for the giveaway, tweet or post why you should be the recipient and mention at get underscore Acre. That is getacregold.com slash knolls. Thank you, Akergold, for supporting the show. If I had told you yesterday on this show that there are reports that in some cases, I'm not saying it's a lot of cases, but in some cases, the vaccine is causing inflammation of the heart in otherwise healthy teenagers, young adults, I probably would have been kicked off of YouTube. Frankly, I may well be kicked off of YouTube for saying it today. But today, it's a lot harder for them to kick me off of YouTube because the CDC.

is acknowledging that this is a problem and they're investigating it. All of which is to say, you know how much I hate to mention that I told you so, but I suppose I will do it here. The argument for vaccine hesitancy among young healthy people doesn't require the science or the studies or the investigation or the CDC. It's a very simple calculation. We've had a viroids. We've had a virus now for about 18 months. A virus that almost certainly leaked from the Wuhan laboratory. We'll get to that in just one second. We have a virus that has been around for about 18 months now. We know a little bit about it. I'm not even saying we know a ton about it, but we generally know what coronaviruses are. We know a little bit about it. And we know with this virus, just because

of our year and a half of experience with it, that young people are at statistically, virtually no risk whatsoever, right? We have a vaccine that's been around for what? About seven months. months now. And we don't know very much about it. And it was developed very hastily. And it uses sort of vaccine technology that we have not seen used widely very much before. And so if I'm a young, healthy person, I'm going to take those two factors into consideration. And I'm going to make a prudent judgment. I'm not saying I'll never get the vaccine, but conservatives generally speaking would prefer the devil we sort of know to the devil that we definitely don't know. Right? It's a basic judgment. And then every time one of these stories comes out, they say, well, but it's very

rare. The blood clotting in the women, it's very rare. Well, the myocarditis in men is very rare. Okay, I don't care how rare it is. What's the rarity of otherwise healthy young people dying of the coronavirus? Without comorbidities, then it's truly basically zero. And even with comorbidities, it's still pretty rare. You're not allowed to use this kind of judgment. You're not allowed to use prudence. You're not allowed to use your own common sense. It's the issue of the Wuhan lab. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knew that it was very likely that this virus had something to do with the lab that was studying these sorts of viruses, that 400 yards away from the Wuhan wet market where the thing allegedly began. But when we said this, when we just used

our common sense a year ago, we were told the fake news. There were actual fact checks. Fact checks that now have had to be changed. I guess the facts are changing too. The facts didn't change. It's the permission of what sort of facts were allowed to say. And even Dr. Fauci, the expert himself, the exalted one, Dr. Fauci, is admitting sort of, you know, he's very clever with his language. He's admitting sort of that he got a very important thing wrong. Do you remember, what was it, a week or two ago, when Rand Paul, excuse me, Dr. Rand Paul, a U.S. Senator was grilling Dr. Fauci, and he said, hey, Dr. Fauci, do you regret that the NIH was funding gain of function research that was associated with the Wuhan Institute. Dr. Fauci totally

denied it. Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan? Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research. in the Wuhan Institute. Do they fund Dr. Barrack? We do not fund GANN. Do you fund Dr. Barrick's gain of function research? Dr. Barrett does not doing gain of function research

and if it is, it's according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in North Carolina. Dr. Barak does, this is a direct quote, Dr. Barrett does not doing gain of function research and if it is, it's totally whatever. right, that last, the last few words there was not a direct quote, but that was the gist of it. You can tell he's getting tripped up on this. You can tell he doesn't like that Randpole is pushing this because of how tripped up he gets on the grammar. Dr. Barrick does not doing gain and

function research, but if it is, it's happening in North Carolina. So even the words are messed up and the structure is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is just not happening, but also if it is, it's totally fine. Well, what is it then? You can't say it's definitely not happening, but also if it is, it's totally fine. Because he knows that Rand Paul is catching him here. What is gain of function research? Everyone's using this fancy term. It just means you beef up natural viruses. You humans go in, you beef up natural viruses, and then sometimes they escape the Wuhan lab. So he was denying this a week or two ago. Yesterday, Republican Senator John Kennedy was grilling him, and Dr. Fauci, he leaves a little

