← The Michael Knowles Show
The Michael Knowles Show
Ep. 1728 - The Internet Raises 500K For Viral "N-Word" Mom
00:46:02
A white mother raises $500K after calling a kid the "n-word," President Trump posts a meme of himself as pope, and a new study reveals serious risks to women from taking the abortion pill. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri Ep.1728 - - - DailyWire+: Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we’re keeping it. The hit podcast, Morning Wire, is now on Video! Watch Now and subscribe to their YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/42SxDJC Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael - - - Today's Sponsors: Harvest Hosts - Head to https://HarvestHosts.com and use code KNOWLES for 20% off a Harvest Hosts membership. Helix Sleep - Go to https://helixsleep.com/knowles for an exclusive discount. Lumen - Take the next step to improving your health: go to https://lumen.me/KNOWLES to get 20% off your Lumen. - - - Soc...
Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:00]
Michael Knowles
A black child on a playground in Minnesota stole stuff from a white toddler, which prompted the white toddler's mother to call the black child the N word, after which a Somali man charged with child rape filmed the woman, who was subsequently threatened and doxxed, after which people on the Internet gave her half a million dollars. Who's in the right? Who's in the wrong? I have compiled the best arguments from black Marxists, a white supremacist and an Eastern Orthodox political philosopher. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. Should President Trump become the next pope? The White House suggested just such a thing. And some people are pretending to be offended. Some people, I suppose, are legitimately offended. And I give my takes as a mackerel snapping papist on the whole affair. I have much more to say. But first I want to tell you about harvesthosts.com code knowles. You know what really RV pilled me? Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas, one of the smartest, most conservative, cultured men in the entire country, is a huge RV hound. Apparently Justice Thomas and his wife take RVs all around the country. If you rent or own an RV and you're tired of parking your RV in boring concrete jungles, then you need Harvest Hosts. With Harvest Hosts, $79 a year gets you unlimited fee, free overnight stays at 9,500amazing spots across North America. You can wake up at wineries where research is obviously strongly encouraged. Farms, museums, golf courses, even drive in movie theaters. Your home on wheels deserves better than another rest stop. Discover cool new places, support local businesses. Finally, use your RV for what it was meant for, actual adventure. If you're looking for some of their location options, they have seemingly endless choices. And some of them are really impressive to me. They've got some that are near like an ice cave or a volcano. And of course, the national parks and the avian sanctuaries. They got stuff with lions. It's just unbelievable. Unbelievable. So using harvest hosts to map out your trip takes all the stress out of traveling. The hosts locations are vetted, safe, well reviewed means you can travel with no worries. Over 50,000 five star reviews. You're gonna love your journey. If you are ready to start planning your next adventure, go to harvesthosts.com, use code knowles, get 20% off Harvest Hosts membership. Once again, that is harvesthosts.com 20% off. Use code knowles. So they know that I sent you the N word story. The N word. You know, I have a whole chapter in my book Speechless controlling words Controlling minds. Wow, that was fast. I hadn't mentioned it in a while, so I didn't know if you were gonna have the bell on cue. That was good. That's very impressive, guys. I have a whole chapter in my book about the N word, which I point out in the book is spoken of with the same taboo and awe and reverence as the unpronounceable name of God was by the ancient Israelites. But there is legitimately a taboo in the country. It's really the one word that you're not allowed to say. And this woman called a five year old kid that. Now the five year old kid allegedly was rifling through the woman's bag and stole something from the woman's 18 month old. And then the story gets even weirder because a, a Somali guy starts filming her and says, did you just call that kid the N word? But the Somali guy was reportedly charged with raping a 16 year old girl in 2023. So you have an alleged child rapist filming this woman trying to harass and dox her for calling a five year old. Really nasty racial slur. And then the Internet raised half a million dollars for her. So what's this all about? I will tell you what this is not about. This incident or the fundraising for this incident has absolutely nothing to do with a woman calling a child the N word. That's the one thing that is completely certain about this story. There is not one person who is defending calling a five year old child a nasty racial slur. It has nothing to do with that. This whole incident is about two things. It's about immigration and it's about Austin Metcalf. And maybe I should flip that order. I think primarily it's about Austin Metcalfe because Austin Metcalfe's alleged killer, you remember Austin Metcalfe is the teenager who was a football star who's looking forward to great big