GROYPED: Michael Knowles Cancels OSU Event! YAF in Full Retreat!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 20, 2019

Following the fallout from the blacklisting of Mommy Michelle, Turning Point USA allied group “YAF” is in full retreat, and has ceded Ohio in its entirety to Groyper forces.

(By the way – I don’t know if “YAF” stands for “Young America’s Foundation” or “Young Americans for Freedom.” They appear to claim that this acronym stands for both things. Sort of a non-binary acronym, if you will.)

Daily Wire writer Michael Knowles, a race traitor who works for Jews, has officially canceled his appearance at OSU after a less than stellar performance earlier this week, when he got completely and totally GROYPED.

The official YAF account did not even issue a statement, instead leaving it to the local chapter, who made the absurd claim that they couldn’t find a room to put the event.

You cocksuckers should have known better than to ever come to OHIO!

OSU was of course where the first major battle of the Groyper War happened, when Charlie Kirk and his gaynigger were utterly destroyed by our lads.

The Geneva Conventions were completely thrown out at that event, let me tell you.

On Monday, Knowles appeared at the University of Kentucky, and was brutally groyped.

(Questions start at 20:30)

There were no less than FIVE Groypers.

1.) Why Do You Love Trannies?

He doesn’t know what the word “acceptance” means.

Groyper 1: What an excellent pinstripe suit!

Knowles: Thank you!

Groyper 1: Very nice. Your speech was lovely, thank you for being here. I agreed with almost every single point you made. However I have a single question, and that would be, on October 26, you posted a picture of yourself with a, I’m not sure if it was a drag queen –

Knowles: A drag queen named Lady MAGA.

Groyper 1: Yes, Lady MAGA. My question is, with the title of this tour being “Men are not Women,” how is posing with, and giving implicit, you know, what would seem to be acceptance, how is that congruent with your message that men are not women?

Knowles: I don’t think it – And that’s a good question. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by acceptance. The title of this tour is Men are not Women, I probably would get along easier if I was less clear about my views. I would suggest in all things, particularly in politics that we strive for clarity and charity. I was at Politicon, where there are a lot of colorful characters. Some of them were even more colorful than Lady MAGA. And I was at a reception there and I had a nice conversation with this guy, Lady MAGA, very nice guy. In many of his views very conservative. I think he has publicly referred to “LGBT” as a cult, he has publicly opposed Drag Queen Story Hour, and actually in his views on gender ideology, his dresses aside, he actually seems to hold a more traditional view than most people on the left and some on the right today. But obviously we don’t agree on all aspects of the ideology of gender or the sexual revolution, but he was a very nice guy, and I think it’s very important to be able to have a conversation with somebody and have a nice interaction. Feel free to take a photo. I’ve never hid my views, certainly I don’t hide my views on this tour, but it is very important to not discriminate in our social interactions with people. I mean, these people no matter how much we disagree, forget even wearing a dress, I mean even people who are in antifa; it’s very important that we are able to communicate in a self-government such as ours because ultimately these are our countrymen. And particularly for those of us on the right, and I tend to consider myself as slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, you know, not everyone is going to agree with my point of view, but if we can speak to our fellow countrymen perhaps there is a chance that we can reach them.

2.) What is This “America is an Idea” Bullshit, Faggot?

What is the meaning of this faggotry?

Groyper 2: Hello Mr. Knowles. Well first of all, I want to say in regards to that last question, I think that to what he may have been referring to was that the caption to that picture was “A star is born.” So for people who are not as well-tuned into the kind of social atmosphere at these Politicon events, they may have been confused when later on they went to your tour that is titled “Men are not Women.”

Knowles: I tweeted out that line that said “A star is born,” it referenced to Lady Gaga, not the same as Lady MAGA. But if somebody reads that and interprets that I am in favor of the sexual revolution and they are gonna come to my talk and hear a lot about gender theory, I think that’s a great idea, because then I can get them to be here under false pretenses and then I’ll teach them a little truth.

