The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2039 - Horrifying Organ Harvest Story Goes Viral

Episode Date: August 17, 2026

Socialist candidates are winning thanks to immigrants and college-educated white women, JD Vance now leads all candidates in the 2028 general election, and doctors harvest a woman's organs after killing her. Ep. 2039 - - - Today's Sponsors: Cardiff - America’s favorite small business lender, provides the liquidity to move at the speed of business with same-day funding up to $500,000. Apply in under 3 minutes with zero credit impact.  Apply now at https://cardiff.co/knowles Helix Sleep - Go to https://helixsleep.com/knowles for 27% off sitewide PureTalk - At just $15 a month for your first three months on ANY plan… now’s a great time to choose PureTalk. Simply go to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES to claim this offer. Kalshi - Visit https://kalshi.com/knowles to see live prediction markets and sign up today to trade on the outcomes that matter most to you. Trade 25 win up to 500. Code is KNOWLES - - - DailyWire+ Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe 📚📝 Back-to-School Sale - Get 3 months for $19 Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🍿 Run Hide Fight: Infidels will premiere on The Daily Wire, Wednesday September 16th. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. When Westcham first took flight in 1996, The vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion. Inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to Westjetting since 96.

Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. This episode is brought you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same-day funding, up to five. 500,000 at cardiff.co slash knolls, KNAWLAS. A new poll out of Michigan has conservatives blaming immigrants and college-educated white women for all of our country's problems. And I'm like the girl in the meme. You know, I say, why not both?

Why not? There's enough blame to go around. But in fairness, one of those groups actually is more responsible than the other. We will examine the underlying psychological issues. Then some happy statistics. Vice President J.D. Vance currently leads not. just the Republican field, but all the Democrats in the 28 presidential prediction markets. That's the real key here. We'll see how the right-wing primary shakes out, but we want to make

sure that the Republican beats the Democrats. Strangely, though, some right-wing activists are angrier than ever because of it. Finally, turning back to unpleasant news, an Australian woman has become the first person to have her organs harvested after committing suicide. Welcome to the ethics of our brave new world. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. Luigi Mangione has just pled guilty to one of the charges that he faces after the killing of the health care CEO, Brian Thompson, in cold blood. Meanwhile, his supporters are still defending him, and his supporters tend to be the aforementioned liberal white women. Where the white women at? They are outside of the courtroom defending a.

murderer. We will explain why. First, though, I want to focus on the ladies in the Michigan Senate primary. This is a really, really worrisome set of numbers that's just come out. So how's the race stand right now? You've got the Democrat, Abdul El-Sayed, who is the woke DSA, socialist candidate, who alternately plays jihadi and gay. He's trying to appeal to both sections of the Democrat Party. You have the lavender section, and you have the green flag, Crescent Moon section. And the good news is, a new poll just came out from Fox News, among registered voters, the Republican Mike Rogers is leading. So this is the gamble right now for the Democrats. If they nominate the radical DSA candidates, who frankly are not really any more radical than the mainstream

Democrats, because the whole Democrat Party has given way to radicalism and has really embraced the Democrat socialists. But if they nominate the radical candidate, then it should make it easier for the Republicans to win in the general election. But this is a midterm election with all the headwinds going against Republicans. So the Democrats are taking this gamble. They're saying, what if we nominate the radical candidate and already we're likely to win? It's just how the year is set up. So if we win with the really radical candidates, then we're going to get even more of what we want.

And the way it's playing out right now among registered voters, they're going to lose that bet. Among registered voters, the Republicans are more attractive than the, the, the radical Democrats. Here's the rub. If you change your lens from registered voters to likely voters, or you dial it up in further to certain to vote, the people who are just dead set on voting for their guy in November, the Republican loses. In fact, the number is precisely flip. Right now, among registered voters, it's 51 for the Republican, 47 for the Democrat. Among certain to vote, it's 51 for the Democrat, 47 for the Republican. So who is voting for Abdul El-Sayed, who is a deeply unattractive candidate? Well, if you look among white voters,

Mike Rogers is way, way up. The Republicans up by 14 points, 56 to 42. If you look among non-white voters, and non-white voters in Michigan largely means immigrants, then you've got Abdul al-Syad way, way, way up. The non-white voters vote much more in lockstep with racial and ethnic identity than the white voters do. White voters have basically no racial identity. This has been borne out in surveys for many years at this point. Every other race has very high degrees of racial identity. White people have basically none, which is why it's so funny that we constantly hear about white supremacy, white identitarianism, white nationalism, that doesn't exist. It's just statistically in America that does not exist. Black nationalism, Hispanic nationalism,

Asian nationalism, all of that exists to much, much higher degrees. So among non-white voters, Abdul al-Sai is up 42 points, 70 to 28. If you look at men, men very reasonable, the Republican runs away with it, 55 to 44. If you look at women, women are voting for Abdul al-Sayyad, but only by a little bit. He's only up one point among women generally. But don't forget, that includes married women, that includes all the normal women. Then you get to the white women with the college degree. Then you get to the, the offals, they call them, the affluent white female liberals.