things in his future. And then a black student allegedly stabbed him in the chest and murdered him on the spot because Austin Metcalfe asked the boy to get out of his seat. And then the black kid who was charged with murdering the white kid raised half a million dollars for murdering the white kid. This is a reaction to that. That's what this is about. That's almost entirely what it's about. It is also about, to a lesser degree, immigration. This is a Minnesota woman who is being filmed by a Somali alleged child rapist. And there has been a mass migration of Somalis who do not exactly assimilate generally into lily white Midwestern Minnesota. And that has created racial and cultural tension. If a bunch of Minnesotans moved to Somalia, guess what? There'd be racial and cultural tension there too. That is an inevitable fact of the world and the diversity of peoples and migration and polities. That's just how it works. And so it exploded in this viral, wild incident of a woman calling a five year old the N word, which no one would ever justify, but given the broader racial and cultural circumstances around it. The Internet gave her half a million bucks. If a black kid can raise half a million bucks or more for murdering a white kid, says the Internet, then this white lady can raise half a million bucks for calling a five year old kid a nasty word. That's the argument. And this is the inevitable consequence of the liberals demanding racial conscious politics. That's really what it's about. If blm, blm, led by Marxists, says we are going to have an explicitly racially conscious politics. BLM wasn't the first group to suggest this on the left. That's been true for many decades now. But BLM really perfected it. BLM became the apotheosis of leftist racial politics. BLM says it's all about race. Black people good, white people bad. Give black people everything. White people deserve nothing. We need to abolish whiteness. Well, okay, if that's the argument, then there is going to be a white racial consciousness too, at least to some degree. There's a Pew Research study that came out, this is some years ago now. Asked whether race is somewhat or very important to, to people of different races, Black people said 70% plus of Black people said race was somewhat or very important to their identity. Over 50% of Hispanic people and Asian people said race is somewhat or very important to their identity. Only 15% of white people said that white people do not have a racial consciousness. Certainly did not when that study was undertaken. Post blm, post Austin Metcalf murder, Post, all of these incidents, post dei, post, all of this insistence on racial politics from the left, maybe that's changing. Maybe this incident is evidence of that changing. There was a popular syndicated columnist in the 90s and 2000s, Sam Francis, who ended up becoming a white supremacist, actually. But he was a mainstream columnist for a long time. And he said, if the left is gonna insist on racial consciousness, then there's gonna be a white racial consciousness, period, end of story. And that does seem to be a fact of politics. You know, if the left insists on something and the right doesn't want that thing. But the left Keeps insisting on it and the left gets a vote. Cuz the left is half of our political order, then you know what? They're gonna get it, okay? If you ask for it long enough, you're going to get it. You might not like what you get. You might not like this. You might think this is a kind of ugly scene. I think most people think this is an ugly scene. But what do you expect? It is simply not politically stable for every race to have a racial consciousness that they are told increasingly is important and essential to politics and then have just one race, not cultivate a racial consciousness. It's just not sustainable and it's the left's fault. But there you have it. So then the question becomes, how should conservatives think about race? What should the conservative attitude toward race beyond? It seems that there are two poles. On the one hand, you have the people who say there's no such thing as race. Race is totally socially constructed, there's only one race, the human race. On the other hand, you have people who say race is everything and the purity of our blood is the most important thing in politics. What should the conservative attitude toward race be? It seems to me that proper love of one's own is good if it is rightly ordered, if it is in the service of the love of God. We've been talking a lot about the Ordo Amoris, the Order of Love, the Ordo Caritatis, the order of charity. J.D. vance kind of brought that discussion into the popular consciousness. Well, if we acknowledge that it is fine to have a special love of one's own family over other people's families, then if you extend that out, and it seems perfectly reasonable to have a proper love of one's own tribe over or in a special relation to other tribes. If an Italian American, it's a grand slam. I don't know if an Italian American wins some award or something, and I say, ah, attaboy. Good job, Dino. That's right, you're making us proud. There's nothing wrong with that. If that special love of one's own becomes an excuse for deriding or hating some other group, that would seem to be a problem. If the love of one's own, one's own race, one's own nation, one's own geography, one's own occupation, one's own, anything, if