Groyper 2: Well, I gotta give you that Gaga and MAGA do rhyme, but to my question, and this is a bit of a different topic, but there’s been a kind of far left idea that has entered mainstream thought lately and that has been espoused by many conservative leaders. I don’t know what you have said on it, but the idea is that America is a creedal nation. That is to say that we are not defined by our people or by our land, but rather that we are defined by our ideas, that we supposedly all hold. Now, you know as well as I do that democrats do not share our same values. They don’t believe in the Constitution, they don’t believe in 2nd Amendment rights, they don’t believe that the unborn are alive humans, they don’t believe in Christian values, so logically following, would you not agree that democrats then are not American?

Knowles: So, I am not of the opinion that America is merely a creed. That it’s just some creed floating in the air that has no relation to any land or any people or any history. That obviously is untrue. Nor am I of the opinion that America has no creed. America clearly has a creed, it was founded by some of my ancestors on the Mayflower, and they had very strong beliefs, and by the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and fought the Revolutionary War, and fought in – some of my ancestors as well, speaking of people – and who fought with Washington, and ratified the Constitution. They clearly had strong beliefs about the country. And it was a country that was founded in a way that is unique in world history. It does not come from antiquity, but rather it was settled by people who came here in boats, many of whom were religious zealots, and whose creed was their whole life. Their creed and their belief in Christ, in particular. So I think that this conversation has become very muddled, because it’s a country; if you took every single american of every belief, and every race, and every sex, and every sexual preference, if you took them all and replaced them with some random people, that wouldn’t be America anymore. That wouldn’t make any sense. But likewise we are not merely a country of blood and soil. We do have many ideas, and it’s important that we think about those ideas because America is exceptional in the world. This is not to say rah rah, we are the greatest nation and we can apply what happened in America to every single place on earth, but we are exceptional, that is part of our history. So for conservatives to trace their philosophy through something like traditionalism, or referring to the great history and heritage of this country – to ignore that creedal aspect is to ignore an essential part of our history and tradition.

Groyper 2: Well, I am glad that hear that we agree. Seriously. You know, I agree that we are defined by our ancestors and our forefathers, our Founding Fathers, and that while even though we have some great ideas in the Constitution, that’s not what makes America America. Part of it, but not primarily, and I only insist on that point of view just because it’s been espoused by, if I may drop names, Charlie Kirk, Shapiro, you may know him.

Knowles: I know those guys, I’m friends with those guys.

Groyper 2: Yeah and I’m not saying that they are necessarily bad people, I’ve never met them. And this is the first time I’ve met you. But I am just glad to know that we do both, at least in this respect disagree with those people in that America are a real people and that if the entire population of Europe came over and replaced us, it would not be America anymore.

Knowles: Yes can you imagine all those German socialists.

Groyper 2: Yeah a lot of Germans came over after World War 2 and look how that turned out, right?

Knowles: Yeah, I agree, and to defend Ben and Charlie a little bit, I believe their views have been misrepresented. I don’t think that really in their heart of hearts regard America as a total abstraction. These are smart people and I think they think clearly about politics, and that if you get hung up on one soundbite, or you get an answer that perhaps they meant to use one or two words differently or something, so that’s one thing. But they both have a long track record, so I don’t want their views misrepresented, because they are both sophisticated thinkers, and really what our discussion is right now is over how much of the country is creedal and how much of it is an historical and geographic reality. And to pretend that it’s a simpler question than that I think is disingenuous.

He is quicker on his feet than a lot of these people.

But I still don’t understand how Democrats are Americans, or how he is able to just completely change his entire position.

3.) Do Demographics Even Exist?

Michael Knowles argues that the LA Times is lying about the fact that California used to be Republican and is now Democrat. Because they are liberals. Maybe there aren’t even any Mexicans in California. Maybe the liberal media just made it up?