The offals are given it to the Democrat Abdul al-Saiyad by 23 points, 60 to 37. So who do we blame? Do we blame the non-white voters, which in Michigan largely means immigrants, or do we blame the women? Why not both? Why not both?

We could blame both of them. This explains, these poll numbers explain why Abdul al-Syad right now, is leaning gay. You remember he posted that campaign ad. This is from his account where it's him singing, you know, oh, I want to dance with somebody and it looks like this really gay high school musical. Well, a lot of people were scratching their heads. Why is he playing this way? He's playing this way because his chief base

is affluent white liberals, specifically white liberal women. So he's going to play up to their like sort of flamboyant gay preferences. He needs to win. the non-white immigrants. He needs to win 80% of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan. But he'll get those. The non-white voters

are voting overwhelmingly for him. They're voting as a bloc. So the chief reason that we have, the most immediate reason as to why we have all of these radical leftist, socialist, overwhelmingly racial identitarian, increasingly Muslim sort of

candidates rising up throughout the country is because of mass migration. That's full stop. If we didn't have mass migration, we would have a lot of normal politicians, relatively normal politicians. But I assign more blame here to the liberal white women with the college degrees. And I assign more blame because when you look at the non-white voters by which we mean Muslims in Michigan, they're just voting in a very rational way. If you import a bunch of people who don't assimilate, who come from a radically different culture with a different religion and a different language and different customs, and you tell them

not to assimilate, guess what? They're going to vote in the way that Ben, Ben, benefits their faction, their unassimilated faction. So what they're doing is not destructive for their own political community. The voters in Dearborn Michigan don't view themselves as Americans. The voters in Dearborn Michigan don't aspire to throw away their old foreign customs and become as American as Apple Pie, as you saw with a lot of immigrants in the early 20th century when there was a very, very serious push for assimilation. They're not doing that. They're voting for the good of their own political communities. They just don't identify with the political community of the United States. With the white liberal women with the college degrees, their voting habits are purely destructive.

They are voting for people who want to ruin their country. They are voting for people who campaign with Asan Piker who says that America deserve 9-11. They're voting for people who say they want to make America weaker. They're voting for people who want to bring in foreign customs and destroy the customs of the United States. The white liberal women with the college degrees are really proving the idiom true that all of leftism just comes down to screw you dad. That's what's going on here. By the numbers, the immigrant problem is worse, but by the absurdity, by the perversity, by the pure destructiveness of it, it is the white women with the college degree. They will bear the responsibility if Abdul Elside wins. And right now, it's anyone's race. Turning to the presidential

election, we do have a little bit of good news. Our sponsor, Kalshi, has just come out looking at not just the Republican field for 2028 or the Democrat field for 2028, but the whole race. And right now, J.D. Vance leads the whole pack. J.D. Vance has 20% odds on Calci of winning the whole thing outright, followed by Marco Rubio, who's at 16%, followed by Gavin Newsom at 11%, followed by AOC at 9.6%. This is really, really good news. One, it's because you've got two Republicans leading the two top Democrats. So whether it were J.D. Vance or Mokorubio, that person would win according to the prediction markets, which are different from polls, but in some ways they're more reliable than the polls. And when you look at the candidates overall, it's Vance. Now, this backs up what we saw. I think it was

a Marquette poll that came out a couple of weeks ago, which showed that J.D. Vance is the most popular figure in the Trump administration. Trump's approval among Republican voters is about 76%. So it's lower than guys like J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Pete Heggseth. Now, I think you got to grade Trump here on a curve because Trump is the chief. He's the guy. The buck stops with him. So he's taking most of the attacks, most of the slings and arrows coming his way. No surprise that he's been dinged a little bit among Republican voters. Hegseth doing very well. Rubio doing even better. But J.D. Vance leading the pack. And this is a little surprising because J.D. has taken a lot of hits, at least in the political media, at least among the activists set. He's taken way more hits. than Marco Rubio has, for instance. Marco Rubio has had months of just constantly positive press. And yet, J.D. Vance is still has a higher approval rating among Republicans than Rubio does. Ruby is very high, too. Rubio is doing a great job.