the love of one's own becomes an end in itself rather than an instrument toward proper love which leads to the highest love, the love of God, then that becomes a problem because then that becomes an idol. And this is not just an isolated incident. When we're talking about a playground in Minnesota, it's not even isolated. Only when we're talking about race. This is essential to the debates that we've had for the last 10 years over nationalism versus globalism. Before we get to any more pearls of wisdom, you need to go to helixsleep.com knowles some nights I sleep great. Some nights I don't sleep well because I'm up all night and I'm working and I'm traveling and I've had cigars and maybe a few Coca Colas. But what I can guarantee you is every night that you sleep in your Helix is going to be a magnificent night's sleep. Magnificent. I've had my Helix I don't know how many years now, four or five years now maybe, and it is magnificent. You know how much I love my little boys. My boys, they're getting Helix mattresses. One already got it because he moved to a bed. The one who's about to move out of the bed is getting ready for his beautiful Helix mattress. What makes Helix different is they match you with the perfect mattress for your body and sleep style. You take their sleep quiz. It finds an ideal match. Do you sleep hot? Do you sleep cold? Do you like firm? Do you like soft? Do you like somewhere in the middle? It's just really great. I adore my Helix. It is fabulous. It's my favorite mattress brand. Right now is the perfect time to upgrade your sleep because Helix has a great Memorial Day early access sale. Go to helixsleep.com knowles get 27% off site wide plus a free bedding bundle. That's a sheet set. A mattress protector with any lux or elite mattress order. Helixsleep.com knowles 27% off site wide plus a free bedding bundle with any luxe or elite mattress order. Helixsleep.com knowles sleep better tonight. Do we love the nation? Do we love America? Are we America first or are we citizens of the world, man and we oppose that nasty nationalism, that jingoism, that chauvinism. And we don't. I make no distinction between an American and a Tibetan. No, sir. I'm a citizen of the world. Kumbaya. Well, it seems perfectly right and proper to have a healthy love of one's own nation. But not to the exclusion of of other nations. Not to the detriment of other nations. I was reading an excellent book. Coincidentally, over the weekend, a friend gave me this book. It's called Christian Orthodox Political Philosophy. It's an Eastern Orthodox writer, Pavlos Ciprianu. And he pointed out, he said, nations are real things and it's perfectly good to love a nation. But in the Christian understanding, your love of your own nation should impel a greater love of the rest of the world. It should help you toward loving the rest of the world. I know my nation. I love my nation. And that helps me to understand the love that I should have for the rest of the world. Some people, though, do the opposite. They say, I love my nation, and I only love my nation. And I hate every other nation. I love my family. I hate every other family. I love my race. I hate every other race. That is quite wrong. In fact, I have a quote here from this book, really good book. Just as the family and marriage, which did not exist before the fall, can be sanctified, so can the nation. The right attitude is to love our nation in response to Christ's commandment to love our neighbor. In the absence of divine grace, the nation and nationalism can even reach levels of satanic idolatry, as seen in Nazism, where everything was allowed and justified, even genocide, for the sake of the nation and racial purity. And the irony, the Nazis are a great example of this, of making an idol out of the nation and so becoming a satanic perversion of the order of love. But the irony of this is this is exactly the error that the Jewish high priests make in the Passion, the Jewish high priests and the mob make in the Passion. Because what the high priests do is they place the nation above God. They turn on Christ, the son of God, God himself, and they choose the nation. Better that one man should die is the line. You even see this in the choice between Jesus and Barabbas. When Pontius Pilate says, okay, I'm going to give you one of your criminals to the mob led by the high priests, he says, you're going to have either Jesus or Barabbas. These are parallel visions. Christ, the true son of the Father, and Barabbas, which literally means son of the Father, except Barabbas is a political revolutionary. He was in jail for leading an insurrection, a revolt, a riot against the Roman authorities. Christ says, my kingdom is not of this world. Ironically, he is accused of doing the thing that Barabbas does. And then they say, give me Barabbas. But these are two visions. The purely political, the idol of the nation in Barabbas and the ultimate kingdom, the mystical body in Christ. And the error is placing the nation above God. Well, that's exactly the error that the Nazis make. That's exactly the error that many people have made throughout history, many Christians have made. Many people of every background and religious view have made love for all of these views, for all of these goods, rather including the supreme good of God has to be in this very good book, which I recommend. Authenticated by the love of neighbor. It's