The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 744 - The Euphemism Treadmill

Episode Date: April 16, 2021

Dems try to pack the Court, scientists create human hybrids to harvest for organs, and vaccine confidence plummets. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court. Packing the court is when you increase the number of judges on the court. And to justify their calls to pack the Supreme Court, often explicit calls to pack the Supreme Court, they accused Republicans of packing the Supreme Court. And they did this by redefining the term packing the court to mean just replacing the judges when vacancies come up on the court instead of adding to the number of judges on the court. So that was the old strategy. Now though they've gone even further, while they are trying to pack the court, They are now saying that they are not only not packing the court, but they are in fact unpacking the court. Some people will say we're packing the court. We're not packing it. We're unpacking it, says Jerry Nadler. Yeah, come on, up is down. Come on, Truis Falls. Left is right, east is west. Come on. Democrats, yet again, attempting to redefine reality by redefining all the words. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment yesterday from hefty jongle. something tells me that's not his Christian name, who says,

the new most dangerous game is taking a shot every time Knowles plugs his book, at least my Friday nights would become extra entertaining. That is a very, very scary game because one imagines that not too long into my show, you would have taken so many shots that that would have rendered you speechless, which, by the way, is the name of my new. I can't even get through it. Available now for pre-order, You know, if you do play the Knowles book drinking game, the pre-order drinking game, and you are absolutely wrecked because of how many times I've plugged my upcoming book, you know what's going to make you feel better the next day? Liquid IV. When you push your body hard or you just feel run down, it's very important to stay hydrated with one stick of liquid IV in 60 ounces of water. You will get two to three times the amount of hydration as plain water. Contains five essential vitamins, more vitamin C than in orange and as much potassium as you.

a banana. Healthyer than sugary sports drinks, no artificial flavors or preservatives, and less sugar than an apple. This is really helpful. I never prioritized getting enough water, getting enough hydration, which is how I got my under eyebags. Now, I know that some people, some good people who exercise and work out and stuff like that, they love liquid IV because it helps hydrate them after a workout. If you're like me, maybe you have a couple adult beverages with the boys and the next morning feels a little better thanks to liquid IV, which you can grab in bulk nationwide at Costco, or you can get 25% off when you go to Liquidiv.com and use code Michael at checkout. That is 25% off anything you order when you get better hydration

today using promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, at LiquidI-V.com. The left always does this sort of thing. This is probably their most consistent strategy, which is to redefine reality or attempt to redefine reality by redefining all the words. That's basically the definition of political correctness. And they're doing that here with court packing. However, there is a little glimmer of hope for those of us who want to keep some semblance of our constitutional republic. Namely, Nancy Pelosi is not gung-ho about bringing this court-packing bill to the floor. I support the president's commission to study such a proposal.

But frankly, I'm not, right now, we're back. Our members, our committees are working, we're building the infrastructure bill and the rest. I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered, and I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step. It's not out of the question. It has been done before in the history of our country a long time ago. And the growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy, et cetera, might necessitate such a thing.

But in answer to your question, I have no plans to bring it to the floor. No plans to bring it to the floor. This is a little bit of a side note. I don't like watching people talk when they've got a mask on. It makes them look like cartoon villains. It makes them look like banditoes. It's weird. It's creepy.

I don't like it. And she shouldn't be doing that. However, all of that said, I am pleased to see that Nancy Pelosi is now really only trying to use court packing as a bargaining chip, but she is suggesting. She is implying here that she does not actually want to pack the Supreme Court. The fact that this is so popular on the left, though, and among Democrats is just exhibit Z. I don't know, exhibit Z times 50 of the disingenuousness that you hear from Democrats when they accuse Trump of upending constitutional norms. threatening our democracy because he sent a tweet or something or whatever, said something that he didn't even say that the Democrats pretended he said.

The Democratic Party is trying to force in new states to give them a permanent majority. The Democrats are trying to turn the District of Columbia, the federal district that is never supposed to be a state. By definition, it is not supposed to be a state trying to turn it into a state. And they're trying to pack the Supreme Court. So I just don't want to hear it. I never want to hear another word about Donald Trump and the constitutional norms, The left doesn't actually care about constitutional norms because the left hates the Constitution.

And so they're trying to upend all of society and not just our foundational legal document, the Constitution, but all of it. All the institutions, all the traditions, that is the plan of the cultural radicals. And conservatives are playing a fool's game when they try to win the debate by showing the illogic of the left's plans. There is no logic here. If Jerry Nadler can walk on TV and say, we're not going to pack the court, we're going to unpack the court. anyway, yeah, we're going to do what we want. We're going to grab power and we're going to grab money and that's just the way it is. This is not just happening at the level of elected office. This is happening throughout the culture. The Associated Press, which has long, not only given