But what does this tell us? This tells us that there is a big disconnect between the political media on the right, the activist groups on the right, the lobbyist groups on the right, and the actual Republican voters. Even after all those hits, people, I think very dishonestly trying to pin the, Iran war on J.D. Vance, who is not the commander-in-chief, not the nation's chief diplomat. He's the vice president, who, according to reports, was rather skeptical of the Iran war from the beginning. I thought it was very dishonest. I thought it was just people who were trying to attack Trump but didn't have the Gulli Unes to attack Trump, so they attacked Trump's wicked advisors,

in particular their least favorite one, which is J.D. Vance. But there was a huge chasm between that and the actual Republican voters. What it tells me is, that the anti-vance discourse that you might have seen on social media that you've seen coming out of the pundit class, the chattering class in some of the right-wing publications, that is totally disconnected from actual voter preferences, and it's totally disconnected from prediction markets. So not just what people are saying their preferences are when they talk to pollsters,

but even where people are putting the money. You know, I saw this a little bit firsthand over the weekend. It was kind of funny. I responded to a comment. someone criticizing me because, I don't know, I wasn't attacking J.D. Vance. And I can't help but notice, I think a lot of the attacks on Vance are astroturfed, and I think a lot of them are foreign. I'll give some of my evidence for that in a second. First, though, I want to tell you about Helix. Go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles. Do you know what I did on Saturday? On Saturday, I go upstairs with

my wife, and I open up something that I've been sitting in my house for a little bit. It's my new Helix mattress because, look, for me, I would have let guests sleep on the floor, but sweet little Lisa said, we should treat our guests right. We should get them a better mattress. We should get them a helix. So I open it up. Even for me, I'm not the biggest, most adonic guy in the world. Nevertheless, I get the mattress on the bed. You open it up. It's really, really easy. It comes out, poofs all the way up. Sweet little Lisa and I, we lay down on top, tested it. It is so magnificent. It's just an incredible mattress brand. And you don't need to get my best. You don't need to get my bed. You can get the bed that is made for you. You take their quick sleep quiz, your match for the

perfect mattress. It's absolutely wonderful. Highly recommend. There is a reason that Helix is the most awarded mattress brand out there, recognized by experts like Forbes and Wired. They give you 120-night sleep trial, limited lifetime warranty. You're not going to need either of those because you're going to love it. You're going to keep buying new Helix mattresses, including for your guest room. Go to Helixleep.com slash Knowles, Canada WLS. W.S. Get 27% off site wide exclusively for listeners to this show. Helixleep.com slash Knowles, Canada WLAS, 27% offsite wide exclusively for listeners of this show. So over the weekend, someone was going after Vance.

It was the crazy, you want to talk about the disconnect between the online discourse and actual voters. These people going after Vance, because they were trying to tie Vance to some academics who appear at a conference, and the academics read a political philosopher from the 20th century, this guy, Carl Schmidt, Carl Schmidt, who, while a prominent political philosopher, was also a Nazi, as were a number of Germans during the mid-20th century.

And so they were basically what they were trying to say is that Vance is a Nazi. I know, that's what a lot of the discourse has come down to. And I said, this is totally ridiculous. It's a full of non-sequiters. I think this is pretty unfair. Then people were going after Vance for, they said he wanted to destroy the American hegemony because he raised questions about the global reserve currency status. of the United States. They were calling him some kind of subversive Catholic, post-liberal. But then you look, and many of the questions that he was bringing up years ago were also brought up by Protestant,

libertarians. So it was all just so in the weeds. And I felt so dishonest. So I pointed this out. And I get a comment on X from Teacher Julie 08, who was responding, said, you know, I strongly dislike Michael Knowles more and more each day. because I was making a comment on a comment on a political philosopher, on a theological strain, on an academic conference, on a point about the economy that somehow vaguely related to advances. I strongly dislike Michael Knowles more and more each day. And really what this account was upset about was that I was defending the vice president against what I thought was a very unfair attack. So one of the great features that Elon Musk brought to X is you can tell where the accounts are based. Let me see where this account is based. There's no name, other than Julie, there's no face.

There's nothing really identifying this account. Let me see where that account is based. So I looked at it. The account is based in Ghana, in Ghana, accessing Twitter from Ghana. So it's not even like the account is based in Ghana and accessing it from New York City. It's from Ghana, accessing it from Ghana. It's either a bot or a foreign operative account. I love my Ghanaese audience, my Ghanaian audience.

This show actually does have. have a pretty big international audience. I love that. I'm all about that. I love that people are paying attention to the show and the different political and philosophical and especially religious currents that we talk about on the show. But I said, this just doesn't make sense. It is not believable that some ordinary Ghanaian citizen is that plugged in with all of the esoteric nuances of the political ideologies that flow to top the intra-conservative movement debates that then pertain to the Republican Party. It's just not believable. this is an op there. And of course, all of social media now is flooded with foreign bots,

foreign influence, and activist campaigns here. I mean, look, if you've ever worked on a political campaign before, I've worked on plenty of them, you know that this is how political campaigns work. But I found it to be really, really silly. And for Republican voters who are trying to ascertain the state of the race, are we really going to get blown out of the water or the Democrats totally going to run away with it in 2028? One, it's a little too early to predict that. But if you want to know the state of the race, let's look at the polls of actual voters. Let's look at the polls of, let's look at what the prediction markets are saying. Because I think the vice president is terrific. I'm a big fan of the vice president.

