The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 794 - White Rage Against The Machine

Episode Date: June 28, 2021

Our nation’s top military brass go woke, an Olympian disrespects the flag, and AOC gaslights on the crime surge. My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The last institution to have held out against leftist ideology has succumbed. For decades, the left has hollowed out the media, the schools, the churches, the corporations, and now even the U.S. military has gone woke as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff threats about the supposed scourge of white rage. Sure. First of all, on the issue of critical race theory, et cetera, I'll obviously have to get much smarter on whatever the theory is. But I do think it's important, actually, for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely red.

And the United States Military Academy is a university. And it is important that we train and we understand. And I want to understand white rage. And I'm white. And I want to understand it. So what is it that cause thousands of people to assault this building? and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America. What caused that?

I want to find that out. I want to maintain an open mind here, and I do want to analyze it. It's important that we understand that. I've read Mao Say tongue. I've read Carl Marx. I've read Lenin. That doesn't make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding,

having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend? Few things stir up my own swarthy rage, quite like hearing the chairman of the joint chiefs use phrases such as white rage. But as parents of all races across the country stand up against critical race theory, transgenderism, other aspects of leftist ideology. The establishment is doing its damnedest both to deny and to defend their kooky agenda. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment from Friday is from Old School,

who says, if you were trying to confiscate, citizens' guns, while simultaneously telling them they would need an F-15 or nukes to defend themselves against the government, you just might be a tyrant. Well, you're certainly proving the point of the Second Amendment. I would say if your main argument, as Joe Biden's is right now, for undermining your civil right to a gun, is that the government's going to nuke you if you push back, then I think really you are undercutting the idea that people should give up. their guns. Doesn't make a lot of sense. People need to be able to help themselves. If you want to help yourself fix your car, by the way, I would strongly recommend Rock Auto. Rock Auto.com has a

catalog that is so simple, I can navigate it. It has prices that are so reliable. I don't need to worry about the gimmicks of buying on Tuesday morning or Wednesday afternoon or anything like that. And it has every single part that you need for your car or truck. That's it. And best of all, in my view, it's not going to pefter you with a thousand questions and degrade and humiliate you and then not have the part. Like when you go into the brick and mortar store, you know, you go in there, they got a million questions about whether your car is the GX or the PX or the P90X, I don't know what kind of car. And then they go into the back of the store and they don't have any of the parts and then they order it online, probably from Rock Auto

and they charge you twice as much. Don't do that. Don't do that. You can skip that whole hassle. head on over to rock auto.com right now. You can see all of the parts available for your car or truck. They are available from hundreds of manufacturers. You can check them all out, same prices for pros and do it yourselfers. And then most importantly, you can write Knowles, K&WLES, in their how did you hear about this box? So they know that we sent you. Rock Auto.com. White rage. That's what General Millie wants to understand. this is so pathetic both in the conflation of critical thinking and critical theory. They actually are even using the two terms interchangeably. Critical thinking would be when you use your faculties of reason and apply them to many problems. Critical theory is a very specific lens. It's an academic

ideology that seeks to debunk everything, dismantle everything, bring it all to criticize, It's the ruthless criticism of all that exists, to quote Carl Marx, who General Millie seems to like to read quite a lot. But it's just so disingenuous to me. I don't think that Millie is, while he is maybe teaching all of these stupid books on Robin DiAngelo or Ebram Kennedy, the chief of naval operations, Michael Gilday defended the same sort of thing. He said that we need to have all of this modern race hustling crap on the reading lists in the various military academies and for the enlisted guys and the ensigns and the sailors and everybody else. else. But you think, okay, if you're reading all of that in the line of just sort of being well read and understanding all the problems, if you want to understand why the hundreds, according to Millie, it was thousands of white insurrectionists attack the capital and the coup d'etat. Okay, fine. A little bit of a hyperbolic framing, but if you want to understand that,

how come we don't also have books on the reading list to understand the BLM terrorists who burn the country down last year. I don't, I don't see a whole lot of reading focused on that problem. You see a lot of the white rage. Well, what about the black rage? What about other kinds of rage? And frankly, what about the ideological lens? Because the left is obviously framing this is a racial thing. I strongly suspect that it's not primarily a racial thing. I strongly suspect it's ideological and these radicals are hiding behind race. So where's that? Where's the leftist rage? Where's that reading list? I don't see it. Wouldn't that make you a better read more situationally aware military general millie no because the i mean it would but the