into political correctness and woke language, but has in some ways led the charge in the past, they are now banning the people who follow the AP guidelines from using the term mistress. Well, it's a mistress. A mistress is a lady who's sleeping with a married man, right? No, no longer. The AP style book says, quote, don't use the term mistress for a woman who's in a long-term sexual relationship with and is financially supported by a man who is married to someone else. Instead, use an alternative like companion, friend, or lover on first reference and provide additional details later. Now, you see the problem with a friend, say. I am friends with Andrew Claven. And Andrew Claven is a married man. I do not want there to be any confusion about the nature of our relationship. So you've got these very vague words, friend, companion. They really, they don't tell you anything. Then you've got a more specific word lover, but they're all sorts of lovers. People can have lovers in a perfectly above board way, or at least relatively above board way. But when you're sleeping with a married man, that's not

above board. That's wrong. That's sinful. You shouldn't be doing that sort of thing. But we're not allowed to use the term mistress. Whatever term you end up using is going to acquire negative connotations. This is called the euphemism treadmill Stephen Pinker, who is no conservative, but he's a Harvard professor. He pointed this out a number of years ago now. The idea of the euphemism treadmill is that radicals want to deny harsh realities, so they sugarcoat them with euphemisms. However, over time, the realities remain. And so the realities, because they continue to assert themselves, will recolor the euphemism that people add to it.

So whatever word you're going to make up for mistress, it's going to take on a negative connotation. This is true for people who have mental deficiencies. initially, terms like simpleton or idiot or moron were, or retard for that matter, were, you might say euphemistic. They were terms that were trying to describe in a way that was relatively polite and inoffensive this deficiency. But because the deficiency is not particularly desirable, by definition, it's a deficiency,

over time it takes on a negative connotation. And so rather than just trying to be compassionate to people who have not just mental deficiencies, but all sorts of deficiencies, and we've all got something, instead, what these linguistic verbal hygienists want to do, these cultural radicals want to do, is just come up with a new term and they think that's going to change the underlying reality. It doesn't really happen. And I don't want to just straw man the AP's argument here. The AP goes a little bit further. They say, quote, we added this guidance last year. It's not new. We understand. And it's problematic that the alternative terms fall short, like suggesting that if I am friends with

Andrew Claven, that implies something that nobody wants to think about. But they write, we felt that was better than having one word for a woman and none for the man and implying that the woman was solely responsible for the affair. Well, it doesn't imply that the woman is solely responsible for the affair. There are all sorts of terms for a man who cheats on his wife with some woman. You call him a cad, you can call them an adulterer, you can call them a womanizer. I said, plenty of terms for that. But you're right, it's not the same term. It's different. You wouldn't call a man who's in a similar kind of relationship a mistress. But the words are different, not because of the unfairness of our language and the patriarchy. The words are different because the sexes are

different. And the sexes are very different in this regard. Very rarely are you going to find a man who is a kept man from an older woman. You know, he's pursuing this older woman who's got a family, but she's cheating on her husband with this younger man and it's an illicit relationship. But, you know, she keeps them up in a nice apartment or something like that. That's just not how it works. Men and women have different relationships to sex. Their sexual desires are of a different character. The significance of sex to them is of a different nature. The things that men would do if they were not hemmed in by the moral order and our marital vows sexually are different than the behaviors that women would engage in. Feminism seeks to deny this. Leftism broadly seeks to deny

this because they cannot stand the difference between men and women. It's why they're so obsessed now with redefining men to become women and women to become men and defining sex as a social construct. But there actually is a difference. And that's why there are different words. And you can try to change the words, but it's just not going to change that reality. I'll give you an example of trying to sugarcoat evil with sweet and soft words. NPR is just reporting this right now. For the first time, U.S. and Chinese scientists have created embryos that are part human, part monkey,

in an effort to find new ways to produce organs for transplants. But some ethicists worry about how such research could go wrong. Gee, you don't say, some ethicists are worried. Even here, what is this? Scientists have created, so it's the scientists have created it, right? Even though it's, one imagines these scientists are backed by not just national political cooperation, but international political cooperation. They've created embryos. What's an embryo? An embryo is a human. It's a person. They're part human, but part monkey, and they're just doing it to try to find new ways to produce organs for transplants. In plain English, what that says is that these Chinese and U.S. scientists, obviously with political support, are creating human hybrids, breeding them, so that they can kill them and harvest them for organs,

so that those of us who are currently older, who have survived birth, can live maybe a little bit longer. scientists are now trying to create a human hybrid, specifically for the purpose of sacrificing that creature, so that we can eke out a little bit longer in this life, so we can steal their organs and put them in our own bodies and live a little bit longer. The ethical concerns, I don't think, are that the research will go wrong. I think it's gone pretty wrong already. People are just not aware, they don't have perspective. If you want perspective on the outside of your home, though, you've got to check out Ring. So much is going on at our front doors these days. That is one thing that has not changed for me. It's gotten even crazier. You know, my cute little bundle of joy,

a lot more people coming at the door. You got the people dropping off food. You got the people dropping off the toys and the clothing. And you got the in-laws, too. So sometimes you're going to open that door. Sometimes you're going to close it. It really helps to know who's out there, which you can do with Ring. Ring will allow you to see and speak to whoever is outside. your door, whether you are in the living room, or maybe you're in your bedroom, maybe you're at the office, or maybe you're on a beach in Tahiti. Doesn't matter where you are. By the way, even if the person doesn't ring the bell, motion detection means that you will be notified. You can see what's going on wherever you are. Really makes me feel safe when I'm on the road, you know,

knowing that sweet little Elise and cute little June will be able to know who is outside that door before they open that door. Makes a great house-forming gift too, especially because it's not that expensive. So great gift. Don't have to spend a lot of money. Right now, get a special offer. on the Ring Welcome Kit at Ring.com slash Knowles. Comes with Rings Video Doorbell 3 and Chime Pro, the perfect way to upgrade your front door and start your ring experience. Go to ring.com slash Knowles, K&WLAS.

Ring.com slash Knowles. These scientists in the U.S. and China, this is being reported by NPR. It's not like it's some fringe website that pushes conspiracy theories on the internet. Actually, I guess it's NPR, so it is a sort of fringe website that pushes conspiracy theories.

But they consider themselves mainstream. They're backed up by taxpayer dollars. and the liberal establishment. And they're trying to present this idea that we're going to breed sort of semi-humans and harvest their organs for ourselves. They're trying to say this is a good thing. It's a wonderful thing. You know, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University and Harvard,

in Su Yunn says, quote, I don't see this type of research being ethically problematic. It's aimed at lofty humanitarian goals. goals. Well, there it is. Breeding a race of semi-people to kill them and take their organs, but it's for the purpose of helping old rich people today live a little longer. Isn't that, come on, that's great. That's a lofty humanitarian goal. Reminds us that the religion of humanitarianism is a very wicked religion indeed, because what it tries to do is divorce. It tries to keep some of Christianity but without Christianity, and it ultimately turns our attention away from

God toward just ourselves, and it leads to a radical sort of selfishness in the guise of this really moral, compassionate language like you see here. There is nothing, I cannot imagine a single more selfish thing than breeding people to steal their organs, or breeding half people, or creating a new race that is somewhat human just for yourself. We used to recognize in this culture that death comes for us all and that there are some things that are worse than death. I've talked now for over a year about the neurotic hysteria that people have descended into during COVID because it seems they're just waking up to the fact that they could die.

the way, the COVID death rate is pretty low. But even that is freaking people out and causing us to upend our society because people don't want to confront the fact of death. They want to push it to the side. They want to deny it. They want to avert it altogether if they can, which is a fool's errand. They don't believe in eternal things. They don't believe that there can be a life after death. They think, gosh, you know, all those stories about Christianity, those are fairy tales. How could anyone with two brain cells to rub together, believe in that. Go, you know, all those idiots like, I don't know, Thomas Aquinas or all those really dumb-dums like Pope Benedict the 16th or, you know, Isaac Newton, or I don't know, all the smartest people ever who have ever lived. You know, those guys,

they believe in crazy, crazy, ridiculous stuff. And so we, because we're rational, because we're scientific, because we understand what's right, we are going to create monkey human hybrids to to steal all their organs and put them in our own bodies to live a little bit longer. Something went wrong there. We need to turn, not to these experts who are obviously ethically idiotic. Is that the politically correct term? What term am I supposed to? They're simpletons.

I don't know what term I'm supposed to use. We should turn to people in the culture like this UFC fighter, whom I had never heard of before because I don't really follow the sport, but she is great and she's much smarter than any of these of these. experts around us. Rose Namahunas. Is that a Namajunas? Namajunas? I don't know. She made this point in an interview that for her, she would rather be dead than red. I have, I have a lot to fight for in this fight and what she represents. And, you know, I was just, I was just kind of reminding myself of, you know, all the, my background and everywhere that I come from and my family and everything like that.

And we watched them. And I kind of wanted to educate my training partner, Chico Kameis, on the Lithuanian struggle and like just the history of it all. And so we watched the other dream team just to kind of get like an overall sentiment of what we fight for. And so just the after watching that, it was just a huge reminder of like, yeah, it's better, better dead than red, you know? And I think, um, I don't think it's any coincidence that Waley is red. You know, she's, uh, that's what she represents. It's nothing personal against her. But, um, that's a huge motivating factor of why I fight and I fight for freedom. So this fighter, she goes on, it's very eloquent. She, I guess this other fighter that she's referring to is some sort of pinko. And she says,

look, we have, we actually have different values here. I would rather be dead than red. Yes. That, that's not just jingoist slogans that Americans used to recite during the Cold War. That is a moral truth. I would rather be dead than red. This goes right back to the Bible when Christ says, do not fear those who can destroy your body, but fear him who can destroy your body and your soul in hell. You should not only be worried about your physical safety. That will that will deprive you of your dignity and you're going to end up, well, I guess we're living in a moment when people are denying human dignity more broadly by creating little hybrids in laboratories and by trying to compost humans as we are discussing yesterday on the show. But I still believe

that humans have dignity. I still think we have a rational soul, we have an intellect and a will and that we're made in the image of God. I believe all of that. And so if I were forced into to a political system that demanded, they told me you need to embrace a radical atheist, materialist system called communism, or we're going to kill you. It wouldn't take me two seconds. Say, oh, kill me. I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid of death. I don't want to suffer. I'm not exactly happy about pain. I don't want to endure that. But death itself, no, I'd like to extend my life reasonably. But, you know, I'd like to like to, like, to live a good life in accordance with Providence. But I know, ultimately, I'm going to die.

And so I don't fear that. I want to just make sure that I'm in a good position when I die. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for researchers to be trying to figure out ways to improve human health. But there is a big difference between researching ways to improve human health and creating and destroying human-like creatures, semi-human creatures, for the purpose of living, by their death. That is an inversion of, well, it's an inversion of Christianity. It's an inversion of the religion that is traditionally built our civilization. And it's an inversion of all the lines that we talk about,

about how we need to be progressive and selfless and open. And yeah, it's all bunk. It's all total bunk. Speaking of Reds, by the way, CNN, this poor schlob, this technical director from CNN who got caught on James O'Keefe's sting operation. O'Keefe has released a new video in which the CNN technical director explains that CNN wants to help BLM. I was trying to do some Lisa trying to like Asian hate like the people are getting attacked over them.

A bunch of people. I meant that I've been attacking Asian. So I'm like, what are doing? Like, we're trying to like help like with the BLM and like, you're going to like, I mean, it's individual. It's not a people, you know? That's not good. The optics of that, I don't know. These little things like that are enough to set back movements, you know.

Because the far left will start to latch on and create a story of, like, criminalizing an entire people, you know, just easier, easier headlines out, right, I guess. It's easier, it's easier headline. They just want to help the LM. That's all they're trying to do. Sometimes the reality is contradicting the BLM narrative. And it's just really frustrating if you're a reporter at CNN because then, you know, there is a lot of pressure for you to report the news. But you're not there to report the news.

You're there to push a narrative that is not in accordance with reality. And gosh, that's really frustrating. I kind of feel bad for this guy because I think he thought he was just impressing some chick on a date. And instead he's just spilling secrets that are now, well, they are depicting, I think, the reality. Speaking of BLM, too, I have to get back to this. story that we've talked about the last couple days. There's more development on it. You know that the BLM founder, Patrice Cullors, has been buying up lots of super fancy houses. They've renamed BLM

by large mansions. So she came out, she denied it. She said, I'm not taking money unfairly out of BLM. And then the New York City BLM chapter said, hey, well, hold on. What are you guys doing? At least give us a cut, as I think the implication. But hey, this seems like it's not totally above board. Well, now we figure out has she got her money. According to the Daily Caller, A Los Angeles jail reform organization paid Janaya and Patrice Consulting, I guess this is a firm that Patrice Cullors owns, paid her $20,000 a month while she served as the chairwoman of the, it's a ridiculous term in itself, while she served as the chairman of the jail reform group. This consulting firm received a total of $191,000 over the course of 2019 via payments from reform L.A. jails. that's just one organization paying them huge amounts of money. How many other organizations was Patrice Cullors on the take from in extortion efforts?

So she can't say, no, I wasn't taking the money from the BLM organization. I don't take a penny from them. I just shake down all the companies on my own through my consulting firm, so I don't even need to go through BLM. Man, oh man, is that woman crafty. I need to plan a similar kind of strategy. and if I'm really going to sit there and try to strategize and work this out, I know I'm going to want to be in an X chair. X chair has you covered for your office chair needs. The secret is not only their patented dynamic variable lumbar support, which offers incredible lumbar support. I really like that for the lower back. But now, thanks to their new XHMT technology, you can also get heat and massage therapy while you are sitting at your desk. You know, that sort of thing. If you were getting massages, and stuff like that at your desk, and that could get you in trouble. But now with the X

chair, it's totally cool. It's totally above board. I did not know that shares could be this sophisticated, this fancy, really amazing stuff. The X chair is on sale right now for $100 off. Go to Xchairnoles.com right now. That is letter X, chair, KNAWLAS.com, or call 1-8444X X-Chair. X-Chair has a 30-day guarantee of complete comfort. You can finance your purchase for as little as 30 bucks a month, go to X-Chairnoles.com right now. Use code X-wheels for free X-wheelblade casters. X-chairnoles.com. So, BLM is now, we're now beginning to find out how these radicals are making their money. The way they're doing it is they fundraise for the organization, which is just the militant wing of the Democrat Party. But then these founders of BLM, like Patrice

colors are buying up all these zillion-dollar homes, it seems, because they're shaken down all the other shell organizations on their own, through their own political consulting firm. What consulting is this woman giving? It's just an extortion front, which a lot of race hustlers have done over the years. This is nothing new. Al Sharpton used to do the same thing. This woman just seems to have gotten more efficient about it. And I can't blame her. I blame her because her goals are evil and bad and because she's contributing to the destruction of the country that I love. So I blame her for that. But just from a pure political operations standpoint, I give her a lot of credit. I wish conservatives knew how to do this sort of thing.

I wish Republicans knew how to behave in this sort of way. What she is doing, what she has recognized, first of all, is that big politics attracts big money. And both of those sorts of things will give you a lot of influence. And she's just practicing that. And she is amassing for herself a lot of money and a lot of political influence. and then she is exercising that influence, not just to buy yourself nice swimming pools or whatever, because she's doing that too, but to advance her political agenda. If only conservatives could do that. I'm not saying conservatives should be immoral in any way or that we should violate any of the moral order. But I wish that we understood what political power is and how to exercise it because the left is much, much better at it and they're very, very effective.

Speaking of political campaigns, hitting a little bit of a snafu, the confidence in the coronavirus vaccine is plummeting right now. This according to an economist, UGov poll. So you know that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine went on pause because there was apparently a blood clotting issue in certain rare cases. It was killing people. So among those surveyed before the announcement of the Johnson and Johnson pause, 52% of respondents said that the vaccine was very safe or somewhat safe, a twice number of people who believed it was very unsafe or somewhat unsafe. After the announcement about Johnson and Johnson came out, those figures seem to change quite a bit. Only 37% of the respondents felt the vaccine was safe and 39% felt

that the vaccine was unsafe. And it's not just the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Blood clot deaths related to the vaccine have apparently been reported in Italy and Denmark from AstraZeneca. and Denmark has now removed the Astrozenica vaccine. I mentioned this a little bit on the show yesterday. I think it bears reiterating. I'm not saying that the vaccine is totally unsafe. I'm not saying that you are likely to get a blood clot if you take the vaccine. I'm not saying that under no circumstance would I take the vaccine.

What I am saying is there is a prudential risk calculation whenever you're getting any sort of medical procedure. And the public health eggheads, the liars in last, lab coats, such as Dr. Fauci, but all the other people that Dr. Fauci represents, he's just the high pontiff in the church of secular progressivism, when they told us no risk whatsoever, everyone's got to get the vaccine, don't calculate your actual risk from the virus, just go get it, get it, get it, you have to get it, you have to get it, there's no risk whatsoever. They were obviously lying to you because there is always a risk. It might be a small risk, but there are risks. And by the way, I think the reaction to it, the pause on the vaccines, I think we can blame the

same public health eggheads who have been misleading us, and in some cases lying to us over the past year, because their credibility is completely shot. So when people, when whatever it is, 39% of people say they think the vaccines are unsafe, I can't blame them. But Michael, only seven people got the blood clot issue out of a seven million vaccinated. Okay, fine. I just wish that the public health experts had been more forthright from the beginning, because then we wouldn't have this problem of credibility, would we? Then people could exercise prudence, which is a virtue you're not allowed to talk about anymore, but it is a core conservative virtue. The radicals seem to be running the show. It's not just these radicals running through the streets burning down the cities,

them too, but they seem to be in positions of serious power in the Biden administration. Kristen Clark, who we sounded the alarm on months ago when her name was floated for the Biden administration, she is up for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. She's supposed to lead that division. It's a very powerful division. I talk about her actually a great length in my upcoming book, Speechless Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, available now for pre-order, by the way. This woman is a radicals radical. She published an article at Harvard in the Harvard Crimson about how black people are superior to white people because of the melanin in their skin. The same kooky theories that Nick Cannon, the actor, was spouting off on some months ago. The same

kooky theories that Professor Jeffries, famously this crazy professor in New York was spouting off on years and years ago, this woman was pushing the same stuff and she's up for a leadership role in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. Senator Cruz absolutely wrecking this woman during her testimony. Your advocacy and in frankly extreme position on defunding the police is paired with a history of not only excusing, but celebrating murderers who have murdered police officers. It's been reported that during law school, you helped organize a conference with speakers who referred to convicted cop killers as political prisoners. Did you organize the conference, and do you support celebrating those who murder police officers

as heroes and political prisoners. I was a student providing logistical support to a notable historian who was the one who organized that conference. So if there's a police officer in Philadelphia, New Jersey today, watching this hearing, how are they supposed to react to your nomination to one of the senior positions of the Department of Justice knowing that as a student,

you participated in a conference celebrating and lionizing cop killers. No, well, it goes on. You should take a listen to the whole exchange. This woman basically denying that she said what she said. This woman said, no, no, forget the headlines that have been written on my articles. Forget what I've written in articles. No, no, I don't believe that.

No, no, like Jerry Nadler says, we're not trying to pack the court. We're going to unpack the court. What? What are you talking? You can't just use your words to contradict reality. perfectly contradict reality, and then hope that on the strength of your redefinition and your euphemisms, you will actually create the word anew. I don't care how narcissistic, how prideful you are. You ain't going to succeed at that. The left keeps doing it. Shank Yugar, big left winger.

He tweeted out the other day, now people are saying they won't travel to red states because it's a danger to be around conservatives. Nearly half of Republicans say they won't take the vaccine. It's literally hazardous to your health to be around this death cult. Their ignorance has reached a clinical level. I think he's suggesting here that because conservatives, just by being who they are, are a health threat that that would justify a public health response. What does that mean? It can get pretty dark there. I love, too, that people who have been living in the neurotic fear of death, like inside their own homes, afraid of the woo flu for a year, call the rest of us a death cult. But he's also just wrong on the numbers. By raw count, six out of the top 10 states right now

for COVID cases are Democrat-run states. They're not Republican-run states, 60%. And then if you look at the seven-day case rate per 100,000 people in the population, the top 10 states are all run by Democrats every single one. So even just on the pure facts, the data, the science, what's going on in reality, Democrats case does not, it completely falls apart. But the left, like Jenk, like this woman, Kristen Clark, like Jerry Nadler, they believe that they can change the reality. with their very words. Don't let them do that. You've got to listen to the best words, folks. If you want some great words, check out Candace's show tonight. Streams at 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central at dailywire.com, but you can get the audio podcast,

Candace, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Obviously, Candice Owens, a great friend of mine, a really terrific voice in the conservative movement. We really need you to go over there. Subscribe, leave a five-star review for Candice, the podcast. Not because she needs the listens or anything like that. Obviously, the show's doing great. But mostly because if it does really well in the ratings and everything, then I think we get to all rename our shows. So I can just be Michael. I've always more or less wanted to be share. So, you know, if I just get that one name, that would really be great. Go check it out. We'll be right back with the mailbag.

Welcome back to the mailbag. First question from William who writes, Hey, Michael. You denounced the idea of composting your remains as debasing or savaging the decorum of the station we as God's chosen creation hold. I understand the point you were making, but I disagree. When I saw the possibility of being composted in the future, I immediately told my wife, that is what I wanted if it was available. Those close enough to me to be concerned with my physical remains have a saving relationship with their creator, and I can think of no greater use or service for my physical remains than to feed my children's tomato plants and my creator's world. Did you have a deeper theological objection to this practice, or was it simply

that you personally think it debases God's creation. Well, my personal opinion is based on my theological views, but there's a more practical consideration, namely, your kids don't want to eat you in a tomato, my friend. I see the impulse of what you're saying, well, we'll all be part of creation. But I fear that that has more to do with the modernist pseudo-religion of environmentalism or Gaia, the idea that we're all just going to be part of the world, man. You are more than worm food, my friend. You are more than a tomato. You have a special place in creation. You are made in the image of God.

You have base appetites. You have aspects of you that are kind of animalistic that make you in some ways like the human monkey hybrid that the psychopaths in lab coats are currently creating. But you also have a higher rational will and intellect which mediates between your base animal nature and the divine will. And hopefully, as you practice the virtues and grow in sanctity and holiness, you can, You can focus more on that one and less on the bottom one. But you are not a tomato and you should not be a tomato. And we all have a natural repugnance, I think, at this. When you think about the reality of it, you might have a sort of rationalist ethereal out in the pie in the sky idea of what that would be like and why it's so nice. But if someone served you, your daddy in a tomato, something tells me you would not want to eat it. And there is a great wisdom in that repugnance. Not the least of which, because if you're Christian, the traditional Christian, the traditional Christian expectation is that we look forward to the resurrection of the body in the life of the world to come. Does this mean that your body needs to remain perfectly incorrupt for all of history and if it starts to decay in any way that you're totally up the river? No, I don't think

that's what we're saying here. But what it's saying is that the body has some significance to you. You are not truly a soul that happens to be kind of briefly attached to the body, but the body doesn't really matter. That is the argument of the transgenderists. That's the argument of the Gnostics or the Albagencians or all sorts of other cuckie sects that have cropped up in history. But the body actually has something to do with who you are. And in the resurrection, in the, in that after Christ comes again and the resurrection of the body, the body will have something to do with you then too. And I think that is why we need to treat the body with some respect, both now and after we turn to what many people would consider to be worm food. From Sophia, hey Michael, I live in

Israel, where our government has instituted the green passport for people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who choose not to be vaccinated, like me, are treated as second-class citizens and are barred from certain events, hotels, etc. The Israeli version of the green passport has become the model for the UK and other countries in Europe. This is a massive infringement of our human rights, privacy, assembly, et cetera, and has made our lives increasingly more difficult. My question is, if America does not go along with the green passport, do you think this global initiative is dead in the water. As a global initiative, I think it is, because the United States, whether we want to admit it or not, is the global hegemon. The China now is an emerging

superpower, but the U.S. still dominates and we like to pretend that we're just our own country and, you know, other countries or other countries, but we run the world. That's just the way it goes. And so if we disallowed these sorts of things, if we prohibited green passports in the United States like Ronda Santis is doing, like Tate Reeves is doing in Mississippi, like other governors are taking the lead on here, then I think it would have a lot greater trouble being instituted around the world, especially for tourism, you know, when people rely on American tourist dollars. So this is a fight I think we absolutely should fight. Not even because I'm totally against vaccines or something like that, but something really seems to have cracked here in the country.

We are, we are freaking out over this virus in a way that we're. We haven't freaked out over other deadlier viruses. And it's not because the science has changed. It's because the philosophy and the religion have changed. And that's really bad for the culture. That's much more dangerous to the body politic than the virus is to the body. From Cameron, dear Michael, I'm a 20-year-old female conservative at a very liberal university. Because of this, it's challenging to get career slash future advice from someone who shares my values.

I plan to attend law school and become a lawyer because I'm passionate about fighting injustices like human trafficking. However, I also hold deep family values and am worried a career will get in the way of my being a mother. Everyone I talk to thinks my career is much more valuable because of the whole women empowerment thing. I agree, but raising a family is much more empowering to me. How do I know I'm making the right decisions amidst all the liberal nonsense? Thank you for all you do. Raise a family. Get married and raise a family.

That is what you should do. That is much more important than you going to law school and doing whatever else you want to do. You can be involved in the causes you want to be involved in. You should ignore all of the lib dummies who are telling you to ruin your life and you should instead get married and raise a family. Would I give this advice to every single woman? No, I was actually talking to a friend of mine last night who is having a little bit of a crisis in this regard as well, or at least having questions about it. I do not deny that there is some very small number of women who truly have a total aversion. to raising a family and who really just need to be working in some career, and they're really,

really drawn to that. I'm not denying that that is true. But the fact that in your question, you are questioning that, right? The entire culture is telling you, you've got to put off having kids, put off getting married, work at the widget shop, become a middle manager, work on spreadsheets. That's the most important thing in life is spreadsheets and making widgets and stuff. The fact that even amid all that ridiculous noise, you still say, God, you kind of, you kind of, I kind of want to raise a family. That's what you should do. That is 100% what you should do.

And if the whole culture is telling you that you're wrong, you should be much more confident that you're right because the culture has gone completely crazy. Best of luck in all of your endeavors. I hope you have a very good and fulfilling life, even if all the lunatics are screaming at you. From that, Mr. Knowles, resident papist and lord of Cuffefei.

My question relates to the bedrock of Christianity, namely the resurrection. Disregarding the highly debated shroud of Turin, is it reasonable to believe that the story of the resurrection, in the story of the resurrection, without any physical evidence? If so, does that mean Christians believe a man rose from the dead solely based on testimony? Your thoughts would be much appreciated, and I'd be grateful to hear any reading recommendations you have on this subject. Love the show and keep up the great work. Well, I wouldn't dismiss the Shrout of Turin, first of all. I mean, this is a little bit of a side note, but the

Shrout of Turin is, I believe, worthy of belief. It is, for those of you who don't know what the shroud of Turin is, it is this object that is a death shroud that has the image. It's like a three, or rather, it's like an x-ray image of a dead man on it, that looks a lot like what you would imagine Jesus to look like. And there have been attempts to say that the dating doesn't work to the right place, but those have been debunked. And no one has any idea really what this could be. It seems that the image has been emitted through some burst of light, like an x-ray. It's not paint. There's nothing like that. So anyway, I just think the shroud of Torin is quite good evidence. But yes, my belief in the resurrection does not hinge on the

shroud of Turin. There are 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They're written about in accounts that were compiled within just decades of the crucifixion and the resurrection. If this was just completely bogus, first of all, I don't think the accounts would match up quite in the same way that they do. But also, you would have other accounts of people saying, yeah, this is completely bogus. You would have people disproving it, but a lot of people attested to the resurrection. Then you have the lives of the apostles, all of whom, I guess they could all be just totally nuts, but they don't seem like they're totally nuts.

And it seems weird to me that all of them would seem so totally nuts. And it seems weird that they would seem so persuasive and logical to all the people at the ends of the earth that they traveled to to spread this message of the resurrection direction, the good news. It seems strange to me if they, so if we say they weren't lunatics, if they were just liars and deceivers, I don't really know what they would get out of it. Most of them, almost all of them died because they were preaching that message. At various places on earth, Thomas dies in India, Paul and Peter are killed in Rome. So that's a little strange to me. And moreover, if you're saying, if you're saying that it's a little strange to

believe in this event, the central event in the history of the world, because we're just doing it based on testimony. How do you believe in anything? Other than things that you can see with your own eyes, RBC Training Ground has discovered potential in over 20,000 Canadian athletes and counting. Your story could be next. If you've got the drive, they'll help you find your path to the Olympics. Let's see what you've got. Sign up for free at RBC Training Ground. How do you believe in anything? And by the way, even something you see with your own eyes can deceive you later on because memories are somewhat fickle. So how do you believe in anything? Why it's by applying your faculties of reason to perception and to testimonies that you have