I think Rubio is great too. I think there are even figures who are not in the Trump administration who could run good campaigns for president. As I've said before, I think there's a chance that Ron DeSantis could have a lane depending on how the Iran war works at, depending on the popularity of the Trump administration because he's outside of the administration. He could run in the kind of Trump lane outside of the Trump administration, though that's very difficult. It didn't work out in 2024. I think Ted Cruz, a lot of people I think are underestimating Ted Cruz. I think Ted Cruz could have a real lane in 2008. It would again depend on how things work out with the Trump administration, how tight President Trump's hold is on the Republican Party. I think Rand Paul could have a lane.

I don't think a libertarian's going to win, but he could have a lane to run in that party. I want to make sure that a Republican beats a Democrat. In other words, I want to focus on the chief threats to my way of life, to American sovereignty. You've got Democrats running candidates who openly have disdain for the country. I want to make sure that we keep our eyes on the prize. But there's a lot of mischief, a lot of silliness going on in the shadow race for 2028. A lot of it very silly and a lot of it coming from overseas. So speaking of the vice president, J.D. Vance made a really important point, I think, on how we think about socialism. One of the attacks that you're seeing in the shadow race for 2028 on the GOP side is people are trying to call Vance a socialist, which I think is pretty absurd on its face. But that's the argument. They're saying J.D. Vance, he's a socialist. His economics, his economic policy is no different from what the Democrats are offering. And Vance addressed this head on on Fox News. And my warning to my fellow Republicans will would be if we don't get this right, don't blame young people for being sympathetic to socialism, we've got to blame ourselves.

And I think what is so unique and refreshing about Donald Trump's economic policies is that it's not the same old economic ideas that you would have heard 30, 40 years ago. He's talking about rebuilding our industrial base, rebuilding the heartland, making our streets safer, making it up. possible for young people to afford to buy a home. This is how you stop socialism. You don't stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market. As much as I love the free market, you stop socialism by making people's lives better. And that's what we're trying to do every single day. I love this point because it's such a political point. People think that J.D. Vance is making an economic point. He obviously has economic ideas. But what he's being attacked for right now, I think is not his economic argument, it's actually his political argument.

What he's saying is we have to stop socialism, but you're not going to stop socialism by just mindlessly repeating slogans about the free market. You're not going to stop socialism by regurgitating the same kinds of political tactics that have failed in the past. What would the opposite of this be? The opposite of speaking to the affordability crisis would be the sort of thing that we saw during the Tea Party, specifically from Paul Ryan. I like Paul Ryan. I think Paul Ryan had good intentions. I think he wanted to solve our fiscal problem. Paul Ryan ran on austerity.

The GOP Congress, under his leadership or partial leadership, ran on austerity. The Mitt Romney campaign ran on austerity and 47% of Americans being useless leeches and the fact that we need to cut, cut, cut, run on reforming entitlements, which is to say cutting Social Security and Medicare. How did it work out? It didn't work. It empowered Democrats. Democrats ran on that forever. They persuaded voters. They aired commercials of Paul Ryan throwing granny off of a cliff. And guess what? You then had Democrat politicians implementing policies far closer to socialism than anything Shady Vance is talking about. So what Vance is saying is you can't just recite the same old platitudes forever. You need to address people's real circumstances because politics involves eternal principles, but But it also involves constantly changing circumstances. And there's this temptation among the establishment Republicans to just go back to what feels safe. You know, in the 1980s, they would talk about the 1950s. And now the way that Republicans talked about the 50s and the 80s and 90s is the same way

that establishment Republicans talk about the 90s today. Because it was back, you know, a few decades ago and we have nice memories of it and nostalgia's history after a few drinks. but you can't actually return to the past. You can't return to the past, and we shouldn't want to return to the past, because this is the key. The past contained the seeds for the present. So there are some Republicans who, they just want to feel safe. The past, it's over and done with, we all made it through just fine.

Many of the people who talked about the wonders of Ronald Reagan in the 20-teens and 2020s, many of those people probably would have opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Many of them probably would have been Bushies rather than Reaganites. The same attacks that you see lobbied at Donald Trump, now J.D. Vance, those attacks that he was a cowboy, that he was reckless, that he's uneducated, he's uneducated, that he's un-subsicated, that he's Nazi, these insinuations of bigotry. Those were all the same attacks that were lobbied against Reagan in the 70s and 80s. And so people want to return to the past because it feels kind of safe. There's something deeply conservative about that, but you're going to lose because the past, contained the seeds of the present. So if we rewind the clock back to 1999, guess what would happen?

If we left everything the same, we would end up exactly right back here in the same place. So you need to address people's actual concerns. We're not living in the same time as the 1990s. We've had decades of outsourcing our jobs, of getting rid of American manufacturing that has brought with it some economic benefits. There are economic benefits to free trade. There are economic benefits to being the world's global reserve currency. But there are some downsides, too. So it doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it means you have to address those downsides.

