Rabbi (20:48)

Antisemitism is not just an age old prejudice. It is a contemporary crisis manifesting on campuses across the nation. It is not enough for individuals or institutions to merely claim they are not antisemitic. As my father once taught me. It is not enough for people, especially public figures, to be neutral or not be anti Semitic. One must be anti antisemit. Antisemitic. We must demand the same of our universities and government institutions. This hearing, in my opinion, is an attempt to be just that, anti anti Semitic.

Michael Knowles (21:23)

So many people, especially on the right, are comparing this guy to Ibram Kendi because Ibram Kendi says it's not enough not to be racist, you have to be anti racist. And anti Semitism is this particular form of racism. It's particular to the Jews because the Jews are a tribe, a tribe in the sense that we don't really have any more in modernity. It's both a religious group and an ethnicity kind of. It's made up of multiple ethnicities, but it's still, there's a physical aspect to it and cultural, religious, ideological aspect to it as well. So there just aren't a lot of examples of that. In fact, the Jews might in many ways are a singular people and in this way too. So the analogy, I think is fair to compare anti antisemitism to anti racism. And it's why I think a lot of conservatives are recoiling. But I think, okay, fine, that kind of commentary is totally fine. Ideological. On the surface, they have a point. But let's go a little bit deeper for a second. The rabbi is saying, look, there's a lot of anti Jew stuff going on. It's really kicking off. And I think that's true certainly on the Internet. The Internet isn't always real life, but it's happening on university campuses. There probably has been a tick up in that. I don't agree with this rabbi. I think this rabbi is wrong. Not only from an abstract ideological perspective, but even from a Jewish perspective. I don't think it is good for the Jews for people to be anti anti Semitic. Because the problem that this rabbi I think is addressing is that people are blaming the Jews for everything. Actually in the phrase of a white supremacist, Sam Francis, he was a very mainstream right wing columnist. I think he was a syndicated columnist. He worked for the Washington times. And then he became kind of a white supremacist at the end of his life, which puts a little stain on his memory in most quarters. But there was a famous exchange where he was writing some neo Nazi type guy wrote to him and was complaining that Sam Francisco, pretty hardcore fella, didn't blame the Jews enough or for enough things. And Francis response was, you people, you're so tedious. You know, you wake up and stub your toe in the morning and you blame the Jews. But. So that's what the rabbi is responding to is this kind of ticking up of blaming the Jews for just about everything. And if that is the case, then you don't want people to be anti anti Semitic. In other words, the prudential solution to people blaming the Jews for everything is not people thanking the Jews for everything, which is really what that is. Anti antisemitism is. What would that be? Philosemitism. But the answer to blaming the Jews for everything, thinking about the Jews all the time with regard to every single subject, as some people do, that's all they ever want to talk about. The answer to that is not thinking about the Jews with regard to every single subject and just saying they're good. No, they're not bad. You guys are wrong for pinning everything on the Jews and saying it's bad. I pin everything on the Jews and say that it's good. That's not the answer. The answer is don't think about the Jews 24 hours a day. The answer actually is just don't. The answer is what he's inveighing against, which is just not being anti Semitic. I think it was Mr. Davies observation that some of the Jew stuff is like, it's kind of like climate change. You know, everything is climate change. And as I pointed out, that makes sense. The Jews obviously control the weather. So it's kind of like the new climate change. You know, the polar ice caps are melting. It's climate change. The LA burned down because they don't have deforestation policies. Oh, it's probably climate change. Actually, the Obama administration screwed up its tax policy. That was probably climate change. A war broke out in Eastern Europe. I would say it's climate change. You know, it's a similar thing. So the rabbi can be wrong ideologically and in principle or what? That's all fine. A lot of other people are talking about that, but prudence is the paramount political virtue. I talk about it a lot, just even prudentially, very pragmatically for everyone involved, including, and especially the Jews, you know, you don't want anti. You don't want anti. Anti Semitism. You don't want anti. Anti. Anti. Anti. Anti Semitism. You