a little more wiggle room because he doesn't want to be perjuring himself before the Senate. How do you know they didn't lie to you? Excuse me, sir. How do you know they didn't lie to you and use the money for gain of function research anyway? Well, we've seen the results of the experiments that were done and that were published and that the viruses that they studied are on public databases now. So none of that was gain of function. How do you know they didn't do the research and,

not put it on their website? There's no way of guaranteeing that, but in our experience with grantees, including Chinese grantees, which we've had interactions with for a very long period of time, they're very competent, trustworthy scientists. I'm not talking about anything else in China. I'm talking about the scientists,

that you would expect that they would abide by the conditions of the grant, which they've done for the years that we've had interactions. So you don't think. the Chinese would lie to you. You know, Kennedy is great because he's a very intelligent guy, but he plays this really down home. Like, so hold on, you're telling me that they are doing this sort of thing, or they may be doing

this sort of thing in Wuhan, and your only assurance that they're not as their word for. Is that it? Well, yes, the Chinese would totally never lie to us. I'm very smart. I'm Dr. Fauci, and I totally believe the Chinese Congress. communist government. But no, actually what Fauci says is, no, I believe the scientists. You see, I don't know about the government, okay, but I believe the scientists. The scientists are the government. The scientists are controlled by the government. It's China. China, and it's government

research, too. It's not, no, they're totally above board. No, they're not. They're not. And they hid this for months and months and months. I actually have a sneaking suspicion. This is a slight aggression. I suspect that Dr. Fauci has heard my impression of him because I've noticed in recent days, I don't want to flatter myself or anything, but in recent days he's been trying to tamp down his Brooklyn accent, but he's not fooling anybody. I just wonder. I don't know. I don't have evidence for it. It's just my common sense, all right? I know you're not allowed to use that. So Fauci says he can't guarantee that the money that the United States taxpayers, under his watch, sent to the Wuhan Institute.

He can't guarantee that it wasn't used for the sort of research that we know that the Wuhan Institute was engaged in, and which very likely was the cause of shutting down the world for the past year. Okay. So now Rand Paul comes out there. Rand Paul, who's really done a great, just as a political maneuver, he's done a great job as setting himself up as the foil to Dr. Fauci. He proposed a ban, full ban on gain of function research in China. On the floor of the Senate yesterday, received applause and an ovation.

We may never know whether the pandemic arose from the lab in Wuhan, but we do know that so far no intermediate animal host has been discovered. Thousands of animals at the wet market have been looked at, none of them have carried COVID-19. We've tried to infect COVID-19 into bats. It doesn't grow well in bats. it seems most adapted and suitable for humans. We may not know whether this ever arose out of a Wuhan lab,

but I think gain-of-function research, where we take a deadly virus, sometimes much more deadly than COVID, and then we increase its transmissibility to mammals, is wrong. In 2014, NIH stopped all of this research. I'm using the same definition to say any gain-of-function research should not be funded in China with U.S. taxpayer dollars, and I recommend a yes vote. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed, nay. It seems as if the eyes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Cheers. Do you hear that? Of course the eyes have it. What, I don't care how radical a senator you are. I don't care how pro-China you are. You're not going to say, no, I think we should keep allowing the Chinese, I think we should keep funding the Chinese communists to create and beef up deadly virus. to shut down the world. Of course not. So it's a voice vote. It goes all for the eyes and then they cheer afterwards. Raises a question though, if everybody's cheering for this sort of thing,

if everybody is cheering and saying, do not fund the Chinese to do this kind of research, who thought this was a good idea? There were Republicans and Democrats in that chamber. Senators from both parties. Who thought it was a good idea to fund Chinese communists to beef up deadly viruses to make them more transmissible to humans? The answer? The geniuses. Dr. Fauci, all the eggheads, all the geniuses, they thought that was a great idea. Rand Paul is a very astute politician.

Clearly a pretty good scientist, too, but an astute politician. So he goes out and he says, hey, we're going to ban, gain a function research in China. Everybody cheers him on. And yet, we have been doing this. we have been funding this Wuhan Institute of Virology and even Dr. Fauci, who's very, very precise with his language. He's always trying to leave himself little outs. Even he's saying, yeah, I guess it's possible that we funded the gain of function research. And we know because we were funding certain doctors that may not have been doing the research in Wuhan, but the research was going to Wuhan. Okay. Why are these guys that why are the people who think it's a good idea to fund Chinese communists doing the

sort of research that can lead to these deadly viruses. Why are they the ones who have so much political power, who have so little democratic accountability? Why have we enabled them to run our country? Because it's progress, because they're the scientists, because they know what's best. Much better than people who just have common sense and prudence, much better than people who were elected by the people, much better than our representatives, right? Wrong. Wrong. This is a repudiation of the progressive pretense that the genius eggheads in the lab coats can run our lives better than we can. This whole year and a half has been a repudiation of that. Every single Democrat in that chamber that was applauding in both parties, and there are some dumb senators in there, okay?