And if all we do is ossify ourselves and just turn into Republican chat GOP, where we're just reciting the same slogans of the Reagan campaign and wondering why they're having diminishing marginal returns, you're going to cede the political order to the socialists. You're in your pure fight against socialism, you're, you know, in your own self-conception, purified against socialism, you're going to hasten

the advent of socialism. Very, very important point from the VP. Okay. Now, speaking of the socialists, and a lot of women out there outside that courtroom defending Luigi Mangione after he pled guilty to one of the charges against him for murdering the United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about Pure Talk. We've got to PureTalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. There's certain things worth spending money on. A good suit. prime steak, a well-crafted mattress. Cell phone service? Not quite. Your text message does not arrive more elegantly because you paid 120 bucks for it. I strongly recommend you check out Pure Talk. I've had my Pure Talk phone and service for six years now. It's incredible. It's the best towers. I know you heard

like, oh, it's good towers. No, it's the best towers. It's the best service. It's the best customer service, because they're American and they speak English. You get reliable talk, text, and data without paying an absurd premium for the privilege of sending your family. same memes. Pure Talk is veteran-led, 100% U.S.-based customer service, makes switching super simple. Take five minutes, look at what you're currently paying for in wireless, and prepare to become mildly irritated by your current bill. But don't worry, there's an answer, and the answer is Pure Talk. Go to PureTalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S to make the switch today to Peer Talk. Do it right now. You will not regret it. Go to Pure Talk.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S to start saving.

So Luigi Mangione has pled guilty to a federal charge. He didn't plead guilty to the state charge of murdering Brian Thompson, the United Health Fair CEO. He pled guilty to the federal charge of interstate stalking. The reason he pled guilty to that is to try to get out of the state murder charge because we have a principle in American jurisprudence against double jeopardy about being tried for the same crime twice. It comes from the Fifth Amendment. However, certain states beef up the double jeopardy protections, including New York State, where Luigi Mangione is facing charges. So what the Mangione defense is hoping, I don't think they're going to succeed, but what

they're hoping is, okay, plead guilty to the federal charge, the lesser charge of interstate stalking to try to get out of the tougher charge, which is the state murder charge. Now, you would say, okay, you got all of Mangione's supporters, all these crazy women standing outside the classroom. And you'd think, okay, well, now these pled guilty to one of the charges. Surely they're going to give up, right? Surely they're going to recant of their support for Luigi. Not so. Here's what one of them says.

Do you think it's someone regardless of why he did it? Everyone has a different opinion, and I'm not going to say it was wrong or right, because I do think I exist within a gray area of the opinions around this case, but I see it more as a revolutionary act of protests, the likes of which we haven't seen since the civil rights era. My reactions in court, relief, I guess, is the word. I think for a very long time, people have ascribed this idea that supporters are painting him out to be guilty by having conversations about the healthcare industry. So to no longer have to fight that battle is satisfying and relieving.

He has a lot of battles to fight. I want him to be happy and healthy, but I want America to continue questioning our current predicaments and why we allow our futures to be stolen. way by oligarchs. The online bros who campaign for repeal of the 19th Amendment, they have met their spokeswoman. Here she is. This is it. The face of 19th Amendment repeal. And there are a bunch of women like her outside the courtroom. I was a little tough on the white liberal women early. I can't tell. She's white-ish. I can't quite, maybe has a hint of Persian to her. But I think she passes. She's probably got lighter skin than I do. She says, no, no, no. Just because he pled guilty. No, it doesn't mean I don't support him anymore. And she makes

a point that actually goes deeper than the psychological irritations of unhinged women, she makes a point that actually goes down to leftist philosophy. This isn't just for the women. This is the most ardent revolutionary communist man. Hassan Piker would make the same argument and has made the same argument, which is, no, no, no, I support him because he pled guilty. I support him because he committed the crime. I don't think in my delusions that he's being framed or something. I like that he killed the innocent health care CEO. I like that. That's a revolutionary act of protest. That's not just some frivolous hysterical woman that you can write off. One, those people vote, but two, that is what the leaders of the American left are openly saying.

When Hassan Piker comes out and says, we need to murder Republican senators because they're Republicans, we need the blood to run red with, sorry, we need the streets to run red with, sorry, we need the streets to run red with capitalist blood. America deserve 9-11. When Hassan Piker says that, Hassan Piker, who's campaigning with all these prominent Democrat politicians right now, who is effectively the thought leader of the Democrat Party in the American left, when they say that, they mean it. And it's not, you can't, I don't even think it's unfair to just point to Hassan Piker. We saw this after the murder of Charlie Kirk. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, you saw huge swaths of the Democrat Party justifying and celebrating political violence.

And you saw it. I'm not even saying. Yes, we saw it when the Democrat strategist on TV was blaming Charlie for his own murder before his body was cold. We saw that on MSNBC. Yes, we've seen politicians and activists all justifying, excusing, minimizing the murder of Charlie. But you saw it because that lady who sits next to you at work, she posted about it on Facebook. You saw it because those kids in your classroom, they defended the murder of Charlie. You saw it because you saw it reflected in the public opinion polls that showed that something like 28% of young Democrats, young leftists, justified the murder. That's what we're up against. It's why I lose a little bit of patience with the kind of absurd activist attacks. Mostly J.D. Vance is getting it right now, but the intra-Republican Party firing squad here.