arguments are just total bunk it is just a way of getting even the freaking top brass at the pentagon to defend this woke insanity you've got the you've got the navy now reading how to be an anti-racist to to better understand their country a book that proposes quote future discrimination against white people that that is now on the professional reading list So this is very tricky, the arguments they're making here, because on the one hand, they are defending critical race theory. They're actually going out, you've got the CNO, you've got the chairman and the Joint Chiefs openly defending this radical leftist ideology. And then when you call them on it a little too hard, they switch from defending it to denying that it even exists. Joy Reid pointed this out

perfectly. Joy Reid had Chris Rufo on. Chris Rufo is the Manhattan Institute scholar who has really popularized much of what's going on in critical race theory. Most people, I suspect, had never heard this term before Chris Rufo made a big deal about it. So Joy Reid invites him on her program and then denies that critical race theory has any effect on the world at all. Well, I'll say two things. First of all, it's very interesting to me that so many people are now running away from the race of the label of critical race theory. He's not a critical race theorist. Hold on. I'm going to quote two critical race theorists, Barbara Applebaum with the book Being Good Being White. She says, quote, all white people are racist.

Robin DiAngelo, who's another critical whiteness studies scholar, says that, quote, white identity is inherently racist. So what you're doing is you're playing a series of word games. You know that critical whiteness studies is a subfield of critical race theory. No, it's not. These things are all deeply interrelated. And I'm not going to let you play word games. And this is really, I think, the most essential thing. Hold on.

No, no, no, no. Let me respond at least once. I haven't gotten a full sentence. Because I'm not going to let you. See, one of the things that, I don't know, you probably never watched me on TV. Just, you know, we didn't know who each other were, you know, not so long ago. But I don't allow people to just make up and say lies on the show. It's just not really right to do that and let people hear.

But hold on. But let me at least get a full sentence in. Am I right or wrong? Robin DeAngelo is not a critical race theorist. And I want everyone to know that. Robin Dea, I don't know who the other woman is, but she's not. Okay. I don't know who the other woman.

I don't know anything really about what you're saying here, Chris. But I just want you to know critical race theory is having no effect whatsoever. So this is the absolute gaslighting here. And it's worth watching this entire 15-minute painful discussion. I can't even really call it a discussion because Joy Reid wouldn't like Chris get a word in edgewise. But her argument basically is this retreat into nominalism, to use my friend Matt Peterson's phrase over at Claremont. She's retreating back into this point of, well, what really is critical race theory?

No, it's not a big deal. Now, the left has made a big deal out of critical race theory for now going. on four decades. Increasingly so, but now that someone actually called them out on it, all of a sudden they're denying it exists. And they'll play these little semantic shifts where you'll place critical race theory in the broader tradition of critical theory, which is a major topic of my book, which is out now for order, speechless, controlling words, controlling minds.

Thank you very much to everyone who's ordered it. For those who are waiting and wondering, the bell is gone. The book is out. The bell is gone. But I appreciate those of you who have ordered it. You get the audio book and you can also get the physical copy. And I would recommend you get both. If you place as conservatives are trying to do,

as conservatives are trying to communicate to people, CRT within this broader history that goes back to the Frankfurt School, it goes back further to Karl Marx, and it goes forward into intersectionality, into, as Chris mentioned there, critical whiteness studies, which is what you're getting at, you know, ethnic studies, all of these, the broader school of grievance,

school of resentment, you recognize what a huge influence this has all had on our country. It's not merely that CRT was invented in 1981 and flourished during the 1980s at Harvard Law School and a couple of other law schools. The very point of CRT is that you can't limit it to just one academic field. The thing has to branch out and pervade things. This is why Martin Jay, who is a sympathetic scholar of critical theory, and he's probably, one of the most important ones that we've had who actually gives the story of this. Martin J. says, quoting other critical theorists, the genius of critical theory is that it's not just its own academic field, rather it is a gadfly on other academic systems, which is why there's no

critical theory department at most universities. There are literature departments, the ethnicity studies departments, history departments, many other departments, and critical theory has pervaded all of them. And certainly in law school through CRT, and certainly now in the broader culture, in the corporations, in the media, and even in the military, through this woke race hustling nonsense. It permeates everything. According to our national archives, America was built on structural racism. So there was a little noticed report that came out from a National Archives Task Force on racism. Oh my gosh. Does every institution now have a task force on racism? We're going to set up the Michael Nulls Show task force on racism. I guess we actually do that when we point out the left's

hypocrisy on race, but no one takes those reports all that much to heart. So the National Archives, which hosts America's founding documents, right, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, says that there is structural racism that has been that has permeated American society. And the task force suggested major changes to have the Constitution and other records are presented in order to provide, quote, context. How on earth are they going to do that? I think it's pretty simple. You've got these documents that laid the groundwork for our country.