want to just like be normal and recognize there are other things in the world to do and think about that doesn't have to occupy your mind like 24 hours a day. There's so much more to say. First though, go to tecovas.com knolls you know what they say, Anywhere worth going is worth going in good boots. Find your perfect pair with Tokovas. These are not just any boots. They're a testament to craftsmanship that speaks to both generational ranchers and first time boot enthusiasts alike. Tokovas is great, was born in Texas in 2015. They have become one of the biggest names in boots and they're fabulous. I know a lot of you out there are going to wear cowboy boots. It's hard for me to pull it off. I have a pair of Tokovas cowboy boots. I wear them about once or twice a year when I work up the courage. But what I really wear from to the Monterey shoes in Midnight Bison now I have actually a fair number of nice shoes from wardrobe and things like that. I wore these shoes, these new shoes from Tokovas. I don't know that I've ever gotten more compliments on a pair of shoes in my life. And I got some pretty good stuff. These shoes, that's the one to get. It's almost like a Prince Albert slipper. You know, the kind you'd wear to a cigar bar. But it's much more versatile. They're just fabulous and the price cannot be beat. I don't know why they're priced so well for that quality leather, that kind of Design. Right now get 10% off@tecovos.com Knowles K A W L E S when you sign up for emails and texts. 10% off t-e c o v a s.com knowles tokovas.com knowles seaside for details to Covis Point your toes west. Speaking of anti Jewish protests, I'm already breaking my rule and continuing to talk about it like that rabbi says I should. Columbia graduates are tearing up their diplomas to protest the arrest of that anti Israel activist who had been a Columbia student. Then he graduated. I think he's being deported. Mahmoud Khalil. Here's the demonstration. Free Palestine. Free, Free Palestine. Free, free Palestine. SIPA alumni are not proud. We are enraged. So first of all, the minute I see these super lib girls tearing up their Columbia degree, my first Reaction. This is a little bit inside baseball. I bet they went to Barnard. Okay, Barnard, for those who don't pay attention to these, Barnard was the sister school of Columbia. And it's easier to get into, but you get. Technically, you get a Columbia degree if you graduate, and it's full of super lib women. So, first of all, I am not even convinced I am a Columbia diploma protest truther. I'm not even convinced those are real Columbia degrees. But let's say they were. Let's say these people actually graduated from Columbia and they're tearing up their diplomas. That's a perfectly understandable and reasonable thing to do, because those diplomas are worthless. This was my speech last night at Yale. It was substantially about how little Ivy League degrees really convey in terms of a person's intelligence and education. Today, that wasn't always the case. They used to actually suggest something about a person's intelligence and education. Today, though, Harvard is announcing the need for remedial math courses because Harvard students can't do basic algebra. So it just doesn't signify very much. In fact, the point of my speech yesterday is that the average New Haven resident sitting in Sally's Pizza down the street has a better grasp on reality than the average Yale graduate. That's not pandering. That's not populism. That's a fact. Because the New Haven resident, the average New Haven resident sitting in the pizza shop here might not have read the Phenomenology of Spirit in the original German, but that person does know what a woman is. That person does know that nations have borders. That nation does know that criminals belong in prisons. The average Yale graduate doesn't know any of those things. Doesn't know really basic stuff about what the human person is, how we function in society. And I don't want to knock Yale. I really do love my alma mater, even though it's a little kooky. A lot of the time, Columbia makes Yale look like the most reasonable institution in the world. Columbia's totally lost it. So what are they protesting? They're protesting that this guy got deported because he was a grad student and he protested Israel. And the protests were not only protesting Israel, but actually harassing Jewish students. All right, there are real debates. There are serious debates to be had over the state of Israel, over Gaza, over free speech on campus, which is a separate issue, but it's related in this case. Something I think we can all agree on, though, is that those diplomas are worthless. You should tear it up. Nothing lost and nothing Gained. Speaking of deportations, you probably heard from your liberal cousin who's posting this all over Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and