It's why I lose a little patience with it, because people just have totally lost a conception of where the enemy really lies, where the real threat to our way of life really lies. Now, speaking of death, it's kind of a depressing show, isn't it? Well, this one should really make us rethink how we think about ethics more generally. This is a story that occurred months ago, eight or nine months ago. But it's starting to get a little of attention right now. This is from Australia. LifeSight News is reporting on it. And what LifeSight News is reporting, where is it? Here we go. Is that for the first time ever, doctors have harvested a one. woman's organs after they killed her in an assisted suicide. So we have organ harvesting based on the dubious medical concept of brain death, brain death, which is not the same as death. Brain death is a kind of political term that emerged in the 1960s to solve a problem that certain

unethical doctors were contemplating in the 1960s. With the advent of technology that could allow us to transfer organs from one person to another with the widespread use of this technology, there came this question, well, okay, when can we bring the organs to the new person, to the person who needs them? Because once a person dies, the organs very quickly lose their vitality. So the best way to transfer an organ is from a living person, but it would be unethical to harvest the organs from a living person. So what can we do? Okay, well, we'll declare the person dead before the person actually meets the criteria of death. In other words, we'll redefine death.

When it comes to organ harvesting, organ transplants, when it comes to the case of brain death, what actually kills the patients in brain death is not their brains, it's not some natural phenomenon. It is the harvesting of organs. It's when the doctors either pull the plug or when they start to harvest the organs. And there have been really scary stories that have come out of this, people waking up. You know, people who are showing signs of life while their organs are being harvested. A fair bit of evidence that they feel some pain while this is happening. really ghastly stuff that requires a serious ethical review. But you got that on the one hand, the organ harvesting.

Then you have this other just absolutely hellish medical innovation, which is assisted suicide, where doctors who take a Hippocratic oath, first to do no harm, are actually the ones who are helping to kill the patients. This is a complete inversion, a satanic inversion of the medical field. And now it's very widespread. America's evil Top Hack Canada practices it all the time. It's why now 5% plus of Canadians each year die. of a doctor-assisted suicide. So this is combining the two in Australia. I think this was in January.

In Australia, a woman says she's going to kill herself, the justice system, which should prevent her from doing that because it is totally contrary to the natural law. It is totally contrary to civil statutes in all civilized societies. Nevertheless, the government says, okay, we'll help you kill yourself. And then they say, oh, you know what, we need some of those organs. Those organs could be put to good use. They might even have good intentions, but they say, oh, you know what we're going to do?

We're going to kill this person and then harvest our organs and give them to other people. And I think most people realize there's something wrong with this, isn't it? First of all, there's probably a reason this is the first time

that this has ever happened as a matter of policy. And you say, why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before? Oh, because it's obviously evil. Okay, even people who are not particularly religious, who don't care that much about bioethics,

everyone feels a little squeamish about this, right? We just depressed people come into the doctor. Instead of helping the person, we just say, okay, we're going to kill you. And ooh, look at all those good organs. And if you're the doctor here, think about it from their perspective. Think about it with a little sympathy. You say, well, there's no use in letting all these good organs go to waste. We're either going to throw them into the dirt or we're going to help people who are sick who need new organs. So why,

you know, what would be so wrong about harvesting these organs? We don't want them to go to waste anyway. This is, to me, the perfect example of the ghastliness of consequentialist ethics. The kind of ethics that says that the ends justify the means, that good ends justify evil means. Well, look, I mean, yeah, I don't know. Look, I mean, it's probably not good to kill yourself, but look, it's liberal society. This is liberalism.

You get to do what you want to do. Consent is the only thing that matters. All that we aim at is maximizing individual autonomy. So if you want to kill yourself, by golly, that's your right. That's your natural right to kill yourself. Of course, it's not. That would be totally contrary to anything serious natural law theorists. the developers of natural rights and philosophy,

the framers of the Constitution, any serious person would ever think. There's no natural right to kill yourself. They say, well, look, liberalism tells us autonomy is all the matter, so you're going to kill yourself. And that's kind of, maybe we say that's bad, but can't legislate morality, except all the time because we necessarily legislate morality.

But in this case, we're going to go hands off, we're going to pretend to be neutral, and, oh, you know what? Some good can come out of that evil. And maybe even we're going to start committing evil. You know, these old people who, they don't have much longer to live anyway, these sick people, these depressed people who were just a leach on society, these mentally deficient people, these disabled people, you know what, they're not living great lives. From my perspective, they're not living great life. The guy, he's missing a limb, you know, that guy, he's got a little touch of dementia. That is, his life isn't really worth it. You know, his organs would be put to much better use in the body of that young person who got into a car accident. So you know what we're going to do? We're going to maybe encourage you a little bit to kill yourself. We're going to help you kill yourself. We're going to help you kill your. yourself. Then we're going to take your organs and put it into someone who we deem more worthy of them. You see how that works. So what is the answer to that? What the leftists say and what some of the

confused people on the right would say is, well, we just need more regulations around this. Well, you know, we just need to make sure there are guardrails. There never are guardrails. Look at how assisted suicide has worked in Europe. It started out with, it's only going to be the very eldest people in the most pain with seconds to live. We're going to give them a little extra morphine. Now they're killing young people who are simple. depressed, they're killing elderly people against their will, having to hold them down while they kill them in the Netherlands. It's a horrible case in Belgium. The slippery slope, you just slip down that slope immediately. So what's the answer? The answer is you need a different ethical system.