heard. How do we know that Aristotle lived? How do we know that Napoleon lived, for that matter? How do we know that we went to the moon? How do we know? that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? How do we know that George Washington really lived and fought a revolution? How do we know any of this stuff? It's based on testimonies. And some are more credible than others. And it seems to me that the testimony of the resurrection is far from being unbelievable or incredible or something. You know, it's incredible in the sense that it inspires awe. But it seems to me that some of the most credible testimony in the history of the world look at how people believed and how many people believed at it, what that impelled them to do

and what that has brought forth as a matter of our civilization. From Justin, hey Michael, I look forward to your show every morning while working from home. Thank you. That's very nice. I recently preordered your book. Do I get a ding for that? Is that a plug technically if I'm reading his letter? Okay, the judges have ruled no ding. Oh, no, okay, we got a ding. We got a ding. That's fine. Anyway, he goes up. I ran into a little conundrum I was hoping you could help with. Is it better to order your book through Amazon to boost the Amazon numbers of conservative literature?

Or is it better to order through your publisher to avoid giving money to Amazon while also getting a signed copy? I'm hoping you could advise since I have not been able to sleep at night because of this. Thank you. Very kind of you. You didn't worry about this. Well, you can get an autographed first edition and it's a little bit more money. It's not much more money.

I think it's like the book lists for about $29. It's discounted on some of the websites to like $22, 23 bucks. And you can get a signed first edition for $30. bucks. So you can do that if you're interested. To your broader question, I'll actually broaden this out even beyond my own book, though I do love to plug it, which is should conservatives be patronizing these companies that hate us? In some cases, no, where it's easy enough to switch, probably not. But in a case like Amazon, where Amazon just is the store, right? And they just dominate the marketplace and they especially dominate the marketplace for books. Then I don't think that we need to hold

ourselves to the standard where we never use those companies and we're going to be so ideologically pure. I would go further than that and say, no, we should use the companies when we have to use the companies or when they dominate the marketplace. And then we should use politics to punish those companies and drag those companies back in line into not undermining our constitutional republic. This is what the left would do and they would do it to immoral ends, but they would recognize political reality and use it to their advantage. And I think the right should do that as well. coincidentally, this is alluded to in that book that you are very kindly ordering. From Matt, dear Michael, my father is convinced that Lincoln was a bad president because he used slavery as an excuse to greatly increase the power of the federal government over the state governments.

My dad says that this paved the way for the huge governmental overreach we are seeing today. I tend to disagree. I think governmental overreach largely began with Wilson and the administrative state and that Lincoln keeping the union together was a good thing. What do you think of Lincoln? and do you have any book recommendations that are fair to both sides of this argument over Lincoln? Came for Knowles. Stayed for Knowles. Thank you very much.

I'm pro Lincoln. I like Lincoln. I'm not saying that there are no questions that you can make about his political career. I'm not even saying that the radical question of whether or not you had to fight this bloody, bloody civil war and rip the country apart over the issue of slavery in order to get rid of slavery. I'm not even saying that that's out of the question. A lot of other countries got rid of slavery around the same time we did and they did it without a bloody civil war. So, would it have been possible? Maybe, though I sort of doubt it. But this gets to the heart of a question that I think conservatives are debating right now, which is states rights, very important, federalism, very important, local power, very important. But rights in the abstract take an object. The right to do what? States rights to do what? And Lincoln had a much clearer moral vision. here. He said, yeah, we like states' rights, but not states' rights to just do profoundly

evil things. Apply this to abortion. Do the states have a right to get an abortion, you know, to have abortion? There are two schools of thought on this. The really mainstream one on the right is that, yes, you know, if we got rid of Roe v. Wade, it would go back to the states, and some states could have it and sub-states couldn't. The stronger argument, though, actually, which is gaining ground on the right and is pretty persuasive even to me, who used to think of the The other argument is, no, the 14th Amendment, you can't do it. You can't kill people like that. No, not even if the states want to.

The state's rights to do what? When we think about our freedom of speech, free speech to say what? Freedom of belief. Freedom of religion. Freedom to believe what? What are we actually talking about? We've got to get a lot more concrete because politics has not only form but substance too.

And that is really what's going to separate the good guys from the bad guys in the country that we want to be from the country that we don't want to be. And we need to get much more serious about figuring out what that substance is. I'm Michael Noles. It's the Michael Nulls show. See you on Monday. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.

We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, the Andrew Claven Show, and the Matt Walsh Show. The Michael Noles show is produced by Ben Davies. Executive producer Jeremy Bore. Our technical director is Austin Stevens. Supervising producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Production manager, Pavel Vidofsky.

Editor and associate producer, Danny Domeko. Audio mixer, Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup by Nika Geneva. And production coordinator, McKenna Waters. The Michael Knoll's show is a Daily Wire production, Copyright Daily Wire 2021. Hey, everybody. This is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show.

You know, some people are depressed. because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood. But on the Andrew Clavin Show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Clavon show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Clavon.