shouting it to you from the rooftop, that the Trump administration mistakenly deported someone. These mass deportations. The Trump admin mistakenly deported a Maryland father named Kilmar Armando Abrego mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. And this is the worst thing that's ever happened in the world. I'm not defending that. Assuming this is true, that's a bad thing. I feel for the guy for sure. And the Trump administration is admitting in a court filing that they did mistakenly deport this guy. The filing comes as a result of this lawsuit over this guy's removal. He's a Salvadoran national who in 2019 was granted protected status by an immigration judge prohibiting the federal government from sending him to El Salvador. So they're saying, see, because this one guy who had legal protected, he was a Salvadoran national, he came here pretty recently, pretty easy to mistake him for an illegal alien. But he did have protected status and he was deported. And you know, that's bad. And that's why we need to stop deporting any illegal alien, including the face tattooed Satan worshipping gangsters. That's what the libs are gonna tell you. To me, I look at this and I say, hold on. The best you can find amid a relatively large number of deportations, rapid deportations within two months, the best you can find is one guy who slipped through the cracks. That is not an argument against the mass deportations. That is an argument for the efficiency and effectiveness of it. That's a mark in Trump's favor. You're always going to have some fail rate. And so the liberals are going to say, well, this is terrible. We can't tolerate this enforcing of the law, of immigration law because one guy accidentally was deported and it might take a little bit to get him back. Okay, well, let's apply that logic to mass migration. The Democrats have intentionally engaged in a process of mass illegal migration, welcomed the invasion across the border, was totally preventable. Trump stopped it pretty much on day one without any new laws, without anything. Biden welcomed these people across the border. And you know who slipped through the cracks there? The guy who murdered Lake and Riley. The illegal aliens who have murdered and raped and attempted to rape and then murdered many, many innocent young American girls. Does that mean we should stop mass migration? I think that's a pretty strong argument actually, to stop mass migration. Democrats don't want to hear that. You know who slipped through the cracks? The 75,000Americans a year who were poisoned and killed because of fentanyl that crossed that border illegally. That's a pretty strong argument for shutting down mass migration. Certainly illegal immigration. Democrats don't want to hear that. What about even less immediately fatal issues? The millions and millions and millions of economic migrants who come across and depress American wages and cause great injustice to the American worker and cause big cultural problems and make us press 1 for English and seriously threaten cultural assimilation because we have the highest foreign born percentage of the population that we've ever had in America. What about that slipping through the cracks? You won't hear Democrats say a peep about any of those things. But one guy who somewhat recently was granted protected status by some immigration judge, that guy, One guy slips through the cracks. We have to stop enforcing all immigration law. It's totally bogus. It's totally disingenuous. And I feel for the guy and I hope he gets to come back. I hope it's relatively easy for the guy to come back. Not saying we need to violate the law, but you know, if you sneak into this country illegally, it's a dangerous game, buddy, and sometimes bad things are gonna happen to you. Play at your own risk. Yesterday our colleague Matt Walsh testified before the California assembly on legislation to ban male students from competing in women's sports, which is, of course, just common sense. This fight is not over because of one bad day at the legislature. When the Daily Wire takes on a cause, we go all in. We're going to continue to fight to defend women and women's sports everywhere. With your support, we can keep covering the issues that matter, we can keep making the content that shapes culture, and we can keep making a difference. Join the fight now@dailywire.com subscribe My favorite comment yesterday is from Naomi Garrett, 50, who says, Michael, we need you to do a whole podcast episode in that French accent. Wow. Oh, la la. Did I use a French accent yesterday, Mr. Davies? Did I speak in a French accent? Yeah, unfortunately. You did. I did? Yeah. What? Hold on. I don't even remember what that was in service of. I could also wave the flag of the French army. Am I right? Am I right? It's a white hanky. My French is so bad, but my accent is