I hate to put it that bluntly. But there are some people who don't have a very high IQ. There are some people who didn't do very well on their SATs, who were in that chamber, who are nonetheless better at governing than Dr. Fauci, who I suspect has a very high IQ and probably did very well on his SATs. Isn't that a very strange fact about our government? Now, I don't want to say too many nice things about the Democrat senators, because the Democrat senators and Democrat politicians for 100 years are the ones who have allowed us to get to this situation where the egghead the idiots are the ones who have made such poor decisions. They pretend that progress, scientific progress, all the technocracy, is just an extension of

our democracy rather than a repudiation of it. You hear this kind of thing a lot. A Democrat Tammy Duckworth just came out, and not on the Wuhan point, but actually on the point of following President Trump and the direction of the GOP. she says that Republicans would rather defend Trump than defend our democracy. Time and again, they've chosen to stand with Donald Trump in his lies. And time and again, when they've been given the opportunity to do so, and when push comes to shove, they fold and they stand with Donald Trump.

And they have shown that they would rather choose Donald Trump over the truth. They would rather defend traders and spread lies than defend our democracy. And so I, you know, I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not because they have done this time and again. When push comes to shove, they choose Donald Trump over our democracy. You know, Tammy Duckworth is not among the brightest bulbs in the Senate pack. She is reciting a usual talking point. It's one of my least favorite slogans in all of politics. I think this one is even worse than the country over party.

line. You know that we, you need to choose country over party. And what the only thing that ever really means is you need to side with the Democrats over the Republicans. Country over party. No, you're just choosing one party over the other party. But this is a similar one. You're choosing Trump over our democracy. What does that mean? People support Donald Trump because they think he's good for our democracy. And you Democrats don't support democracy very much at all. You support nine elected lawyers, nine rather appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court, taking decisions away from the people. You support the Dr. Fauci's of the world taking decisions away from the people. You support all sorts of anti-democratic institutions. You support censorship from big technology

companies. You support woke corporations undermining the will of the people in Georgia, for instance, to beef up their election integrity laws. There's a great line I read from Angelo Cotevilla at the Claremont Institute, where he pointed out that whenever Democrats invoke the phrase our democracy, they're referring to their oligarchy. Pay attention to it every time they use it. Our democracy, this is, Tammy Duckworth here is criticizing Republican voters for speaking to their Republican elected officials who are using their own judgment and channeling the will of the people. and Tammy Duckworth says this is a threat to our democracy. What are you talking about?

That's the expression of our democracy. It's such an empty line. It's such an empty line. And look, there are plenty of criticisms of democracy, plenty of criticisms that our founding fathers made and are the framers of our Constitution made. You can read about them in the Federalist Papers. So I'm not saying that I think we need a,

I'm a democracy purist. No, I like constitutional government. But if you had to choose right now, which party in the United States is the, more pro-democracy party, there's no question that it's the Republicans. Democrats don't like our democracy. They are now openly telling us that when they get into positions of power, they are going to do their best to undermine some of our basic civil rights in our democracy. For instance, the right to keep and bear arms. Senator Cruz just grilled Joe Biden's ATF nominee,

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Three of my absolute favorite things that come under heavy scrutiny from the federal government. The ATF nominee admitted he wants to ban the most popular rifle in America. The AR-15 is one of, if not the most popular rifle in America. It's not a machine gun. It's a rifle. Your public position is that you want to ban AR-15s. Is that correct?

Senator, thank you for the question. And thank you for our visit yesterday and offering me a Dr. Pepper. It made me reminisce about my time in Central Texas. But now to your question, with respect to the AR-15, I support a ban as has been presented in a Senate bill and supported by the president. The AR-15 is a gun. I was issued on ATF's SWAT team, and it's a particularly lethal weapon. and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons I have advocated for. As ATF director, if I'm confirmed, I would simply enforce the laws on the books.