It’s almost unbelievable that he literally said this.

Groyper 3: Hello. An article was recently published in the LA Times titled “California’s Changing Demographics Will Further Doom Republicans.” It starts out with democrats dominate politics in California and republicans are doomed for one simple reason: shifting demographics. It goes on to state that California is the future, and that it tends to be more non-Caucasian than most states but we’re heading into that for the rest of the nation. And with how republicans are doing in California, they’ve got to figure how to compete here or it’s the Ice Age for them. So my question is: will conservatives like yourself acknowledge what democrats already know? That is, that demographics is destiny, or is that truth a little too uncomfortable for you?

Knowles: I can’t believe you just referred to the LA Times as the truth, that’s an amazing thing. I know I won’t acknowledge that thing democrats believe in is truth because I think it’s not backed up by historical reality. To give a few examples, five of the whitest states in the country – what are the five whitest states? We’ve got Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia and Montana. Three out of those five states voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Very, very, white states. Of those five states, by the way, four of them voted for democratic senators, leftist senators, in 2018. That doesn’t seem very good for the whiteness argument. When you look at diverse states, not all diverse states, not all, but some, such as Texas and Florida, they have voted reliably republican in recent years. On to the point of demographics being destiny, of course the left is desirous of mass migration because they think that if they flood the country without any sort of assimilation, if they discourage assimilation, that they will be able to dominate the electorate. That’s part of their plan. But the idea that voting patterns are somehow hardwired into DNA is simply untrue and I can prove it in a few different ways. For instance, right now black voters identify heavily with the Democratic Party, eighty-five to ninety percent at some points. This was not always the case, as recently as the mid 1940s, black voters were about evenly matched democrat and republican, and what caused that shift some people say was the New Deal but the timeline doesn’t even add up so much there. Actually if you look at the exact date that things really started to tip it was 1948 when President Truman desegregated, or rather integrated, the military. So you saw democratic presidents taking up the mantle of civil rights, saying that they care about black people. And then of course, President Kennedy and President Johnson get credit for the Civil Rights Act, which cemented at least in recent memory black support for democrats. I’ll give you another example: Hispanic voters are not monolithically or racially determined in their votes. How do I know that? Because of course, of the Cubans. Of all the Hispanic voters, Cubans even today favor republicans, they favor conservatives. Now, the trouble is, generationally, that starts to slip, so the Cuban immigrants favor conservatives. Even the children of Cuban immigrants favor conservatives. But when you get to the grandchildren of Cuban immigrants, that’s when we start to have a problem, because they start to veer towards the left. Obviously that’s not a racial problem. They have the same race as their grandparents. Obviously that’s not an immigration problem. The immigrants are conservative than their grandkids. What appears to me more likely is that it is a problem of education. Particularly in an educational apparatus that from K to 12, and all the way through college and all the way through your masters and your PhD if stick on for that, you were told that America is evil, conservatism is evil, and leftism is wonderful. It is eminently clear to me that race is a minor, minor factor here and that ideas are the issue so if we want to win moving forward I think we need to stop these ridiculous and bigoted ideas that race somehow determines what you think about politics and move on to a more human understanding, and frankly, a more reasonable and civilized understanding of politics.

Groyper 3: Just last year in the 2018 midterms whites were the only group to vote predominantly republican. African-Americans voted 90% democrat, Hispanic 69%, so why does it matter if they were more republican in the past than today?

Knowles: Because it shows that it’s not racially determined. Which would appear to be your position when you say demographics are destiny. So if they are not racially determined then something else is at work here, which is exactly my point, and it would seem to not be your point.

Groyper 3: If I may ask, then, when will they start voting for republicans again?

Knowles: Well, I’ve got to tell you that you guys who push an exclusively racial politics aren’t really helping the situation very much in my opinion. And if my thesis is correct that the perception of one political party embracing black voters, and another political party shunning them was a major motivator for the black support for the left, and that would seem to be borne out by historical reality, then what I would recommend is we not speak with racially exclusive language and with political ideologies that really don’t seem to bear much with regard to reality in the reality of how we think about politics and the human person.