This consequentialist idea, which you see in utilitarianism, which you see in just trying to calculate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, forgetting about the actual morality of any actions or the moral character of the people who perform the actions. That has failed. That has led us to this. We're not going to rewind the clock 30 years and fix all the problems because the seeds of this destruction were already present 30 years ago. Frankly, the seeds of this destruction were present 200 years ago. What is necessary is a re-examination of our moral calculus. It relates exactly what J.D. Vance is talking about in economics. We don't want to rewind the clock, we don't want to give up and adopt the opinions of our opponents, God forbid. We just want to

recognize, we may have made some mistakes here. It's fallen world. We all make mistakes. And we need to correct those mistakes. And in this case, the mistake is assisted suicide, to some degree, organ harvesting, there you have to really, really draw a firm line on what the ethical, what the line of transgression would be. It's not just putting up guardrails. It's actually determining what is death? How do we protect life? Which leads into all sorts of other questions like abortion, which leads into IVF because IVF almost always entails abortion. It requires a total revolution in ethical thought. And ultimately, it probably means returning to some of the wisdom of the past. There's a lot of talk right now in the American right about this horrible idea of post-liberalism or, you know, return.

What that really means is a return to the classical political tradition. What it ultimately means is just saying like, huh, maybe Aristotle had a point. Maybe Aristotle Cicero, maybe Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, maybe the founding fathers and the framers, to a large degree, had a point and we shouldn't have thrown out all of their wisdom. Well, what's the alternative? The alternative is you're going to keep getting this. Get ready for granny to get her organs harvested. Get ready for your cousin to get her organs harvested if she feels a little depressed. Okay.

Now, speaking of violence, I do want to get back to Hassan Piker because the left, the left, is doubling down on its support of Hassan Piker, and I couldn't be happier about it. First, though, do Catholics worship, Mary? Does the church believe that the Old Testament prophets were frauds? Could God make a burrito so expensive that even he couldn't afford it? Almost always, going to X for those answers is a bad idea.

Unless you were discussing those questions with his eminence, Cardinal Burke, one of the great men of the church, over a 15-year-old scotch. Now, coincidentally, that's exactly what we did in the latest episode of Off the Clock. Real posts from X, your actual questions answered by one of the most important leaders in the Catholic Church. Check out this teaser.

Could God make a burrito so expensive that he could not buy it? I think there actually is a serious theological question hidden in there. They said, can God make a square circle? Well, it's ridiculous question. A circle is a circle and a square is a square. God doesn't contradict himself. See, this is evidence as to why I want to ask my questions instead of taking them from Twitter. from internet trolls to serious theological questions from people like ruslan kd cardinal burke responds to a wide

range of questions alongside michael knolls watch full episode now on the michael knolls youtube channel my favorite comment yesterday is from hard-boiled entertainment the fact that jd vance has anticipated aOC being the democrat candidate should tell us he's preparing to face her properly yeah i hope that's what it means i suspect that is what it means i was actually i was really impressed with vance's call on the aOC thing because i was surprised i thought he when i asked you when i asked Vance, who do you think the leading Canada is? I thought he'd say Gavin Newsom or somebody. When he said AOC, I said, are you sure? I don't know about it. I don't know if that's true. Are you, is that a little too online? Is that, and then sure enough, within a couple weeks,

you see polls come out, AOC was leading the pack. It was impressive. Sure is a guy's got a pretty good political gut, which I guess you would expect as a guy who came from absolutely nothing and then rose up the ranks and made a huge name for himself, became a U.S. Senator and the Vice President. Yeah, you'd expect that he'd have a pretty good political gut. But the AOC call was an impressive one. Okay. Hassan Piker, getting back to Asan Piker. Hassan Piker is this left-wing, very, very radical provocateur who is called for violence against conservatives repeatedly.

Instead, America deserves 9-11. Now, he has been, he's campaigned with Democrat candidates, and he has been identified as one of the real leaders of the Democrat Party, perhaps the the thought leader on the Democrat side. Now, if I were a Democrat consultant, what I would do, as Republicans are making that accusation. What I would do is say, no way, that's ridiculous. You guys are making a boogeyman. We don't care that much about Hassan Piker. He's an edgy streamer.

We don't, he's got his little place in the entertainment field, but he's not really helping to lead the party. You guys are attacking a straw man. But that's not what the Democrats are doing. They're embracing him. Mamdani embraces him. Abdul al-Saiad embraces him. All of these candidates.