And right now, there is no such ban on those guns. So you want to ban the most popular rifle in America? You've got to love Senator Cruz here. This guy is so good at being a senator. I don't just say it because we host the show together. just say because he's a friend of mine. He's really good. The Biden ATF nominee, he's trying to do that Washington thing. He's trying to really, you know, present himself as totally aboveboard guy. He's flattering Ted Cruz. He's creating rapport. Oh, he says, oh, hey, hey, ATF nominee, you want to ban the

most popular rifle in America. He goes, Senator, I just want to begin. Thank you for, thanks for giving me that Diet Coke or whatever. Dr. Pepper. Oh, yeah, that brought me back. That doctor. I love Dr. Pepper. Yeah, that's great. I had a great time with you yesterday, senator. So yeah, you know, I look, I think I would want to ban the gun. But, you know, look, there'd be laws and this and that. Cruz just doesn't even move. He just goes, yeah, okay, so you want to ban the most popular gun in America. Is that right? Well, yeah, yes, you can't get around that. He does. And credit to this ATF nominee, I'm sure he couldn't hide it. I'm sure there were public statements to this effect. But he comes out and he says, yeah, I do. I want to ban

the most popular rifle in America. That cuts to the heart of our democracy. That cuts to the heart of our civil rights. It's one of the most important civil rights in our country, the ability to keep and bear arms. And we're not even talking about some fully automatic weapon. We're not talking about pistols, which are used in a whole lot of crime. We're talking about rifles, which are used in relatively very few crimes. Specifically that AR-15, they want to get rid of it. Speaking of violence, a Biden campaign official is telling Jews to say, stop wearing yarmacas. Now, the Biden campaign official is Jewish himself. He was the, I think he's Jewish, he was the lead Jewish outreach guy for the Biden Harris campaign. He tweeted out. It pains me to say this, but if you fear for your physical safety, take off your Kippa and hide your Magen David. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly. It's Star of David, I suppose. Obviously, if you can, ask your rabbi first. This is the wrong answer. This is the wrong answer. This is sad that he would say this.

Because there is increased violence against Jews. It's not like there are pogroms or anything going on right now, but there is increased violence from pro-Palestinian people. That's true. It's not from, not from conservative Christian Republicans. It's from pro-Palestinian people, who I suspect side with the left. And what this guy is saying is, hey, hide your religion. Hide who you are.

Hide your identity. Hide your religion. That's the wrong idea. I hear this a lot outside of the explicitly religious realm and the political. realm, people will sometimes say, hey, college kids, hide the fact that you're a conservative. Just hide it. Just keep your head down. Then someday in the future, you can have integrity. Wrong answer, guys. Courage is a virtue. It's not just a virtue. It's the prerequisite for all the other virtues. If you don't have courage, you're not going to have any of the other virtues,

because you're not going to be able to exercise them. Not surprised to see this coming from a Biden flag, but really dispiriting to see. Really awful, awful thing to be telling people. Ben, speaking of Jewish guys, Ben is going to be talking about the woke quest to destroy the military from within. This is very bad stuff. Ben will have a lot of courage on this show, unlike what we're seeing from the Biden flag. So make sure you check out Ben's show today. Also, sign up as a Daily Wire member with code VIP. Get 20% off your new membership and be automatically entered for a chance to win a trip to the Daily Wire Studios to see Candace live. This deal ends on Memorial Day. So don't wait another minute. You're not going to get another chance. sleep on it. Go enter now to win two VIP tickets to Candace. Get the Candace VIP pass at

DailyWire.com slash subscribe using code VIP for 20% off. We'll be right back with a lot more. The pro-Palestine stuff is really popular right now. It's popular on the left, increasingly so. And in some corners of the right, it's increasingly popular. And I sort of get why it's becoming a little more popular on the right. I think it's because people are reacting to what they feel is an extremist position that we've seen for the past couple years, a couple of decades, rather. We were talking about this a little bit on the backstage show last night. For the past couple of decades, we've been told Israel is America's greatest ally, at least in Republican circles, it's the greatest ally ever and you have to always support Israel