But we need to reframe how they are presented. This is the same kind of language that comes up in the 1619 project from Nicole Hannah-Jones. It's the same kind of language that you're getting in the academic movement. like CRT, and it's the same sort of framing now that you're getting throughout all of the institutions. They believe that the founding fathers and other white, historically impactful Americans are portrayed too positively. And that's the issue. When we're talking, it's not even so much the facts. You think about the 1619 project, it's based on a lie. The central thesis is that America was founded to preserve slavery. The American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. It's just,

just not true. But the lie is almost incidental. It's almost a minor point compared to the broader issue, which is, as Nicole Hannah-Jones says openly, we want to reframe the history of the country to put slavery at the center of it. I will say this is a minor pedantic point, but it does drive me crazy. Whenever I see the word impactful, to me it's a red alert because the word impactful is a very, very silly word. Some people defend it, but a thing can not be full of impact and it cannot fill with impact. It just isn't. So whenever I see that, it's just a hint. I'm not denying that it's a word in the dictionary. I'm just saying it shouldn't be. It's a very silly word that people shouldn't use. And it's just a hint to me that people just are kind of

mindlessly using jargon. It's like the sort of people who use the word synergy with a straight face. It's just these words that enter into our broader lexicon and when people just sort of repeat And I'm making sort of a joke about impactful here. But you see this with all sorts of words like structural racism. Beep boop, beep, beep, beep, beep, poop. Structure systemic, white supremacy, patriarchy, beep, beep, beep. And no one knows what these things really mean. No one can quite put their hands on it.

But they just repeat these canards because that helps to shape our mind and shape our culture. So the task force, by the way, just for you trying to keep up, says that structural racism in our founding documents includes, quote, legacy descriptions that use racial slurs and harmful language to describe BIPOC communities. You're not allowed to say people of color anymore. You now have to say black and indigenous people of color because other people of color don't count. And also, there are terrible terms you can't use include elderly. You're not allowed to use that term. Handicapped, that's a terribly bigoted term. You're not allowed to do it according to the National Archives. And illegal alien, which is just as close.

clinical a term as it gets, you're not allowed to use that. Presumably you have to use terms like future American, undocumented American, imprecise terms that actually mean the opposite of what they purport to mean. This term racism is just a cudgel. It's just a big hammer that the left uses to smack their political opponents without any sense whatsoever. And conservatives are still afraid of it. We are still afraid of being called race. We're, we are still afraid of being called racist. It's the worst thing you can be labeled as in this culture. So we're just, even if we know it's just, it's not true, it's meaningless. We're still very afraid to do it. Republican Representative Bob Good was just criticizing critical race theory, which we are told

is both really, really good and doesn't exist, right? Those are the simultaneous arguments coming from the left. And as he's describing this on a House of Representative conference call on just a Zoom session, Democrat rep Don Norcross, bereft of arguments unable to push back against what Representative Good is saying, just randomly yells out racist. You can just see this past week in Virginia's Loudoun County, one of the largest counties in Virginia, the Board of Education there, rather than face parental criticism, they shut down public comment, they adjourned the meeting, and they actually called the police to come in and arrest parents who had gathered to express their grievances with government and

local school officials. I hope that you will not nationalize a culture war that started in Virginia and bankrupt critical race theory with hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Racist, right? Wow, so brave. So brave, representative, Norcross. Gosh, that really makes me think about this subject in a new and fresh way. Because you see, before, I was just trying to understand why these parents are rising up against critical race theory and its various derivations in the schools and what the motive. But now you've explained. to me. Racist? Wow, gosh. You know, back 70, 80 years ago in our rhetoric in the West, in the Anglosphere, you would have phrases like, we shall go on, we shall fight on the beaches and

in the streets, we shall never surrender. You had, you know, sort of Churchill's rhetoric, but now we have the beautiful rhetoric of Norcross and the Democrats. Racist. You're a racist. Okay. They can demagogue all they want. They can try to get us to shut up about CRT and its related fields. They can defend it and they can deny it and they can just try to muzzle us with that word racist. But the fact is we're right about this. The parents recognize it. I know that these elite politicians don't believe that ordinary people ought to have a say

in their children's education and in their political communities. But they will. And I don't care what General Millie or the Chief of Naval Operations or this ridiculous Democrat congressman or anyone else has to say, or Joy Reid or anyone else. has to say about it, because that the theories, the ideological frameworks around CRT and intersectionality and wokeness and PC, and it's all the same stuff, are having a huge effect. There was a U.S. Olympic track and field trial on Saturday, and one of the women athletes, Gwen Berry, was a hammer thrower. Okay. Speaking of using hammers to smack down our opponents, Gwen Berry was there.

She placed third. There were two other athletes there in the trials, and they begin playing the national anthem. So the two good patriotic athletes stood and faced the flag with their hands on their hearts. And this anti-American narcissist, Gwen Barry, turned to the side, hand on her hip to take a photo. She's probably auditioning to be the next Nike spokesman, and she refused to respect the flag. Unfortunately, I guess she's still going to go to the Tokyo Olympics with the United States. Now, if I were running the show, I would not permit that. I would kick her off of the team because she obviously hates her country, and therefore we should not have her representing our country at the Olympics.

I don't care. She may or may not be a good athlete. I can't say that I'm familiar with her accomplishments, but I don't care if she's the best athlete on the team. She hates her country. So get off the, you don't have a right to be on the team if you hate your country. It's a very basic thing. The entire point of the Olympics is to go and represent the best and the strongest and the most wonderful of our country and to put our country first. So she begins to play. She then wears a t-shirt that says activist athlete. She then tweets out a picture of it. She says, stop playing with me. I wish we would stop playing with this woman. I wish she would not play on the American Olympic team. And then she said, my purpose and my mission is

bigger than sports. I'm here to represent those who died due to systemic racism, whatever that is. That's the important part. That's why I'm going. That's why I'm here today. Goodness gracious me, kick this gal off the team. This is what worries me. If CRT and intersectionality and critical theory broadly, were just confined to a handful of Marxist cranks in the academy. That would be one thing. If it were, as Joy Reid pretends that it is, just confined to Harvard Law School, that would be fine. It wouldn't be good, but Harvard's kind of a lost cause at this point.

So we'll just let the institution rot. But the problem is, it bleeds out. I guess at the heart of this denial that CRT is broader than just one law school's academic theory is this denial of the belief that ideas have consequences, a denial of the belief that when you have an idea, even if it begins in a law school, that it then has effects throughout the broader legal system, throughout the broader university system, throughout the broader culture. And it obviously does this theory that places white supremacy and bigotry and wickedness and evil at the heart of the American story. That is having an effect on

our Olympic team. And therefore, it's a problem. Therefore, this little academic theory actually is a political problem for the community. And AOC is coming out here. And she's saying, ignore, ignore what you are seeing. Ignore everything. Do not believe your lying eyes. Because you can draw direct correlation between the insanity that has been plaguing our universities through things like CRT. and crime in the streets. You can draw a direct line. When Charles Kessler at the Claremont Institute called the 2020 Summer of Hate,

the BLM riots, the 1619 Project riots, Nicole Hannah-Jones, who started 1619, said she was honored, that she was proud for them to be called the 1619 Project riots. She was proud that her

cultural and somewhat pseudo-academic movement was having real effect in the streets. She said that's great. And that's obviously what's what is happening through CRT and through the other movements. They don't want to own up to it. And now Aosu is coming out and she's saying, don't believe you're lying eyes. Ben is going to be talking about the effect of all of this on the elections in 2020. Ben seems to believe that the Democrats are in for a real bruising in a couple years. I guess those elections, the campaigns will really start next year. Also, do not forget

about the Clarence Thomas documentary created equal that tells his story becoming a spring court justice. The movie did very, very well with audiences. And then it was removed from Amazon. Isn't that so strange? During Black History Month, of all things. Who knows why? I can't imagine. So get your popcorn ready is now you can stream created equal anytime. It's available to DailyWire members over at DailyWire.com. Once you're a member, be sure to check out all of our other great content like our talk show, Candace, featuring Candace Owens, our first movie, Run Hyde Fight, and Ben Shapiro's new series, debunked, were Ben debunk's leftist myths in 15, seconds or less, 15 seconds. Well, it's supposed to be 15 minutes, but knowing the way that Ben

talks, probably 15 seconds. You can get all of this and more on demand by going to dailywire.com slash subscribe, check out with 20% off using code justice. Do not wait, start streaming today, and while you're at it, go pre-order speechless. I'm sorry, go order order speechless, controlling words, controlling minds. We're still in the top books on Amazon. They actually are right now, I think, because the book is doing so well, they just instituted a sale. As of this moment doing the show, the sale is still on. It's like 36% off. I think that's only going to be going on for a day, maybe two days. So go pick up a copy, especially if you've been checking out the audiobook. It's nice to be able to go back and forth. Thank you to those who've ordered. We'll be right back

with a lot more. There have been pretty big spikes in crime around the country. I'm thinking of Chicago where murders and shootings are up 50%. I'm thinking of places like New York and Los Angeles, where crime is clearly spiking before our very eyes. But, you know, the left often belief. that you should not care about what's going on in practice when you could instead focus on what's going on in theory. And in theory, AOC believes everything is fine and this fear of crime going through the roof, well, it's nothing more than Republican hysteria.

We are seeing these headlines about percentage increases. Now, I want to say that any amount of harm is unacceptable and too much. But I also want to make sure that this hysteria, that this doesn't drive a hysteria and that we look at these numbers in context so that we can make responsible decisions about what to allocate in that context. You need to look at the murders going up 50% in context. You know, what context, lady, if this is going on on our streets, we want to get rid of it. And I just don't think that this line of argument is going to work for Democrats who are trying to win over

voters for 2022 and 2024. Assuming that we can get our election system back into order, assuming that we can get some of the safeguards against fraud back into order, those safeguards were taken away in large part during the 2020 election. And the excuse was the coronavirus lockdowns. But now the Democrats are trying to make that permanent through a naked power grab and perversion of our electoral system called HR1 and S1. Thankfully, it was shot down for now. We'll see how long that lasts. So assuming you get all that in order, you're going to have to win over voters and what what aOC is saying here is you're being hysterical if you're worried about your communities if you're worried about the safety of your family you're just being hysterical come on

this is BS this is just the tricks and traps of white supremacy I don't think so I don't think it is not just race that is causing people some some problems it's not just this race hustling there's also this radical sexual politics there's a video just came out from a spa where a woman is going up to the manager and complaining because the spa has a transgender policy, and the spa allowed a dude to go into the women's changing room and just strip down in front of the women. And the women don't want to have to see this. I don't think women and little girls should be forced to see naked, grown men with all of the various appendages. And the staff says, sorry, there's nothing we can do.

He says he's a woman, he's a woman. You don't, so it's okay, I just want to be clear with you. It's okay, it's okay for a man to go into the women's section, show his penis around the other women, young little girls under age. Your spa, we spa, condone that. Is that what you're saying? Like I asked. So he could stay there. He could stay there?

But sexual orientation. I see a d-a-oh. It lets me know he's a man. He's a man. He is a man. He is not no female. I love this woman. So what this woman is showing, by the way, you can hear, the way she's speaking is a little colloquial. It's not academic. It's not fancy. I suspect this woman doesn't go to sort of soirees at the critical race theory organizations movement at Harvard College. She doesn't sound like that at all. She's speaking much more bluntly. and directly. She also doesn't sound white, right? We're told that the only people who oppose these radical policies are white supremacists and whatever. This woman doesn't sound particularly white to me. And she's going out there and she's saying, hey, get that dude out of the women's changing room. And the guy behind the counter says, well, no, you understand because of the sexual orientation.

She says, what about sexual orientation? I don't see sexual orientation. I see a phallus. Okay, that lets me know he's a man. I love the way. You know, you could probably sit through about 10 hours of sexuality studies, women's sex and gender studies at Harvard or Yale or somewhere else, and have them try to explain to you the meaning of the deconstruction of the gender and the this and then this woman can go up there and she'd say, okay, here's my counterpoint. I see a fallace. That's what lets me know that he's a man. So you know, gosh, we could have saved ourselves all that time, all that jargon to just know, yes, that is what lets you know that he's a man. And it's obviously wrong to force women and little girls to change, to strip naked in front of dudes and to have to

see naked dudes in their changing room. That's obviously wrong. And no amount of philosophizing by these cooks and cranks on the campuses is going to change that. So you're seeing this come up, especially at the school boards right now, but I bet you're going to see more videos like this as this crazy sexual politics continues apace. I think you're going to see women finally push back. And I don't think it's going to be the super duper elite, white supremacist, the sort of caricature of the people who run the country. It's not going to be that. It's going to be ordinary people of all sorts of races with just even a modicum of common sense. It's not just what they tell us it is.

So, Chip Roy, who's a congressman down in Texas, he is venting this frustration. This white rage, I don't think it's just white. I think it's, there is a bit of rage going on, but I think it's rage in response to the left's rage. I think that the indignation that conservatives feel right now is in response to, say, BLM burning the country down, both ideologically for many years, but also literally last year. I think it's in response to our politicians not serving the people on many important issues. notably on immigration. Our country can't enforce its most basic law. It can't even preserve its own borders as a country.

And so Chip Roy down in Texas is looking at the situation. He's saying a lot of Texans are wondering what the advantages to us to be in a union in this United States that won't do its most basic job and is just leaving us open to a surge of foreign nationals pouring over every day. Every state in the union should send resources to. to the state of Texas to help us secure the border because, damn gummit, Texas is going to secure this border if the United States of America is failing to uphold its end of the bargain of our having a union. And I've got people in Texas that are starting to rattle about what are we getting out of this equation? What are we getting out out of being a part of a union that won't secure its own

border? Because you know what? It's our border too as a Texas state. And we have a duty as a state, as a sovereign people to defend ourselves. This is pure John Locke kind of stuff, the first duty of government, to secure the people and to secure us and take care of our communities. So what's the point? What are we getting at of? I mean, you are seeing this fraying of the country. And if there is rage on the part of conservatives, it's because we're watching this whole

thing collapse around us. We're watching now our Olympic athletes are not expected to salute the flag. Well, why not? because our other athletes in the NFL are not saluting the flag. They're actually protesting the flag. Why else? Because our politicians now in the Democratic Party are disrespecting the flag and protesting the flag and encouraging the riots.

And the current, the sitting vice president of the United States was bailing out rioters during 2020. And Hillary Clinton, the previous Democratic nominee for president, was encouraging civil unrest. She said, you can't be civil with a political party that opposed. is what you think. So that's an explicit call for political violence against all of your opponents. Maxine Waters, the same thing, all of these guys. And so conservatives that, not even just conservative, just ordinary people are looking around and saying, hold on, we're not conserving the border. We're not conserving our traditions. We're not conserving our love of country. We're not

even conserving the ladies' changing room. What are you people doing? What are you doing? And it's not just the Democrats. I mean, the Democrats are the problem here. They're the ones who are really, I think, leading the charge to disintegrate the country. But the Republicans, at their very best are feckless. The very best, they're doing nothing other than occasionally cutting

taxes. I like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but that ain't going to solve the problem. On any serious issue, any meaningful cultural issue, the Republicans have flopped. They've caved over the past

several decades. So it's no wonder, I do not advocate disintegration of the union, but it's no wonder that Chip Roy's constituents are telling him, hey, what are we getting out of this? It seems like all we're doing is give, give, give, and we're not getting anything out of this union. I think probably a lot of ordinary Americans are feeling that way. Speaking of the southern border, by the way, you now have, you now have President Joe Biden, poor old Joe Biden, just trying to keep up with the political prevailing winds. He has now embraced the term Latinks. You know Latinks. This is the new term. Originally, about four or five decades ago, you had Mexicans and Guatemalans and Salvadorans and Nicaragans, you had people from the Latino world from Latin America who had their own distinct

nationalities. Then, through the machinations, in no small part of groups like the Ford Foundation, of leftist groups that saw the success of the black civil rights movement and wanted to model different racial solidarity, progressive movements after that. They created this idea of the Hispanic. Then Hispanic became Latino. But Latino, you see, is not very intersectional because of the O implies that the man has a special role here, right? Latino is masculine. But it can't just be Latina. So they made it Latinks, which is not a Spanish word at all. And Spanish, of course, is a European language that came over when Christopher Columbus invented Hispanic people by landing on the shores. So all of that to say, quite complicated. Representative Carlos Jimenez is a Latink's representative.

He's a Republican in Florida. And he just eviscerated President Biden for using this silly term that has no significance in his own community. Can I ask you as a fellow Hispanic, what your thoughts are on the fact that I found it really demeaning, frankly, that comment there that, you know, all Hispanics are afraid of being deported. I also don't like the term Latinx. I don't even know what the heck it means, to be quite honest. What are your thoughts on that? I didn't even know what that meant either. So I don't know. I really don't know. Look, I'm a Hispanic. I'm a legal immigrant. I'm a citizen of the United States. I'm a U.S. congressman. And so, no, we are just like everybody else. We came here looking for a better

life. My father, my mother brought me here looking for a better life, escaping socialism and communism in Cuba, and we're really proud to be Americans. And so that somehow we're different than anybody else and that we're afraid we're going to be deported. No, that's not the case. I think the president really is out of touch. He's obviously out of touch. He goes on to say that there is a racist undertone to the implication that Latinos are all undocumented, that they're all illegal aliens. Obviously, many came here legally.