AOC embrace it. They all embrace him. Now you have Medi Hassan, my former debate opponent from Dartmouth. If you want to check out that debate, it's on, I think it's on the Dartmouth Political Union YouTube page. Medi is the author of a book. I think the title is How to Win Every Debate or something like that. And so you can check out our debate from Dartmouth, which you might recall I did win. They scored it, you know, at the end. Anyway, no, there's no reason to bring that up. I just point, I did, I did in fact win the debate against the guy who wrote the book about how to win every debate. But anyway, Medi Hassan. You know, he's had a TV show.

He's a prominent voice on the left. Medi's son brings Hassan... There are a lot of Hassan's on the left these days. Medi Hassan brings Hassan Piker onto his show not to create distance between the mainstream Democrats and Hassan Piker, but to launder Hassan Piker's views. Classic one they throw at you. America deserved 9-11.

You've withdrawn that comment, I believe. Yeah, I said it in 2019. and, you know, if you listen to the full conversation, you very quickly understand what I'm talking about. You're talking about foreign policy blowback. Yeah, we're talking about foreign policy blowback. But you could have phrased it better because it sounds like you're saying people deserve to die. Of course.

We don't believe that. Again, in 2019, and then immediately I'm, you know, all over Fox News and getting, you know, an unbelievable amount of death threats. I'm a big boy, I can handle it. It is what it is. But I, you know, went on the young Turks and famously was like, I should have phrased things better. I apologize for those who I've offended.

And I'm most importantly apologized for giving an opportunity of the right to just like use this against me. This is a seven-year-old clip that you've already explained disowned. I have the same issue. There clips are me that I've had to talk about. Yeah.

Oh, my goodness. It couldn't be a worse response. Good for us, but it couldn't be a worse response from the left. Medea son brings him. Medellon, who, you know, he's an educated guy. He's a well-spoken guy. He's pretty radical, but he's, I don't know,

he is mainstream. by the standards of the left. I guess so is Sasan Piker. So he brings him on. He says, now, come on. You just said, I know it's this old clip. There's no evidence you've changed your views, but it's an old clip where you say America deserve 9-11. Now, come on. I mean, what'd you really mean by that? And what does Sassan Piker say? He says, I meant America deserve 9-11. That's what I meant. I mean, yeah, maybe I shouldn't have said it that way, but the only reason I shouldn't have said it that way is because it gave an opening for the right to attack me. He doesn't say I shouldn't have said it because it was wrong to say. I didn't, I shouldn't have said it because America doesn't deserve 9-11.

No, no, I shouldn't have said it because I was being too honest. I let the right attack me. And then his interlocutor, the much more moderate mainstream media son says, yeah, yeah, you're right. Yeah, you probably shouldn't have said it that. I did give an opening. Oh, wait, anyway, never mind. The party that we are running against in the midterms, the party of the mainstream nominees and the candidates and all that is happy that. That's, that, 3,000 American civilians were murdered by Muslim terrorists. They're happy about it. That's not an exaggeration.

As long as Hassam Piker doesn't recant his views. By the way, he doubled down on his views like a month ago. Remember this like a month ago, Hassan Piker goes on his show and says he's just framed a newspaper cover of the day after 9-11. Also, you might have noticed something, some changes behind me. I finally framed the QD Cinderella newspaper from 9-11 the morning of 9-12, the newspaper right there. The newspaper that covered 9-11, it's now officially sitting behind me, and I moved the North Korean poster up in place of the fan art. We're celebrating 9-11 on my show.

That's what he's saying. He's saying, yeah, yeah, I'm so, I got, you got a lot of fan art here. I love North Korea. I got my North Korea poster. And you know what else? You know what else I love? You know what else I think was awesome? 9-11. That was a month ago. And the Democrats keep campaigning with him. So the people we're running against. Whatever your quibbles about, I don't like tariffs that much. And I think they should only be implemented sometimes. And I don't, I don't know. I think we need to give more support overseas for four. foreign interventions or I need a little bit less or I need your domestic political opponents are happy about 9-11. Can you get it together? Can you focus? Can we, sorry, it's not you. I mean, I'm preaching to the choir, but can we focus? Can we get it together? That's what, that's what we're up against. We want to murder, we want to murder Republican senators. We are going to cheer when your activists are murdered for having open exchanges on college campus and were thrilled that thousands of Americans were killed by terrorists on 9-11. That's what they're openly saying.

And their views, the views of those honest leftists are being accepted, kind of chuckled at by all the other ones. Okay. There's so much more I want to get to. Zohran Mamdani was just babbling in Chinese. The left is having another complete freak out over Trump's ballroom. They really hate the ballroom, but they don't even understand what the ballroom is. It's Music Monday, though. The rest of the show continues now.

You do not want to miss it become a member use code Null's Canada, WLEAS, to check out for two months free on all annual plans.