fine to have a special love of one's own, of one's own family, one's own nation, one's own race, one's own occupation, one's own hobby group. So it's perfectly fine to have a proper love of the things that are closest to us, but they have to be in service of the love of God. And these loves are authenticated by the love of neighbor. That's the way we ought to think about it, which is a rebuke, certainly to the left, but it's a rebuke of elements of the right as well. And it's why the only way that we can understand these things is in the context of Christian theology, which is, of course, the only way we can understand our civilization, because our civilization was built by the church. So as we move in a post Christian civilization, as some people call it, things can get very nasty. And while the left wrings its hands over Christian nationalism, we warn, we say, hey, if you think Christian nationalism is bad, just wait till you find out about unchristian nationalism. If you think the religious right is bad, just wait till you hear about the irreligious right. It's a lot worse. Now on this point of religion, we have the next biggest controversy of the weekend, which is that President Trump tweeted out a picture of himself as the Pope. And I shouldn't laugh, but it's him sitting there. He's got the Pope hat on the miter and he's got the papal vestments. He's sitting in the throne. He's got the cross necklace. Okay, should we be offended? Should we laugh? Is this terrible? Is Trump really anti Catholic? What are we supposed to do here? Governor Kathy Hochul of New York says, as a Catholic, I'm very, very offended. Kathy Hochul, who ratifies the slaughter of babies in her state, who ratifies all the excesses of leftism, who ratifies the gender ideology, who ratifies the redefinition of marriage. No, no, no. Now, this is too far. This is what offends her. As a Catholic, we do not want to reduce religious things to jokes. We don't. We don't want to make jokes about God. We don't want to make jokes about the saints. When you're examining your conscience and you go into confession. One of the things you have to examine and confess is if you make profane or vulgar jokes about religious things, because you don't want to reduce religious things to jokes. Okay. Most of us have done it at some point. Okay. And in fact, most conservative Catholics I know have at some point at least considered or outright made the joke about Trump becoming Pope. Ah, yes. What should happen at the next conclave? Maybe we'll have Donaldus Magnus. Is he eligible? I'm not quite sure. Most of us have made some kind of joke like that. It is not to be recommended to make jokes about religious things, to reduce religious things to jokes. However, all that said, Trump clearly meant no offense. He is one of the most explicitly pro Catholic presidents we've ever had in a country that has been anti Catholic for a long time. Trump visited the National Shrine, St. John Paul II. His wife is Catholic. He picked a Catholic vice president. Some would say maybe our first practicing Catholic vice president. Am I offended as a Catholic, as Governor Hochul demands that I be? You know, call me crazy, but I am more offended by the previous president who calls himself a Catholic, who sued nuns, was vice president in an administration that sued nuns for being Catholic. A lot of people don't even remember that from the Obama admin. The president who, while he was president, spied on Catholic parishes and likened them to domestic terrorists, who knows, might have spied on my parish. The president who imprisoned pro lifers disproportionately Catholic for praying, for demonstrating, for being pro life. The president who supported the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies. The president who tried to redefine marriage. Call me crazy, but even just that, marriage being the symbol of Christ's love for his church, to say nothing of the gender ideology and the explicit persecution of Catholics, I'm a little more offended by that. And I think that these comments from putative Catholics like Governor Hochul, I think they're a little disingenuous. I'm not gonna lose much sleep over that. So, speaking of President Trump, he is now directly addressed something that has been driving the left crazy, which is the prospect of Trump running for a third term. And Steve Bannon has been fueling this fire. He said, Trump's gonna run for a third term. He's gonna win a third term. Trump himself is selling Trump 2028 hats on the website, and he was asked this question by NBC News. Here's his answer. The Trump Organization is selling hats that say Trump 2028.
- [21:28]
Donald Trump
Yeah.
- [21:29]
Michael Knowles
Are you seriously considering a third term, Mr. President, even though it's prohibited by the Constitution, or is this about staying politically viable?
- [21:38]
Donald Trump
I will say this, so many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it's something that to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional, that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else. But there are many people selling the 2028 hat.
- [21:57]
Michael Knowles
Many people.
- [21:58]
Donald Trump
But this is not something I'm looking to do. I'm looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we're gonna have four years. And I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.