so over the top and outrageous. Some people actually think I speak that language. I do not. Speaking of controversial government actions, there's a bill going through the Colorado legislature, Colorado House Bill 2513 12, that would categorize dead naming that is referring to someone by his name. Like the name on his Birth certificate, not the name that he makes up for himself later on. It would categorize dead naming as child abuse. The bill, according to its summary, would direct courts that are making child custody decisions, family courts determining parenting time, how much daddy gets to see the kid. It would instruct them to consider dead naming misgendering or threatening to publish material related to an individual, sex change services as types of coercive control. That is to say, if parents split, if they're even fighting within a marriage, and then they split and the lunatic mother wants to trans the kid and the father. We've heard a lot of stories like this. This is not an abstract, hypothetical thing. This happens. The father says, well, hold on. I don't want you to castrate my son. I don't want you to destroy my kid. That's horrible. I'm not going to play along with this and pretend that my son is actually a daughter. That would be terrible. And the mother goes to the judge in Colorado and says, hey, my ex husband is referring to my son. Sorry, my child by his dead name. The father could lose visitation rights. The father could be cut out of. The father could be convicted of child abuse. And it's awful. And the shallow, conservative response is going to be to pop a blood vessel and say, this is crazy. But think about it a little bit more deeply. Think about it from the perspective of the libs. Why shouldn't that be child abuse? Verbal abuse is already considered a form of child abuse. You don't need to just take the belt off and start smacking your kid across the face to be accused of child abuse. Things you say to your kid can be and are considered in many places abusive. In this case, they're saying, look, the child is. The son is really a daughter, and so it will cause great emotional distress to call that child by his dead name. It's really cultish. Even the phrase dead name, it's kind of like a rebirth, a baptism into the gnostic fantasy of transgenderism. But from their perspective, that is verbal abuse. That'd be like calling a child a bunch of vulgar words, screaming at the child. It's the same thing. So you can't. It's going to be very tempting for conservatives to say, hold on, are you kidding me? Using the wrong pronouns or something. That's now child abuse. And a father's going to lose custody of his kid. No, no, no. We should accept the premise. Yeah, verbal abuse can be child abuse, but calling your son by his real name is not child abuse. What is child abuse is Calling your son by a girl's name. What is child abuse? This kind of gets back to that Rab voice point on anti antisemitism. It's not enough, not just to be not really pro transing the kids. You have to be anti transing the kids. You need to be pro having the kids live in accord with reality. We need to have a little bit more spine. We're talking about chopping off various appendages. You gotta have a spine and some other anatomical features too here. In other words, conservatives need to go on the offense and we need to prohibit, we need to ban transing the kids. We need to punish parents who would trans the kids. We need to define it as child abuse to trans the kids. We need to define it as child abuse to refer to the child by the wrong kind of name or the wrong kind of pronouns. Or we need to do what the libs are doing, but in the direction of justice and goodness and morality. What the libs are doing here is legislating in the direction of wickedness and injustice and really hideous stuff. We need to do it the other way. We have the wind at our backs. This is a 9010 issue, 955 issue here. The vast majority of people agree that transiting the kids is hideous. So let's go on the offensive here. Let's lock up the lunatic parents, teachers, adults who would abuse kids in this way. And I don't know, let's send them to El Salvador. Let's get that one guy back who wasn't supposed to go to El Salvador. Let's send all these people to El Salvador. Let's go on the offensive here because if we're just playing not to lose, then the minute that political winds change again, the libs are going to go even further. They're going to take kids away from their fathers because their fathers won't pretend that the kids are the opposite sex because the fathers won't abuse the kids. Now, speaking of young people and abuses, horrifying piece in the New York Times. That could just be a daily segment. Here's today's horrifying piece in the New York Times. New York Times. This baby was carefully selected as an embryo. Posted by Nur Siddiqui if you've not heard, Nors Siddiqui. Nors Siddiqui is creating lots and lots of human beings, creating lots and lots of embryos to custom design the perfect baby in her mind. The perfect baby. And then we'll just kill all of her other babies. But we're talking lots and lots and Lots. Because when I was in elementary school, my mom started going blind. Retinitis pigmentosa. No family history, no treatments, no cure. I got lucky, she didn't. It led me to build Orcid Incorporated. So my baby and everyone else's gets to win the genetic lottery, avoid blindness and hundreds of severe genetic diseases today. The New York Times covered the tech. We've spent years building whole genome embryo screening for hundreds of diseases, not in theory, not in mice, in humans, in IVF centers right now. Okay, so it's the baby store. I talk about how IVF is really bad. And even some people will say, well, my niece is from ivf, my child is from ivf. I can't admit that because I love the good that has come about from this process. I can't bring myself to admit that the means of attaining that good was evil. And I understand that's just an emotional problem for people, but this is like really, really evil stuff. The baby store, which is to say the IVF procedure, which usually entails surrogacy or which often entails surrogacy. Because the key here is not even just how evil IVF and surrogacy and the baby industry, baby selling industry is, but all of the euphemisms. Because even conservatives who hear this story probably fell prey to the euphemism trap that Noor Siddiqui has laid here. I got lucky. She didn't. It's so that my baby and everyone else's gets to win the genetic lottery and avoid blindness. Isn't that good? The way you're picturing this is she took the sperm in the egg and she cooked up a baby and she kind of changed some of the genes so that the baby was going to come out perfect. In other words, you think that what she's doing is something that's totally different, bioethically licit, which is to repair an injury in a person even down at the level of the genome. But that's not what she did. What she did isn't to improve anyone's health. She just engaged in an unnatural kind of selection, a microcosm of the theory of evolution, according to which she made a dozen, two dozen, many dozens, hundreds of human beings and then killed virtually all of her own children. So she, as though she had a litter of children, and she went through them. She goes, mm, not tall enough, not blonde enough. A little too ugly, might be a little too fat. All of you babies, I'm just gonna kill all of you, my babies, because I've found the one perfect Baby. God help that child. Growing up, I found the one perfect, and you're the one that I won't murder. That's how that went down. I'm not being hyperbolic at all. I'm not twisting this at all. That's what she did. And through the euphemisms of, oh, it's winning the genetic lottery, oh, we're helping people. Oh, this is medical care. This is. You can hear ambulance siren in the background. It's a fitting time for that to arrive. Absolutely ghastly stuff. Before I go. I can't. This is like. This is truly out of a horror movie. She posts about how she does it. Why is she creating all these IVF babies? She says sex is for fun. Embryo screening is for babies. I said that in the video. People freaked out. But it's true. And it will only get more true as the tech improves. We screen for what matters. Nothing matters more than health. So she's saying right off the bat, I'm going to separate the procreative from the conjugal act. I'm going to take the sexual revolution to its logical conclusion. Sex is only for pleasure, for titillating you. It's only for your own selfish pleasure has nothing to do with two people coming together. Two people in love whose love becomes so real that it actually becomes another human being. No, no, no, no. I'm going to go and I'm going to sleep with someone or do some sex stuff with someone just so that I can feel some pleasure, you know, get a real hit of dopamine, oxytocin. And then I'm going to clinically cook up a bunch of children in a cauldron. In my little witch cauldron, my little witch petri dish, I'm going to cook up a bunch of children. Then I'm going to determine which of my children don't quite please me enough because I don't like the look cut of their jib. And I'm going to kill those children. I'm going to murder them. And then the one that I think is going to turn out all right, that's the one I'm going to pick. Can't wait for the family Christmas card. You know, doesn't that sound so warm and cozy, horrifying, dystopian stuff. Not 10 years in the future, not 100 years in the future. Happening right now. Coming to a baby store near you today is woke Wednesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles, Kanawles at checkout for two months free on all annual plans. J.