all the time. And if not, you're a no good, dirty, rotten, unpatriotic American. I'm being only slightly hyperbolic. And some people are looking at that and saying, well, no, I don't owe an allegiance to a foreign country. That doesn't constitute my patriotism in the United States. And so they'll react against that sort of thing. But to me, it's similar to when people have been told their whole lives, if you're a white guy, you need to feel ashamed and terrible because men are awful and white people are terrible. And so you can react in this sort of juvenile way and say, actually,

black people are terrible. Actually, women are terrible. You know, you react in a kind of performative, racist or misogynistic or whatever sort of way. But that's not the answer. The appropriate answer is to use your common sense. I guess that's kind of the theme of the show today, isn't it? Use your common sense and say, no, white people aren't terrible at all. White people are perfectly fine. Actually, this was an explicit question that a leftist commentator brought up. People are knocking for the question. We'll get to that in just a second because that, the question I think is important for people to consider right now. But the appropriate re-answer, say, no, white people are perfectly fine.

Now, men, I think, are perfectly fine. I think they have some virtues, actually, believe it or not. So this is how I look at the pro-Palestine stuff. Susan Sarandon is a left-wing, far-left actress. She tweeted out, I stand with the Palestinian people fighting against the apartheid government of Netanyahu and pray for the Israeli people that they too will enjoy peace. I also support Bella Hadid. I don't even know who that is for having bravery to stand in solidarity with her people.

That can be lonely. here's a good rule of thumb. If you don't know all the nuances of, say, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which very few people understand the nuances because the conflict goes back a very long time, there are rules of thumb that we follow. Prudence, just prejudice. I know prejudice is a bad word in recent decades, but we all need prejudice to just to get through the world.

What is a prejudice? A prejudice is a not totally, rationally, abstractly formed opinion that we just sort of receive. It involves gut instinct. It involves the received opinion of our forebears. And that's how we get through the world. There are unjust prejudices, but there are just prejudices too. Here's a just prejudice. If AOC, Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi, Susan Sarandon, Bernie Sanders, if all these guys are uniformly on one side of a political issue. Probably you should be on the other side. I'm not saying 100% of the time, but most of the time. That's just common sense. A lot of this, a lot of the Israel-Palestine issue comes down to

race hustling. Okay, I think a lot of it comes down to this modern unjust prejudice that brown people good, white people bad. I think we're taught that. I think people are taught that in schools. They're taught to abolish whiteness. There are classes at universities about abolishing whiteness. You hear this sort of stuff in workplaces, and it's just wrong and stupid. So Mark Lamont Hill, who is a leftist commentator, he's a black

guy. He used to go on Fox News sometimes, actually, I think. Mark Lamontill, I guess now has his own show, and he was interviewing Christopher Rufo, who's doing excellent work at City Journal exposing critical race theory, which is one of the derivations of critical theory, which is one of the main topics in my upcoming

book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, which is available now for pre-order. Thank you so much. to everybody who is pre-ordered. Apparently the pre-sales are going gangbusters. They're going to have to print up more books. So we're very excited about all of that. You can get a signed first edition copy over Premier Collectibles. So Mark Lamont Hill is interviewing Christopher Rufo, and he asks the question, if whiteness is not always a bad thing, what do you like about being white? And if I would say to you right now, Christopher, what do you like about being white? What would you say? I don't know. Again, it's such an amorphous term. It's like a census term or a crude kind of traumatic term.

Endulge me for one. We're running out of time of indulge me for a minute. I understand you see it as all these things, but you surely recognize that the world sees you as white. You know the world reads you as white. And if you were to ask me some things I like about being black, I could talk about cultural norms, I could talk about tradition,

I could talk about the kind of commonalities I feel around the diaspora. If I were to ask you, particularly if you're saying whiteness is a thing that is being constructed as negative and shouldn't be, name something positive that you like about being white. Well, sure. I'll answer with a thing. You're telling me you're making straw men about things that are ascribed to whiteness

that you think are wrongfully ascribed to whiteness. I'm saying if whiteness isn't a negative thing, and there's something that you actually, and that whiteness actually shouldn't be constructed as all negative, name something positive about being, that you believe is positive about being white. Again, I don't buy into the framework that the world can be reduced into these metaphysical categories

of whiteness and blackness. Oh, man, this is a good question. People are attacking Mark Lamont Hill for asking this question, but it's a brilliant question. Not because it stumps Chris Rufo. Actually, the fact that Chris Rufo can't answer the question is the same reason why Mark Lamont Hill did answer the question. And it's just a fact of our culture now. You are not allowed to say that there is anything good about being white.

And likewise, you're not really allowed to say that there's anything bad about being black. you're not allowed to say that there's anything about particularly good about white culture. You're not even really allowed to say that there is a white culture. People who attack white people are allowed to say there's a white culture, but people who are white are not allowed to acknowledge that there is any such thing as a white culture. And it's not just a trick question. Because one of the trick, the trick that Mark Lamon Hill could have thrown on Chris Rufo here is he could have said, what's good about being white? You're saying whiteness is not purely negative. Okay. So what's good about being white? And then, Chris Rufo says, I don't know, whatever, you know, lobster rolls or something. And Mark Lamont Hill could have said, how dare you, you racist? There's being any race is neither good nor bad. It's just, you're racist, you think, but Mark does not say that. He says, look, I'm black. I think there's some good things about being black.

It says some cultural norms, some commonalities. He's using really vague terms, you'll notice. But he says, yeah, I think there are good things about being black, specifically about being black. So what are some good things about being white? But you're not allowed to answer that. You're not allowed to answer that. But I guess if you're allowed to say it about every other race, then I guess you should be allowed to say it about being white, right?

Chris's impulse is to say there's no such thing as white people. But Mark Lamont Hill is saying, no, there is. Your skin looks different than my skin, whether it's a social construct or it's a biological, essential characteristic. there is such a thing as white people. So you tell me, I'm telling you that there is such a thing as white people and it's totally negative. So you tell me there's something positive.

And I guess if I had to answer the question, what would I say? What is good about being white? A lower risk of sickle cell anemia. That's pretty good. Right? I get, are we not allowed to say that's a good thing to be at a lower risk of sickle cell anemia? Beyond that, I don't know.

Some history. I don't know. One does take pride in history. not pride in the sense of, you know, excessive love of one's own excellence, not pride, you know, that goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. But one does take some satisfaction in the history of one's community. This is true. Actually, Mark Lamont Hill sort of alludes to it himself. So sure, yeah, I think that's true. It's right. And conservatives, I think, ignore that or deny that at their own peril. We're conservatives. Obviously, we like some things about history. What else? I like

sockless loafers. Is that part of white culture? Sure, I guess so. I like, what else do I like? I like the stiff upper lip. You know, in English culture, this is not true of all white cultures. I guess you'd have to get a little more specific. The Italians are not exactly known for the stiff upper lip. They're a little more emotive. But the Brits are known for this. They don't make a big show of their emotions all the time. They're not always whining and screaming unless they're Prince Harry. They push things down a little bit and just go on and have a little manly courage. That's good. Is that good? Am I going to get canceled for answering Mark Lamont Hill's question? I know that he's using this as a kind of rhetorical tactic, but it actually shows you something very important, which is everybody else has a racial consciousness, and this is encouraged, except for white people. And there's a trick even to this. I mean, so there was a Pew Research survey that measured racial consciousness, measured it among black people.

Hispanics, Asians, and whites. Every one of those three groups said that their race, the first three groups, said that their race was somewhat or very important to their sense of identity. Among black people, it was quite high. I think it was over 70 percent. And among Hispanics and Asians, it was over 50%. Do you know what the number was for white people? Fifteen, one five. White people have basically no racial identity. Fine by me. I guess I'd count myself in that group of white people who don't think about race very much at all. There's a reason for this. a practical reason, which is in countries where you're the majority, you're just not going to be that aware of race. So it's perfectly natural. I think if I were walking around Tibet, I think I'd probably

be more aware of my race than if I were walking around Kansas City. However, there's another reason here, which is that anti-racism is an idea that only exists in white countries. There's no anti-racism in China, Okay. There's no anti-racism in, I don't know, Namibia or something, right? There's no anti-racism in Saudi Arabia. Anti-racism, the idea that are more important things in life and race actually doesn't really matter that much at all in politics, that is a Western idea. And it comes from countries that, at least historically, are white countries. So that's part of the trick here as well. You're not allowed to say it. But see how unstable that is? See how many contradictions there are? See how uncomfortable that line of questioning was? Because what Mark Lamon Hill is showing is that in our new racial caste

system, there is one set of rules for non-white people, and there's another set of rules for white people. This racial politics is a totally rigged game. And it's very effective for the radical left. This is why the radical left is focused very much on racial politics. Nicole Hannah Jones is a liar. She's one of the most famous liars in the country. She's the person behind the 1619 project at the New York Times. The central thesis of which is a lie, the lie that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. It's just not true.

She won the Pulitzer Prize for it. She won the MacArthur Genius Grant for it. But it's just not true. And the New York Times even had to admit it. They had to correct the thesis. The whole thing fell apart. It doesn't matter. It's being taught in schools because the New York Times spent millions of dollars to promote

the thing. So Nicole Hannah-Jones, who is, as far as I can tell, not particularly intelligent. She doesn't have very many scholarly credentials. She's winning a lot of plaudits and awards from the popular culture, but she's no scholar. She's a hack activist journalist. Well, she was teaching at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She was up for tenure, and the board of trustees denied her tenure. Of course, the woman doesn't even have a PhD. I'm not one for credentialism, but it is very strange for tenured professors not to have PhDs. Very, very unusual. She's just not fit for the job. Even if she did have a PhD, she wouldn't be fit for the job, but she certainly doesn't now. So they denied her tenure. This created a big race hustling political problem for UNC. Now she's up for

tenure again. She is, she was denied tenure according to the radicals because of conservative groups and conservatives on the board of governors of the university. So I guess they're saying conservatives are not allowed to have any influence over this public university. So now 1619 alumni, get it? Wow, the symbolism. But a one-page ad in a local newspaper saying, quote, we are 1,619 University of North Carolina alumni outraged by the Board of Trustees failure

to approve a tenured professorship for UNC alumni and founder of the 1619 project, Nicole Hannah-Jones. We demand that the Board of Trustees immediately revisit this man. matter, grant tenure is recommended by the appropriate faculty, Dean and Provost, and restore the integrity of our university. No university with integrity would allow this woman to even speak there. The fact that this is even being discussed, the fact that she's a graduate, raises questions about the integrity of that university, that they would allow this woman to graduate with a degree in at least one fake department.

Hannah Nicole, no, Anna Nicole Smith, Nicole Hannah Jones. Nicole Hannah Jones tweets out, this fight is not about me. We call on all people of conscience to decry this growing wave of repression and to encourage a recommitment to the free exchange of ideas. I know she tweeted that because it was written about it in an article, but I didn't see it on Twitter because you know what happened when I went to look at her Twitter? She blocked me. Nicole Anna Jones, who says, we need to recommit to the free exchange of ideas and restore integrity. She blocked me. She doesn't believe in the free exchange of ideas. She's a liar. She should not be at any university. In our culture, we are rewarding bad faith actors. We are rewarding liars. We are rewarding people and

giving them positions where they can communicate their trash to the masses. And we are suppressing voices that speak the truth. Father James Altman, Father James Altman, Catholic priest in Wisconsin. You might remember him because some of his homilies, some of his videos, some of his videos, went viral during the election because he had the audacity to defend Catholic teaching against the heresies of the radical woke left and the new pseudo-religion of the radical woke left. Do you remember him? Take a listen. There are way too many people who don't know the first thing about Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So truth be told, they do not love him. And so we can see in the many godless politicians, out there in the godless educational system and the godlessness of so many sheeples, they most definitely are not serving him. They are not fulfilling their purpose in life, to know, to love, and to serve God. Oh, you're just being political. Father Alton is too political. Politics has no place in the Catholic Church, Bologna. Pope Benedict the 16th said, the church is not a political power, it's not a party, But it is, at least it's supposed to be, it is a moral power.

Therefore, since politics fundamentally should be a moral enterprise, the church in this sense has something to say about politics. Therefore, when politics and politicians act in an immoral way, we most certainly do have the duty and the obligation to speak up and speak up about it. Absolutely. Absolutely right. He's very pleased to see Father Altman's homilies and to see him speaking out on important moral matters. This is what good shepherds do. So now he's being asked to resign by his bishop. The bishop, William Patrick Callahan last Friday asked for Father Altman to resign for allegedly being, quote, divisive and ineffective.

because of his controversial rhetoric defending Catholic teaching. Now, I do not want to just leap to the conclusion that there's no issue here that's legitimate that the bishop does not have the right to request this resignation. Father Altman, fortunately, has hired a canon lawyer and is fighting back and appealing this up to the Vatican as well he should. But the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor should it be a democracy. It's just not the way the body functions. The kingdom of heaven is not a democracy either, so I understand that.