- [22:15]
Michael Knowles
I love it. I love the whole thing. As I said from the beginning, when Trump started Talking about the third term in 2028 and the Libs were losing their mind, I said, you guys, you're just exposing yourselves for not understanding anything about our political moment. You're just not. All these left wing political analysts were pointing out, they were revealing that their analysis was just totally worthless. I said, it's obvious what Trump is doing here. Trump is in principle a lame duck. Right now it's a little weird cause his second term is non consecutive. But if this were a consecutive second term, people would be calling him a lame duck. He doesn't wanna be a lame duck. So he's dangling out this red meat here and saying, well may, maybe I'll run for a third term. And the libs are all going for it. You know, it's not red meat, it's catnip really. And all these little cats go running for it. But I said I wouldn't worry about it, folks. And then the way he's talking, he says, well, you know, look, what's my answer on the third term? Many people are asking me, look, many people are selling Trump 20, 28 hats, including him. He leaves that part out and look, many. And I don't know, is it maybe it's a constitutional thing. And there are gonna be people, the people who think that Trump is stupid. The handful of people who are so thick headed that they can still convince themselves that Trump is stupid. They're gonna believe that he's serious here when he's playing. I don't know, is it in the Constitution? I don't know. Have you guys seen that? Who knows? But then he comes to his point, he says, but look, I think we're gonna get it Done in four years. Okay. They're gonna still be lips out there. He'll say, oh, no, he's a dictator. He's gonna abolish elections. And when you hear people say that, now that's a very helpful little tool because whenever you hear someone say, trump is gonna have a third term and it's gonna end the republic and this, just know that person's analysis is so obviously wrong, you don't need to listen to a word that they have to say. But now Trump says, I wanna turn it over to someone. Who is his successor going to be? He's asked that question. He gives an answer. I have a lot to say. All right, but first I wanna tell you about Lumen. Me, Knowles. I have discovered a magnificent tool that gives me real time insights into my metabolism through something as simple as my breath. It's called Lumen, the world's first handheld metabolic coach. All you need to do is breathe into it. First thing in the morning, you will know exactly what is happening with your metabolism. Are you burning fats? Are you burning carbs? Based on your measurements, Lumen creates a personalized nutrition plan just for you. Since your metabolism is basically the engine behind everything your body does, when it's working really well, you get all kinds of great benefits. You will find it easier to manage your weight. You'll have more energy throughout the day. You'll see better results from your workouts. You will even sleep better. For me, I'm kind of a Luddite and I don't pay that much attention to my physical health, but Lumen makes it so easy. I just love it. I wake up, I can just blow right in this machine and then it tells me everything and I don't need to worry about it. Okay. Lumen gives you tips to keep you on the top of your health game and improve metabolic health. The warmer months are coming. Spring is here. Get back into that health and fitness routine. Go to Lumen me. Knowles. Get 15% off your lumen. That's L U M E N M E Canada WLEs for 15% off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this show. NBC pushes Mr. Trump. You say you're going to hand it over to a successor. Who will the successor be? Here's his answer. As we sit here today, who do you see as your successor? Mr. President?
- [25:38]
Donald Trump
Well, it's far too early to say that, but, you know, I do have a vice president and typically it would be. And JD's doing a fantastic.
- [25:46]
Michael Knowles
He would be at the top of the list.
- [25:47]
Donald Trump
He could Very well be. I don't want to get involved in that. I think he's a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. There's a lot of them that are great. I also see tremendous unity.
- [26:00]
Michael Knowles
Okay. You know how much I hate to say I told you so? I feel so, I just feel so vindicated. Every day that passes for the Trump administration, I feel so vindicated because I've been giving my analysis, making arguments, often defenses, usually defenses of President Trump for 10 years now. And the left calls me crazy and the right, some people on the right call me crazy. And I was just so right. Even early on after Trump was elected this time around and he refused to name JD Vance as his successor, he just left it at that. I'm not willing to name JD Vance as my successor. People said, is he throwing shade at JD oh, is it this? And I said, look, this is just good management. He has a lot of very ambitious people who are working for them and he has to keep them all plugged in. He needs to keep them all incentivized to do a good job. And I specifically said, think about Marco Rubio. If Trump comes out now and says JD is my successor, Marco Rubio has no reason to do a good job as Secretary of State. He has no reason to even retain the job. Cuz he's only doing the Secretary of State job because he knows it's gonna give him a leg up to run for president in 2028. So he's just, he's gotta manage all those other people. It's not a slight on JD It's a way to keep the other people engaged. And then in this answer, Trump says exactly that right after he told look, I think JD is great in everything. But you know, Marco's great too. He has to go to Marco'cause Marco Rubio has already run for president. He ran for president against Donald Trump. It actually got pretty nasty in 2016. But he's the Secretary of State now. It's a really important job and he's gotta keep him incentivized. And there are other people too. Tulsi Gabbard ran for President. She's now dni. He wants to keep her engaged. P Tech Seth could run for President after this. After being Secretary of Defense, there are plenty of other people who could run and he's gotta keep them engaged. So why would he? If the whole point is to say I'm not a lame duck yet, then he's got to say, one, maybe I'll run for a third term, and two, I'm not gonna pick my successor because the minute he picks his successor, all of the political focus goes to that person. All the power goes to that person. Trump loses power. He's too smart. He's not gonna do that. Now, speaking of political succession, Germany, the German government has just ruled to suppress the most popular political party in the country. How'd they do that? Hold on. In their sacred democracy, how did the government rule to suppress the most popular political party in the country? Well, the supposedly independent Federal Office for the Protection of the Constituent, which reports directly to the Interior Ministry of the civilian government, ruled that the AfD, the Alternative for Deutschland Party, is a right wing extremist organization. Most popular party in the country. Right wing extremist organization which will allow the state, by this classification, to surveil the party. It will allow the state to observe its meetings. It will allow the state to wiretap the party and related party communications. It's basically saying you were the most popular political party in the country. And because of our firewall against what we call the far right, we are going to exclude you from the government. You could be the. Don't forget, it's not just two parties in Germany. It's like the rest of Europe. It's lots of little parties. And so you could have the lion's share of the public support but be totally kept out of the government. The supposed conservatives would rather make an alliance with the liberals and the far left than they would with the supposedly far right party, mind you. Also, the supposedly far right party Alternative for Deutschland is led by a lesbian libertarian who has publicly said that Hitler was a communist. Okay, so not exactly the second coming of defuer. Okay, a lesbian libertarian who makes arguments from the mainstream of American politics saying that the Nazis run the left or whatever. That party is too far right for Germany. What does it mean? It means liberalism can be just as authoritarian as any other political ideology and any other type of regime. Liberalism, which says that it's the opposite of authoritarian, which makes authoritarianism the worst enemy. Liberalism itself can be very authoritarian and increasingly can be totalitarian. What's the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian? Authoritarian says, hey, you can't do this, you can't do that, and we're gonna leave you alone. Authoritarian is like Francisco Francois, Francisco Franco in Spain who says, you can't kill priests, you can't rape nuns. You gotta recognize it's a Christian country. We're gonna kick the Bolsheviks out of Iberia. Sorry, Soviet Union, you don't get to take over Spain and the rest of Iberia. But as long as you play by the rules, we're not gonna get involved in your personal life. Do basically whatever you want, but just recognize there are some limits here. And we're gonna say no to certain things versus totalitarian. A system like communist Soviet Russia or like Nazi Germany, which infiltrates every element of society. Nothing is immune or kept off from the political ideology. So it goes down into the civic organizations, it goes down into employment, goes down into the family. You have neighbors ratting on neighbors, you have kids ratting on parents and it's totalizing. Those are very different things. And liberalism can be either. Liberalism can be authoritarian. Just explicitly from the government saying, nope, can't do this. German government says, nope, you guys wanna vote for the kind of right wing, kind of libertarian, but kind of right wing party alternative for Deutschland? Nope, you're not allowed to do that, Sorry, vote for someone else. That's authoritarian. But liberalism can also be totalitarian. Liberalism can also come out and say, hey parents, you have no right to your kids education. Hey, parents, if you won't castrate your children according to our whims, we're gonna take your kids away from you. Hey parents, if you oppose the excesses of liberal racial ideology, we're going to liken you to domestic terrorists. We're gonna spy on you, we're gonna poison your kids against you. We're going to teach your kids from a very young age to turn on you and we might just take them away entirely. That's totalitarian. Liberalism can be both. The one thing that liberalism cannot be is what it purports to be, which is the alternative to those things. It's not an alternative to authoritarianism or to totalitarianism. It is just as heavy handed, if not more heavy handed than the alternatives. No wonder Deutschland wants an alternative to liberalism. Speaking of crumbling liberal hegemony, some good news from the Washington Post. Headline. Three years after the Dobbs leak, Democrats have moved beyond abortion. So just the first two, three paragraphs. Three years after a leak revealed the Supreme Court's thinking ahead of a decision overturning abortion rights. So there's no right to kill a baby. But whatever, it's the Washington Post. The issue's preeminence has faded into the background of an American political landscape transformed by President Donald Trump. Facing an administration that is dismantling federal agencies and fighting court orders on deportations, Democrats have focused their political fire on other issues. This comes after a more than two and a half year run of saturation messaging on threats to reproductive rights. That is killing babies. That was followed by some big victories, but also surprising losses. Most Democrats still view abortion rights, quote, unquote, as a cornerstone of party orthodoxy, embraced by the majority of voters. But they also consider it essential for the party to expand beyond that cultural issue. So here you have WaPo, liberal newspaper par excellence, saying, look, abortion, the supposed right to kill a baby, still really important. Still so super duper popular. Most voters really want to kill all the babies. They really love it. I mean, it's super. Democrats didn't do anything wrong. But we Democrats, we're gonna focus on some other things right now. Yeah. Yeah, you probably should. Now, of course, if abortion were really super duper popular, you wouldn't focus on other things. Your saturation messaging would have worked, and you would have won the 2024 election. But it doesn't work because most people aren't psychos who want to slaughter babies left and right. So the Democrats are acknowledging, shoot, we lost it. Now it's important to give the devils their due. The abortion message did work, especially immediately after that leak, that illegal leak that almost got conservative Supreme Court justices murdered, Alito and especially Kavanaugh because the libs were doing their best to stop this decision from coming out. Why? Why did they want to stop the decision from coming out? If the public opinion were just permanently fixed in favor of killing babies, then they should have wanted the Dobbs decision to come out. They should have wanted the conservatives to supposedly overplay their hand on abortion rights, because then the Democrats would have won every election after that, right? Well, what the Democrats knew at the time and what we should know now, we conservatives need to keep in mind, is political victories, judicial victories transform the political calculation, transform public opinion. When that Dobbs decision was leaked, I'm sure there were a ton of people who thought, this is really bad. We can't let them get rid of Roe v. Wade. I've been told my whole life, Wade is the most important Supreme Court decision ever in all of history, the most important decision in all of jurisprudence. We can't let this happen. The world is gonna fall. And then it happened, and everything was fine and the dust settled, and maybe people even started to think, you know, maybe we shouldn't kill all the babies. Maybe that's six. Oh, actually. Huh. Maybe the Democrats were. They were kind of wrong about that. Maybe they lied to us about what they told us that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was gonna ban abortion everywhere. That obviously didn't happen. Maybe abortion's even. Not even that great. Maybe there are other issues to focus on. This is another rebuke of the part of the right that wants to win by losing. The part of the right that said we need to vote against Trump because Trump is really bad. We need Hillary to win, we need Biden to win, we need Kamala to win. There are people on the right who said it's better to let Kamala win. People that even call themselves really fat, serious right wingers, and they say, better let Kamala win. They're practically Democrats, they're practically liberals. They say, no, no, the way we really win in the long term, it's the same as never Trump. The way we really win in the long term is by losing every election. And then we lose the Supreme Court seats, and then we lose the judicial decisions, and then we lose and lose and lose. And by the way, ultimately we lose public opinion, but somehow we're gonna win in the long run. It's like when south park had I'm dating myself, but south park had a whole episode about the underpants gnomes. And the underpants gnomes were this group of mythical creatures that would steal people's underpants and then something would happen and then they'd make a lot of money and they couldn't quite figure out that second part. Well, that's like the people on the right who say, well, the way we're gonna win is by losing. No, the way you win is by winning. You win with the best candidate you have who's gonna have flaws at the moment where the issues are a little imprecise and you're risking certain aspects, you're putting your moral self out there and then you're gonna appoint some judges and there are gonna be some decisions, and you're not gonna get every decision you want, but you're gonna get some victories. And those victories, when you win, transform public opinion and they set you up for your next victory. You win by winning. You do not win by losing proof of it. Not just from the right, but even the left admitting it. Washington Post saying, shoot, the Republicans won by winning. And we need to change our strategy because fear mongering about abortion and Roe v. Wade isn't working anymore. President Trump's first 100 days rewrote the playbook. America's golden age is here and the libs will do anything to shut it down. At the Daily Wire. We are not just watching the world around us. We are on the front lines conducting hard hitting investigations, writing explosive exposes, streaming daily shows with commentary from the most trusted voices in conservative media, delivering the facts first. This is your moment. Join the fight@dailywearplus.com My favorite comment on Friday is from Anani Moose Lal, who says, let the record show that Michael considers Starbucks to be a public restroom that happens to serve coffee. Oh, kind of, yeah. I mean, I think the coffee's good and I like the experience of being in Starbucks. And I know you're not supposed to say that as a right winger. You're supposed to pretend to hate Starbucks. Starbucks has provided me with a relatively nice public bathroom in every city around the world. And the coffee is. It's a little bit overpriced, but the coffee is perfectly good too. Yeah, I'll admit it. I think many, if not most conservatives agree with me and I just have the courage to admit it. I enjoy Starbucks and I love a pumpkin spice latte. I do. Whatever, whatever. I don't care. I don't care what you think. Now, speaking of the abortion issue, big study just came out, big study done by the Ethics and Public Policy center, very respected think tank. 11% of women who take the abortion pill will suffer health consequences, serious health consequences as a result. And the left doesn't want you to know about this. And the pro abortion lobby doesn't want you to know about this. The abortion pill is not just a minor issue in pro life advocacy. The abortion pill now constitutes the majority of abortions. Most women who kill their babies do so with the abortion