And Latinx, he says, is the stupidest thing he's ever heard of, which is, quote, insulting to our culture to try and restructure an entire language to fit your politics. Yes, keep your wokeness out of our language, he says. The thing is, wokeness and language are the same thing. The perversion of language is the primary vehicle of wokeness. It's the primary instrument by which wokeness advances, which coincidentally is the topic of my book, Speechless, which many of you are reading right now, and I appreciate, and those of you who haven't ordered it, yet you can order it, and then you'll know exactly what the congressman is talking about. A lot of people just want to speak freely. This is what so many

on the right, but also kind of in the middle and also disaffected liberals are saying. And I'm thinking in particular about Winston Marshall, who's a musician from the band Mumford and Sons. I really like Mumford and Sons, actually. I don't listen to a lot of contemporary music, but I've always enjoyed Mumford and Sons. And you might remember a few months ago, Winston Marshall committed the unforgivable sin of reading Andy Knows book about Antifa and having enjoyed it. So he said, oh, I liked this book. This got him canceled. And at the time, Winston attempted to placate the mom.

And I thought this was a big mistake. He tried to say, hey, look, I'm learning and I'm sorry. And please don't, please take me back, take me back. And at the time, I thought of the final, one of the final scenes of Breaking Bad, when Hank, the cop brother-in-law is lying on the ground, the gangster standing over him with a gun about to shoot him. And Walter, you know, Brian Grantson's character says, Just apologize. Just say it's okay. Just say you want to arrest him. And Hank turns to me, says, oh my gosh, you're the smartest guy I know, but you're too stupid to realize he made up his mind to kill me 10 minutes ago. That's just like the mob. And so they did not accept his apology. They continued to cancel. He's just announced he's leaving Mumford and Sons to speak freely. I think we got to know, this is the way it's always going to work out. The choice is not between being canceled or being uncanceled. The choice is between when that mob comes for you, keeping your dignity or losing your dignity. Freedom.

requires limits. It's as simple as that. I think this is the biggest lesson that people are learning right now. You're seeing it in the arguments over the curriculum in various schools and over critical race theory and over transgenderism and all of this stuff. There was a Japanese soccer player, Kumi Yokoyama. She's a soccer player on the Japanese women's national team, as well as on the Washington Spirit, which is apparently an American soccer team. And Kumi Yokoyama has come out and said that she is transgender. And she posted a video about this. It's in Japanese, so we're not going to play it. My Japanese is a little rusty. But she came out and said that she has trans. She previously said she was a lesbian now. She's transgender, which I guess

makes her a straight man. I'm not particularly interested in these soccer teams and I don't know anything about this woman. But if she is now transgender, if she is now saying that she is a man, my simple question is this. Is she going to be kicked off the team? Because she's on a women's team, right? But now she says she's a man. But no one's asking if she's going to be kicked off of the team now. Presumably she will not, even though she's, according to the logic of transgenderism, she is 100% fully a man now.

She should not be allowed to play on the team. But what this really gets to is there are always limits to speech, to behave, to freedom, to the natural world. When this leftist here's tumbler is a tumbler, it's not a book. This is a book and this is a tumbler. When a thing is defined, right, when a thing is a thing, it is not other things. Let me try to bring this down to earth a little bit more. I guess we talk about this in the classroom.

If 2 plus 2 equals 4, then 2 plus 2 does not equal 5, and you have to kick the idea that 2 plus 2 equals 5 out of the university. you need to ban it from the classroom. And if someone says the 2 plus 2 equals 5, you need to punish that person with a bad grade. Now, this is illiberal and authoritarian, some people, was just it's not. It's acknowledging that if a man is a man, he is necessarily not a woman. And by the way, I'm even granting the illogic of transgenderism here. I'm even saying that a man can become a woman.

Let's just go with that. If he becomes a woman, then he's necessarily not a man and is not permitted to be on the team. If that team is a single-sex team, you have to make distinctions. The whole process of language is distinguishing one thing from another. And so it's obviously going to be exclusive. You can't just live and let live, hey man, let's just be cool and tolerate everything. I mean, this is the great genius of someone like Herbert Marcusa, one of the most influential critical theorists, father of the new left, who says in that infamous essay repressive tolerance

that you can't tolerate intolerance. And all the conservatives went after him for it. He was right. He was totally right. You can't tolerate intolerance. You can't. That would be self-underbinding. And so you've got to make these distinctions.

You've got to take on certain ideas. You've got to kick other ideas out. Now, speaking of just limits, we are now seeing voter laws around the country, notably in Georgia, to try to reinstate the election integrity measures that we had until last year. and the federal government doesn't like this.

The Biden administration, the Attorney General Merrick Garland, they do not like this idea, and so they're going to sue Georgia for trying to protect their election system. Today, the Department of Justice is suing the state of Georgia. Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or bridging the right of black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Several studies show that Georgia experienced record voter turnout and participation rates in the 2020 election cycle.

Approximately two-thirds of eligible voters in the state cast a ballot in the November election just over the national average. This is cause for celebration. But then in March of 2021, Georgia's legislature passed SB 202. Many of that law's provisions make it harder for people to vote. The complaint alleges that the state enacted those restrictions with the purpose of denying or bridging the right to vote on account of race or color. So I want to give Mara Garland credit here. He's right.

The Georgia law does make it harder for certain people to vote. makes it harder for dead people to vote, makes it harder for people who don't live in Georgia to vote, makes it harder for political operatives to vote on behalf of other people who are in. It does. It actually does limit the vote to only the people who ought to be voting. It's not about race or sex or this or that. It's about the integrity of the election system. This is a naked power grab here by the federal government. And by the way, do you want to know the proof that the federal government knows that these laws are intended to beef up election integrity. They are admitting in their own federal election paragraphs. Here, you've got the DOJ going in and trying to fix this through lawsuits,

but the Congress is also trying to do it through the corrupt politicians act, HR1 and S1. And they admit in the law that their proposed changes are going to register a lot of ineligible voters to vote. The reason for this is they give indebted. immunity to illegal aliens who vote illegally. They give legal immunity to them. So what the law first does is it registers a ton of illegal aliens. Then the Democrats deny that the illegal aliens are being registered, but then the Democrats put in a special provision saying that when the illegal aliens inevitably vote, to some degree, they're going to receive legal immunity. Okay. They know that when you get rid of, when you have widespread mail in ballots, that even Obama admits is susceptible to fraud,

when you have election day turn into election season, when you have automatic voter registration, when you have unsecure ballot drop boxes, when you have all these things, then the problem of voter fraud, which exists in every election to begin with, is going to get much worse. And so they're trying to actually defend against that. And Merrick Garland is now doubling down on that. That is his hope. By the way, before we go, Wajahat Ali, he's a leftist blue check and journalist, he just tweeted out. He said, I feel America's forgotten.

We're in the middle of a pandemic that's killed more than 600,000 people. There's a deadly Delta plus strain. And our kids are still not vaccinated, kids who are at statistically no risk. Sigh. I see packed restaurants and people inside stores and malls and their kids aren't wearing masks. I feel like I'm in a horror movie. I feel like I'm in a horror movie. You have the left in this country looking around at just ordinary life, ordinary normal country,

going around without muzzles on your face all the time. And they view that as a horror movie. They're viewing our traditional way of life as an absolute horror, and they're trying to undo it. And it's why I think you're seeing just a touch of rage across all demographic groups. It's just a touch of rage on the other side because they don't, they don't view our country as we do not view our country as a horror movie. We want to preserve something. The only horror we see are the people trying to upend the entire culture. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles 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 wherever 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 Walls 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 Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny Domeko, audio mixer, Mike Coramina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production coordinator McKenna Waters.

The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. Today on the Matt Wall show, an Olympic athlete turns her back on the flag as the national anthem has played. There's a catastrophic lack of gratitude in this country. It's become a real epidemic, in my opinion, and this is just the latest symptom of it, so we'll talk about that. Also five headlines, including peaceful protesters exercise their free speech rights by defacing a George Floyd statue. Also, a self-proclaimed intellectual in MSNBC calls white conservatives maggots. And then apologizes, sort of.

And in our daily cancellation, we'll discuss the LGBT activists and people in the media who are very offended and upset that the latest Pixar film about two young boys is not a gay romance. All of that and much more today on the Matt Walls show.