4.) A Negroyper! BBGs Rise Up!

Let’s just call Nick a racist cookie denialist then.

Negroyper: Good evening Mr. Knowles. Thank you for coming to our university. We conservatives are lonely here so we’re glad to have you here.

Knowles: Thanks for inviting me, it’s a pleasure to be here.

Negroyper: Now, okay, so. Uhm, my question, it relates to uh, the topic of freedom of speech, and the things that we are allowed to talk about in the conservative movement. It’s about the type of opinions that are newly being accepted and the things that we want to have more accepted. Something I’m concerned about in our movement is – and this concerns you because you work for Ben Shapiro. He’s a great guy, people like you and him got me into philosophy. And about you and Shapiro is that, yes, I know you consider yourself a Roman Catholic, and we know Mr. Shapiro to have some Jewish, I mean –

Knowles: I’m pretty sure he is Jewish. He wears the hat, says the prayers, I think he may be Jewish.

Negroyper: And I like that, it’s good that we have that kind of people. Now, concerning what we are allowed to talk about, and you working for him, there are some soft spots in our movement and when working for a publication like the Daily Wire, so I’ll say that I consider myself someone who sees what the Groypers are doing like a necessary act, we need some recognition. I’ve been listening to too much of Nicholas Fuentes, who is a great guy, and there is a picture of you two together, so I assume that you know the kind of things that he and us believe in, and these things we think are very important, rather than for example the stuff that we heard tonight, which was great stuff, and stuff that has helped me a lot, but–

Knowles: Do you have a particular opinion that you object of mine, or opinion that you wish I held? That’s where it seems the question is going.

Niggroyper: Not necessarily, but I would like to know if you see yourself talking more about the kind of stuff that Nicholas J. Fuentes talks about.

Knowles: What in particular would you like me to talk about?

(Someone in the audience says Israel)

Knowles: I talk about Israel a fair bit.

Negroyper: Yeah I’ve recently watched your video covering the embassy movement, but I think some elephants in the room like Sheldon Adelson should be brought up and, concerning that issue, but I would say that talking more freely about Israel and Israeli influence would be good. We have a special relationship with that country, but I think that in our movement opinions about that state, and – Saudi Arabia, we can talk about them freely, but the state of Israel, we have a special relationship with them, and I think we should talk about that more.

Knowles: I do talk about it. Do you have a particular opinion that you would like me to discuss? Because you mentioned that I have a photo with this guy, Nick Fuentes, and it’s true. I met him at Politicon, but I didn’t know who he was. He came to me and acted as if he were a fan of my show. Now, after googling him, I gather that he is not a fan of my show, but he pretended at least. He came up to me, lied, and we took a picture, just like I took a picture with three hundred other people, and then he goes on the internet and pretends that we had a conversation, or that we agree with one another – not at all. I didn’t know who this guy was. So you say he is a nice guy, he didn’t behave like a nice guy to me.

Negroyper: Have you heard his name in the recent Groyper Uprising?

Knowles: Oh yeah, I’ve been reading the news, so I’ve seen him come up. But what’s interesting is that when he had the opportunity to speak to me – I mean, he came up to me – he didn’t bring any opinion of his, he didn’t ask me any questions, he didn’t try to debate any point. Perhaps he didn’t have all that much to say to my face, but rather wanted to troll with that photograph. And that’s not a terribly serious thing to do. And you bring up whether I’ll talk about the things that the Groypers talk about, and I think that I talk about all the issues that we are all here talking about tonight. We talked about immigration, we talked about tax policy, we talked about Israel. I talk about all those things. What I object to with that guy in particular is what I think is very clearly racial bigotry. And I object to racial bigotry because it is an affront against human dignity and it’s a denial of the image of God.