pill. That wasn't true five years ago. It is true now. So we should one, focus our efforts on limiting the abortion pill or eradicating it if it's possible. And the way that we do that is not merely by yelling at people. It's by showing the myriad ways in which the abortion pill is harmful not only to the baby, but also to the woman. The left says, oh, the abortion pill, it's totally fine, it's wonderful. No big deal. Come on, go kill your kids. No one will have to know. You can do it in the comfort of your own home. Which is why abortions have ticked up since the Dobbs decision. It's not because of the Dobbs decision. It's because the Dobbs decision coincided with this technological advancement and legal laxity for the abortion pill, which allows women to kill their babies without even having the stigma of walking into a Planned Parenthood. Well, what this study found was that more than 1 in 10 women who take mifepristone, the abortion pill, will face a serious health consequence. This wasn't a study of just 10 people or something. This was a study of 865,727 patients wasn't just over the course of a few months. It was over a period of six years. 2017-2023, published by EPPC, discovered that 11% of women suffered at least one serious adverse event within 45 days of taking the pill. The largest data set that we know of. More than 4.7% of women were forced to visit an emergency room related to the abortion. More than 3.3% of women suffered hemorrhaging. This is big numbers. More than 1.3% got an infection. Thousands of women were hospitalized. More than 1,000 women here needed blood transfusions. Hundreds of these women suffered from sepsis. The abortion industry will not tell you about any of that. Nearly 2,000 of these women had a different life threatening adverse event from the ones that I've just mentioned. And in 2.84% of cases, the abortion from the abortion pill didn't work. And then the women completed the murder of their children through a surgical abortion. So in almost 3% of cases, the women take this poison with serious risk of harming or killing them. And it doesn't even do the thing they want to do, which is kill the kids. So they got to go in and have the surgical abortion if they want to complete the abortion, which of course no one has to do. Gotta let women know this one for their own good, because we actually, even though these women are doing a very terrible thing, which is murder their children, one still loves them, one still has a Christian love for them. One might even have a familial or a community love for them. It might be women, you know, and a lot of these women don't have good information. And even if the women do understand the moral gravity of killing their own child, even if they do admit that to themselves, a lot of women won't admit that to themselves. If you tell them, by the way, if you take this abortion pill, there's a greater than 1 in 10% chance you're going to seriously damage your health. Just that alone will very likely reduce their likelihood to do it. Okay, so sometimes pro lifers or people who in any way take the abortion issue seriously, they'll say that the pro life focus on women as the victims of abortion is misguided because the women are killing their children. So we shouldn't talk about them as victims. They're the perpetrators of the crime. And sometimes it's both. Sometimes women are pressured into it or even forced into the abortion. Sometimes they do it with full consent. But as we've pointed out on this show many, many times, freedom is willing predicated on knowledge. So if you don't have a command of your will because you've abused it through vice and license, and if you don' have knowledge because you're ignorant or you've been taught things that aren't true, you cannot truly be said to be free. That's the classical and conservative understanding of freedom. Not the left wing version of freedom, the liberal version of freedom, which is just perfect neutrality in choosing. But these women really are not free, either because they've damaged their will through vice or because they're ignorant. Or both. Likely both. But in any case, the reason to focus on the risks to women from these abortions is a prudential choice to stop the abortions. When we point out that abortions are very bad for women, when we point out that the year before Roe v. Wade, not a lot of women died from illegal abortions, the left tells us thousands of women were dying. That isn't true. But 39 women died from illegal abortions. The year before roe v. Wade, 24 women died from legal abortions. When you look at where abortion was legal and illegal, it was about as risky to have a legal abortion as an illegal abortion. When you point these things out, when you say there are risks to legal abortion, that the legal abortion industry is bad for women, you're saying a true thing. You're not lying, but you are doing that for the good of saving the babies. Which is, I guess, the theme of our show today. The theme of our show is recognizing that our actions cannot be intrinsically evil or immoral in themselves. Good ends don't justify immoral means. But furthermore, even good actions or morally neutral actions need to be ordered toward the highest good. They need to be ordered toward the love of God. They need to be, and they need to be authenticated by this genuine love of our neighbors. Which is what St. Paul says. That's what he means when he says if you have all the virtues, but you don't have charity, you're nothing. So you could be the most pro life person in the world if you hate these women. If you go through your pro life activism without charity, you're nothing. And the activism's probably not going to amount to anything. Same is true of love of family. It's love of nation, patriotism, really. Every action in your life has to have your loves ordered in the right way. I'm really glad JD Vance started this conversation on the order of love. This is good stuff. This is a pretty Catholic administration, wouldn't you say? Today is Music Monday. The rest of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles, Ken or Wles at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.