But all too often we have seen bishops, we have seen priests, we've seen members of the episcopacy, bowing down to the worldliness of our politics, to radicals. You know, there was a move, there was a leak that the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops would hold Biden's feet to the fire on his scandal, the scandal that he so openly supports abortion in contravention of the church teachings, among other things, by the way. Very important matters on marriage, on all these sorts of things. So we'll follow this story. I hope that Father Altman is permitted to speak. Very often, some of the greatest priests, some of the greatest saints of the church have faced a lot of pushback from their bishops. St. Padre Pio among them, St. John Henry Newman had some

scuffles with his bishop. So this is not unusual, but it should raise questions for people such as Bishop Callahan and others who are attacking Father Altman. Are they really on the right side here? Are you sure? If you're siding with radical leftists over a priest who is defending Orthodox, are you sure you're on the right side of that sort of thing? People are very confused about things that matter. Have you noticed that? I have to address this. I posted something on, I didn't even posted, I gave a speech for the Young America's Foundation, they posted a clip where I pointed out that I was making fun of Asa Hutchinson, that governor of Arkansas, when Asa Hutchinson invoked Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan to defend castrating kids. And I said, you know,

there are more important things in life than occupational licensing reform. I said, if you're a conservative party that won't defend children against the predations of perverts who are trying to castrate them, you're not conserving very much. You know, I'm all for tax cuts, but there's more important things in life. So I posted this, and a bunch of squishes jumped on it and said, oh my gosh, are you crazy? Occupational licensing reform is the most important thing in the world. I'm not opposed to occupational licensing reform.

I'm not opposed to tax cuts. But there are more important things in life. And I think a lot of people, the kind of elite, sort of fashionable conservatives who pretend that all they really care about is something like occupations, or licensing reform, that that's the only thing that matters. They're really just trying to be liked by the left. What they're really saying is, no, you know, I just care about these really specific economic issues of tweaking ways that the financial regulations work. It's a way of avoiding difficult problems. It's a way of saying, look, I just want you leftists to be able to do

whatever you want, even more so, actually. I want to expand the things that you can do. But that's just not enough. An effective conservative movement needs to tell people no. Can't just tell people yes, yes, yes. It's got to tell people no. It's going to say, no, you can't kill the baby. No, you can't castrate the kid. No, a little boy can't become a little girl. No, I'm sorry. I know that's not going to make me popular. I know I'm going to get mean tweets, but there are more important things in life than avoiding mean tweets. That's just the way it is. I think a lot of the political battle right now on the on the, on the right. You know, there's the Liz Cheney crew. There's the crew that pretends that tax cuts are just the only thing that ever matters in politics. There's the crew that's willing to engage in the social issues. A lot of the difference there is between, are you going to go along to get along with this increasingly insane liberal regime? Or are you going to fight back? And you're going to be called all sorts of names and racist and sexist and all sorts of stuff. As someone

actually, when they saw this clip that I posted pointing out that it's bad to castrate kids, they said, I can't, you're a job. You're a job. You're just. You're a just ginning up the culture war, you're pushing a moral panic, as if to say, hey, stop panicking and let us trans the kids. But you see this on another issue. Stop panicking and let us kill the babies. Stop panicking and let us sell out our national sovereignty to foreign nations like China. No. No, we're not going to do that. But we'll give you tax cuts. No, still no. But if we don't just go along with everything, the left might say mean things to us. Yes, they might. Get over it. Courage is the prerequisite of all the other virtues. The only way that we're going to

defend anything that even slightly resembles our true democracy. I'm Michael Nolz. I'm Michael Nolz. The Michael Nulls Show. See 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 where it. else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Claven Show, and the Matt Walsh Show. The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Bore. Our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producers, Mathis Glover, and Robert Sterling,

production manager, Pavel Vidowski, editor and associate producer, Danny Damiko, audio mixer, Mike Coramina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production. coordinator, McKenna Waters. The Michael Null's show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. Today on the Ben Shapiro show, Joe Biden proposes a $6 trillion budget. It would sink the economy and raise the national debt to record levels. Plus, the Biden White House is pushing wokenness in America's military industrial complex and taking China's word for it on the origins of COVID-19. So everything's going great. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.