Negroyper: It doesn’t affect me.

Knowles: There is no accounting for taste, I suppose. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty ugly and with a guy like that, who lied to my face, and then lied on the internet, then called my colleague “Shabbos goy race traitor,” and then threatened my other colleague with a switchblade, I think that’s not the nicest guy in the world, that’s my opinion. Oh, he also denied the Holocaust and supported Jim Crow, I forgot to mention that.

(Someone in the crowd says “he did not!”)

Knowles: He did. It’s on video, you can check it out. For the home audience, you can check it out.

5.) Wherein Knowles Admits He Understands the Term “Shabbos Goy Race Traitor”

If he knows what it is, then how can he explain that he isn’t that?

Groyper 5: Hi, Mr. Knowles. First I wanna say that I’m a big fan. I feel like a lot of the times in the past you’ve defended Christian values and I respect you for that. Even with issues that may not be so popular, such as, you know, same-sex marriage, or that men are not women. My question is also regarding the event, Politicon, in which Mr. Nicholas J. Fuentes took a picture with you and then only an hour and twenty minutes afterwards you tried to slander him by associating him with racial bigotry and the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right, which you’ve described as Godless. Now, Mr. Fuentes disavows racial hatred. He also has a lot of minority supporters, as we’ve seen at recent events. A lot of minority supporters have come out in favor of him. So I don’t think it’s really fair to characterize him as a racial bigot. And he’s also a devout Christian. And the reason I mentioned this specifically – obviously a picture in itself doesn’t mean anything. You don’t have to agree with anything that someone who takes a picture with you says, such as with Lady MAGA. But my issue is that you have a very different reaction when it comes to either of them. When it comes to a young America First conservative like Mr. Fuentes you slander them them trying to–

Knowles: I’ve never slandered that person. I’ll explain to you what happened and why I’m much more happy to take a photo with a person like Lady MAGA, who obviously we’re very different people, but agree on certain things than I am with somebody like Nick Fuentes. Lady MAGA is a nice guy and we had a nice conversation. We were very open and it was a good-faith discussion. On the other hand, Nick Fuentes lied to my face, then lied about me on the internet and then only when I figured out who he was because I googled him I realized and some might try to refute this in the room but it’s all on video that he has endorsed Jim Crow segregation, has denied that the Holocaust happened, and has associated himself with Fascism openly. He said that if Antifa were fascist he would be marching alongside them. He has associated in the past with avowed racial bigots like James Allsup and Richard Spencer though apparently now they’re having something of a tiff, from what I gather on the blogs. It is quite clear to me that he harbors racial bigotry. That’s why I reject his politics. The reason I reject his photo is because he lied to my face and about me. Nothing in that is in good faith. I would take a million photos with Lady MAGA before I would give a person who would do that the time of day.

Groyper 5: The reason I bring that up is because I feel like you are actually slandering him because I don’t think that he lied to you when he said that he’s a fan of your show. I do believe that you both agree on a lot of the same things.

Knowles: I mean he referred to our outlet as a bunch of Shabbos goy race traitors, so I don’t think he’s a huge fan of us.

Groyper 5: That wasn’t to the outlet itself, I believe that was to Matt Walsh in particular.

Knowles: He only threatened one of us and called the other one a race traitor but maybe he likes me, I don’t know. I think it’s pretty clear from his streams, many of which I’ve now watched, that he is not a huge fan of my work or my beliefs.

Well, at least he’s now watching Nick.

And actually, we sort of are fans of some of the Daily Wire stuff. Unlike Charlie Kirk, they at least pretend to be against sodomy and trannies and the total destruction of men and the family.

Which makes them harder to hit.

But his Jew masters believed this looked bad enough that they canceled the OSU engagement immediately afterward.

Because Kentucky did good, but Ohio would have crushed this Shabbos Goy Race Traitor.

They’re being quiet about the retreat.

But this is a big win, lads.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS