The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 998 -  Libs Are Livid After Losing Child Sacrifice Rights

Episode Date: May 4, 2022

The libs lose it over losing child sacrifice, Amazon promises to reimburse its employee's for abortion-related travel, and Skeet" Davidson gets creepy with Kanye's kids.  Join the Daily Wire and get 20% off your membership with code KNOWLES: https://utm.io/uewve. Order your copy of Julio Rosas’ new book Fiery but Mostly Peaceful: The 2020 Riots and the Gaslighting of America: https://utm.io/uexhZ. I’m exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL. — Today’s Sponsors: Experience the best sheets you’ve ever felt at bollandbranch.com.    MDHearingAid is an FDA registered, rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost. Visit MDHearingAid.com.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The libs are absolutely losing it over the Supreme Court's apparent decision to overrule Roe versus Wade. I'm not just talking about the crazy hair color people on TikTok. I'm also talking about the crazy United States senators. Senator Liwatha had a full-scale emotional breakdown over the court's apparent willingness to maybe sort of kind of restrict her ability to kill little babies. I am angry. Angry and upset. Angry and upset and determined.

The United States Congress can keep that. Rovers and swayed the law of the land. They just need to do it. I've never seen you so angry. You seem to be... This is what the Republicans have been working toward this day

for decades. They have been out there plotting, carefully cultivating these Supreme Court justices so they could have to have, have a majority on the bench who would accomplish something that the majority of Americans do not want. Sixty-nine percent of people across this country, across this country, red states and blue states, old people and young people want Roversus' way to maintain it as the law

of the land. We need to do that. And we have a right. Dismembring 3,000 children. We've heard enough from the extremists. And we're tired of. This shrill lunatic is open the door. This shrill lunatic is on the verge of angry tears because the Supreme Court might take her tomahawk away. You can look into her eyes and see a kind of madness. This is no mere political issue.

You look into her eyes. You're seeing this sense that Ketakotel is going to. be deprived of his human sacrifices. That's the kind of issue we're talking about here, okay? Because Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and in this case, Dobbs v. Jackson, women's health organization, these are not ordinary political cases, okay? And I would expect more leaks, and I would expect a whole lot more than leaks, because this is about much more than some esoteric debate about the nature of the law. This for the left is religious. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show.

Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment. Yesterday is from Ryan Reinbo, who says, Jesus says, this is my body, which will be given up for you. The left says, this is your body, which will be given up for me. This is a very good point, actually. The philosopher Peter Craft put it slightly differently, but the same sort of idea. He said that abortion is the Antichrist's sacrament, that abortion uses the very same phrase, actually, that you see in the mass. This is my body. in a blasphemously inverted way, because the women say, this is my body, this is my body, my choice. That's the mantra of the pro-abortion movement. It's so perfectly inverted as to send a chill down anybody's spine.

I think actually regardless of your religious views or the way you look at other kind of political issues, you can just tell there's something that's a little bit different about this issue. The libs are absolutely losing it over this Dobbs decision, which isn't even official yet, by the way. We covered it yesterday. There was this leak from the Supreme Court. Probably the predominant theory right now is that it was a law clerk for one of the more leftist justices. And most people seem to think it would be a justice in Sonia Sotomayor's office. Again, this is just speculation, but the reasoning here is that Sonia Sotomayor is by far the furthest left in most. partisan judge, and so it would seem likely that she would hire very far left, very partisan law clerks. There are something like 12 people that this could be. When you look at the number of Supreme Court law clerks, there are, period, and then you look at the number of Supreme Court law

clerks there are for the liberal justices. It would seem this was leaked by a liberal justice. Then we were talking about maybe a dozen people that this could be. So they'll, they're investigating it right now. The Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered an investigation, but the leak has already achieved its purpose, which is to get the left wild, angry, outside, demonstrating, putting a lot of political pressure on the court, and trying to flip the votes. There hasn't been a firm vote on this yet. Roe v. Wade has not yet officially been overruled. We hope it will be, but we don't yet know, and the lift is already going into overdrive about it. Eric Swalwell, former future president of the United States, one of the first guys out of the 2020 Democrat presidential primaries. Eric Swalwell,

Well, who then embarrassed himself on national television, Eric Swalwell, who was then found to be bumping uglies with a Chinese spy. Eric Swalwell tweeted out, the Republicans won't stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote. What? So the first part, Republicans want to ban abortion.

True? Republicans want to ban interracial marriage. Not true. Not only not true, but not. related in any way to the, it would be, it would be like saying the Republicans won't stop with banning abortion. And they, they like to put pineapple on pizza too. Do you support pineapple on pizza? Vote for me. It's just completely unrelated. And the claim they make is not true. And also, it's very difficult for Democrats to make the claim that the pro-life movement is

racist. Democrats always revert to this line of calling their opponent. it's racist because it's all they've got. When a leftist calls you a racist, you know you've won the argument, and they do it completely baselessly, but they only do it because to be called a racist is to be called the worst possible thing you can be in modern America. So they just do it without any basis. But it's especially preposterous with the issue of abortion because black babies are disproportionately the victims of abortion. The pro-life movement disproportionately is saving black babies. The abortion rate among black women is five times the abortion rate among white women. That's not even a number according to a pro-life research center. That's according to the Gutmacher Institute.

That's according to the pro-abortion center. And they're admitting, yes, abortion kills five times as many black babies as it kills white babies. In New York, more black babies are aborted than born. In New York, the most dangerous place for black person is in his mother's womb. So the pro-life movement really doesn't have anything to do with race. The pro-life movement is simply about saving babies from being killed. Race doesn't play a role in it. But if you're going to insist on making race an issue here, then the pro-life movement is one of the most pro-black movements in the entire country. Probably the single most pro-black movement in the entire country. But what does Eric Swalwell know? Nothing. He's just desperate, so he's scraping the bottle of the barrel here. That's what Democrats are trying to do. And frankly, Swalwell was more articulate than Joe Biden,

which is damning with faint praise. But Joe Biden was asked his thoughts about this leaked decision, and he almost formed a coherent English sentence. The idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by. as a Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard. And the decision that we're going to be, and we're deciding, and no one decides we're going to have no abortion. Come on, man. Come on, Jack, come on here. Corn Pop, that's just too much, man. Give me an ice cream cone. So it would seem that the point he's trying to make is that the court

should not overrule Roe v. Wade. And then we know elsewhere Biden has said Roe versus Wade is so central, so important to, in the words of John Fed. who's the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, now Democrat candidate for Senate. Abortion is sacred. They actually say abortion is sacred. Just like every demon-worshipping tribe in the history of the world, it's sacred to sacrifice little babies. Because Biden and the Democrats have taken up this line, they're saying that if the court does overrule row and does get rid of the fictional national right to an abortion, that we need a national law passed by Congress to codify that abortion protection. that license to abortion into law.

The mistake that Joe makes here in his line is he admits that abortion kills a baby. Because what the Democrats have been doing in recent years, I say Democrats or I say leftist or I say the pro-abortion movement, there is some distinction between the three, but not much. There used to be much more of a distinction, like back when Joe Biden was voting to try to overturn Roe v. Wade in the states. Do we all forget that? I guess we do.

The New York Times actually didn't forget this about three years. years ago. The headline, when Joe Biden voted to let states overturn Roe versus Way, the year was 1981, there was an amendment that was being proposed by Senator Hatch, I guess it was. The amendment would have overruled Roe versus Wade at the state level and said states can get rid of Roe if they want to because there's no constitutional right to an abortion. Joe Biden voted for that amendment. So he voted, practically speaking, to overrule Roe. Now he's completely changed his views on this, but he hasn't changed his rhetoric all that much. And so even in that in that clip of Biden defending Roe versus Wade and saying we shouldn't overrule it, he says, we need the right

to abort a child. A child. I thought it was a clump of cell, Joe. I thought it was just a zygote or a blastula or whatever silly scientific term they used to describe a baby. And Joe, Joe didn't do that. He said, no, you need to be able to abort a child. In the words of Naomi Wolf, the feminist, who I thought gave a very honest description of the left's view of abortion, she said now probably 25 years ago, she said, we need to admit that the baby is a baby, the baby is alive, and women need the right to kill that baby in all of its humanity if they want to be the same as men. Gastly, it's a horrific opinion, but at least she's being honest there. At least Joe Biden was accidentally being honest there. Yeah, we're aborting a child. Not even just a baby, a child,

a mother killing her own child. A society in which mothers kill their own children will do anything. There's no limit to what they can do. And this is a big change. Big change for Joe Biden, who once had, I think, sincere opposition to abortion. At the very least, it was politically convenient for him. Now, whatever sincerity that was and whatever convenience existed, that's totally gone. The guy is full-throatedly in support of ritual human sacrifice.

That's not good. That's really bad for our political situation. It's not good to have a president who's pushing that sort of thing. We're at a very tense moment in American politics when you want to be able to relax a little bit. I strongly recommend you check out Boland Branch. Right now go to bolandbranch.com. Use promo code Michael to get my absolute favorite sheets. I love these sheets. I have been using them for six, seven years now. I got my first set for free when they came on the show. Bowling Branch has been a great supporter of this show for a long time. but they got me hooked. They're like a drug dealer. They give you the first little taste free, and then you're totally hooked on it. I started buying them for my family. I bought new sheets for myself when I upgraded the size of my mattress. They're just phenomenal. Three United States presidents

sleep on Boland Branch and love them. Three U.S. presidents and one beloved podcast host. They've got 10,000 stellar reviews. Bowling Branch signature sheets come in nine versatile colors in all sizes up to California King, which is my size bed. There are 100% free from toxins, no pesticides, no formaldehyde, no nasty stuff. They give you a 30-night risk-free trial. You're absolutely going to love the sheets. They could give you a 300-night trial. It wouldn't matter. You're going to love them. Fifteen percent off right now, your first set of sheets when you use promo code, Michael at boland-branch.com. Boland-Branch.com. Boll and L-L-A-N-D-Branch.com promo code, Michael. The opinion that was released from Justice Alito, the leak that that showed up in

Politico yesterday, is legit. that tastes as good as it performs, meet Rock and Protein Max. Packed with 50 grams of fuel, it'll help you keep up when your day won't slow down. And because it's always creamy and never chalky, every sip tastes great. Even better, it's lactose-free and has zero added sugar. It's not every day you find a protein shake you actually want to finish. Catch Rock and Protein in the dairy cooler at a store near you. Rock and Protein and Shamrock Farms are registered trademarks of Shamrock Foods Company. There was some question yesterday when we were talking about it on the show. We said, We don't know if it's real or not.

It seems to be real. It sounds like him. It looks like an opinion, but we don't know if it's real. John Roberts confirmed that it is real. And the Chief Justice said, to the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the court will not be affected in any way. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the court. this was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here.

I have directed the marshal of the court to investigate the source of the league. So this is legit. We don't know exactly what the opinion is going to turn out to be. Right now it's just a draft. And it seems as though there is a five, four majority to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But we don't know. Judges change their votes all the time until the decision is actually handed down, it's anybody's game. It also is even more complicated because it looks like the vote was six to three to uphold the Mississippi pro-life law that triggered this case in the first place.

But then the vote was only five-four to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So it looks like John Roberts, the Chief Justice, may have flipped, or not even flipped, just sided with the conservatives on the law. but sided with the liberals on upholding Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But we don't know. Is the political pressure going to work? Maybe. Is this the end of the shenanigans here to try to undo this decision? I strongly doubt it. Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood B. Casey and Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization, Roe is not an ordinary case. Some cases in the history of the Supreme Court exist chiefly as instruments to debate esoteric legal questions. There's a case I'm reminded of called United States versus 95 barrels alleged apple cider vinegar. This case comes from 1924, I believe,

and the case is over whether or not a packing company mislabeled its apple cider vinegar because it said the vinegar was from selected apples, and in fact the vinegar was from dried apples. And the court debated this subtle distinction, what that meant for the law. And it's a very interesting case to debate in law school. On the other hand, you've got a case like Roe v. Wade, which consigned 62 million babies and counting to ritual slaughter.

Those are very different cases, okay? in one, we can play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. We can follow all the civilized customs and the norms of the court, and we can have debates over the minutia of these legal details. The other sorts of cases have much more urgent, practical implications. And there is no case more urgent and more practical than Roe v. Wade. It is truly a matter of life and death to the tune of almost a million human beings per year. It does it. It does it. get more tangible than that. Furthermore, this is a religious issue. It's a religious issue for me. It's a religious issue for the pro-lifers who think that it is extremely evil for a country to condone the slaughter of babies. But it's a religious issue for the left, too, which is calling this sacred, which is saying this is a sacred right, which is saying that for women to be truly free, they must have the license to kill their babies. Elizabeth, Warren's crazy eyes and shrill voice, why I'm angry? I've never been this angry. Right, you've never

been this angry because you've been driven to a kind of religious mania because you're worshipping demons. That's why. Because your political actions and the rituals that you were trying to uphold are, whether you know it or not, actually demonic. Because all you're doing is the same thing that those Aztecs were doing, the same thing that ancient Middle Eastern tribes were doing with Molok and Ball. you're just sacrificing babies. And you think it's really scientific and really modern and enlightened because you're sacrificing babies on the altar of ideologized liberation and on the altar of career and on the altar of money and on the altar of individual autonomy. But it's just the same thing. It's just exactly the same thing that the ancient pagans of your were doing with named demons such as Molok and Bal.

You're just sacrificing your babies to what you perceive to be a higher calling, which is a in fact, a much lower calling. Okay? The reason I bring all this up is not just to get into a theological discourse over the implications of abortion, that we could be here all day if we did that. But it's because we need to be honest about what this case represents. I mentioned yesterday that everyone was surprised. They were so surprised that this unprecedented singular action in the history of the court

to leak this document, it destroys the trust of the court. How could someone do this? How could someone do this? They kill babies. mean how could they do this? They do things that are a whole lot worse. I'm reminded of Norm McDonald was talking to, the late great Norm MacDonald was talking to Patton Oswald, his fellow comedian. And Patton Oswald said, you know, this Bill Cosby issue, the Bill Cosby sex crimes, I think the worst part of it is the hypocrisy. And Norm McDonald responded to him and said,

I don't think so. I think the worst part is the raping. In my experience, most rapists are hypocrites. Very few are open and bragging about their raping. And they say, oh, yeah, I'm raping, but I'm not going to hide it. Okay. I know it's not politically correct, but, you know, I'm right. And you say, well, at least he's not a hypocrite because that would be the worst thing, right? That was Norm's funny way of pointing out that people who commit enormous sins will more easily commit lesser sins. People who kill little babies. It's about the most enormous sin I can think of. People who defend the mass ritual slaughter of little babies, I think they're going to be able to upend some norms and traditions at the court. I think they're going to probably be capable of violating the trust

of the clerks, okay, because that's a much lesser sin than the issue at hand. And the pro-life movement has done a great job. I am not criticizing the pro-life movement, okay? But I fear that some of us in the pro-life movement have believed our own press releases. For the better part of 50 years now, pro-lifers have focused on the technical unconstitutionality of Roe and Casey. They've focused on this one line in particular, which they say almost reflexively. They say, you know, if Roe versus Wade is overturned, that actually won't make abortion illegal. That will just return the issue of abortion to the states. And whether you support abortion or oppose abortion, I think we can all agree that it belongs

in the states and specifically with the people through their legislatures, that's where it belongs so we can decide the issue however we want for ourselves. That's the official line. The line has worked, apparently. It gave us this Alito opinion. It could severely restrict abortion. It's not the whole story. There are some conservative legal scholars.

I'm thinking of John Finnis and Robbie George, who have gone further to argue, no, actually, the Supreme Court should decide the issue of abortion. No, actually, the court has every right and responsibility to decide the issue of abortion because the 14th Amendment provides equal protection and the little babies should be protected by the 14th Amendment. So actually, they make an argument that contradicts the main conservative argument for it that we should return it to the states and give it into the hands of the people.

They say, no, actually, there is a constitutional protection against abortion. But, okay, that argument didn't win. The argument that appears to have won at the Supreme Court is over the technical matter, not so much of what Roe v. Wade represents, but who has the right to decide the question of abortion? Okay, fine, whatever works. Any even semi-plausible argument that works, any moral way to restrict abortion is fine by me. But that will not be sufficient for us to understand why the left is losing their minds over this. If this were merely just a sort of technical, interesting scholarly debate over who gets to decide certain things in the Constitution, you wouldn't see Liz Warren having steam come out of her ears and fire in her eyes.

You wouldn't have unprecedented singular violations of the trust of the court. The reason this is happening is because Roe v. Wade is not about federalism, and Roe v. Wade is not about the separation of powers. Roe v. Wade is about killing babies, okay? And the stakes are extraordinarily high here, and we need to be honest about what this case represents if we want to understand what is going to occur into the future. Because this leak, that is not the end of the shenanigans around this case. That is the beginning of the shenanigans around this case. Prepare for attempts at court packing, prepare for attempts at passing a national right to abortion, prepare for attempts to get rid of the filibuster to get through the national right to abortion,

because Biden doesn't have the votes to do it. Prepare for mostly peaceful riots in the streets. Prepare for lots of shrieking. Prepare for the left to be basically ready to burn down the constitution. They've all already said that they're going to do all of these things, by the way. They've even mocked the court. You've seen prominent left-wing accounts on Twitter and on social media that have said, why are we listening to these judges? We can completely ignore them. Who care? We can push them off a bridge. No one would care. Why are we letting them tell us how we need to live our lives? Why are we letting them interpret the law for us? Burn it down. That's the kind of language that they are using because this issue cuts to the very heart of the left's,

not just political, but religious views. You can hear it. You can hear, you got to listen to what people are saying when you want to hear very well, by the way, you've got to check out MD hearing aid. Right now go to MD hearing aid.com and use promo code Knowles. Did you know that nine out of 10 people still buy hearing aids from clinics and pay $5,000 or more, even though much more affordable options exist. That is why you've got to check out MD Hearing Aid. MD Hearing Aid is an FDA registered rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost. MD Hearing Aid's Volt Plus model costs over 80% less than clinic hearing aids. They bring clinic level care right to you via telemedicine from doctors and licensed hearing professionals.

MD Hearing Aid was founded by an E&T surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them. I had a relative years ago who really needed and wanted a hearing aid, but didn't want to pay the insane price tag. And I said, just get it. Just get it anyway. But now you've got an option. The Volt Plus, by the way, if you leave it on in the shower, it's actually safe in up to three feet of water, water resistance. So get clinic level care for 80% less with MD Hearing Aid. Go to MD HearingAid.com. Use promo code Knowles to get the new buy one, get one, $149.99 each when you buy a pair deal. Plus, they're adding a free extra charge in case, a $100 value just for listeners of the Michael Knowles show. Head on over to mdhearinga.com. Use promo code

Knowles, get their new buy one, get $149.99 each when you buy a pair deal. The Daily Wire has accomplished a lot this year, if I do say so myself. We've announced our new platform, DW Kids. We're taking on Disney, Hollywood, even razor companies, and rebuilding the culture that the left has been handily destroying because it's about time we do something so that you can too. Stop giving money to organizations that don't respect you or what you believe. Help us build alternatives where the left is tearing down foundations and start today. Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, for 20% off and join us in our fight to preserve the real American way of life today. We will be right back with a lot more. Woke corporations are getting in on the freak out over the

potential of overruling Roe v. Wade, Amazon announced on Monday that it would pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses for employees who want to go out of state to get an abortion. This was at a staff meeting on Monday. It includes a bunch of medically related travel expenses. They will reimburse that travel for you and pay for you to go get medical care, and they will pay for you to go kill your baby. This is according to Reuters. If an employee cannot get an abortion within 100 miles of home, abortion will cover up to 4 grand. Of course Amazon is doing this. And we on the right, by the way, need to be brutally honest about why Amazon is doing this. Amazon is doing this in part because it's a generally leftist corporation. Sure. Yeah, that's true. Amazon is doing this. So,

in part, maybe because the leadership of Amazon supports abortion. Yeah, that's probably true. But it's not just leftism. It's not just cultural Marxism, okay? It's also capitalism that is impelling Amazon to do this. It is better for Amazon if its employees kill their babies. It is more expensive for Amazon and worse for Amazon's production and distribution schedule if its employees do have babies. Having babies really gums up the works when you've got female employees because you've got to give them probably a little bit of time off before the baby comes, certainly right around the delivery.

Then you've got to give them maternity leave. You've got to pay for them not to work. Then they're not going to be as focused on their jobs. Let's just be honest about it. They're going to be, they're going to have to take a day off here and there. If the kid gets sick, if they can't get child care. I mean, ideally, the corporations think that the parents can't. just ship the kid off to daycare from day three. But, but, you know, maybe it's not going to work

out some days. And so the employees are not going to be quite as reliable as the kids get a little bit older and they need a little bit more from mommy, maybe around the community driving them here or there. Maybe mommy's going to have to only work a few days away. It's not good for the companies to have to deal with this labor issue. And so it is entirely in Amazon's economic interest to subsidize abortion for its employees. The kids are only going to cause problems for Amazon's bottom line. That's not Marxism. That's capitalism. And it's why I'm all for, I love private property,

I love flourishing and free markets, I love a good free economy as opposed to a communist sort of economy. But this is why I don't worship at the altar of the free market, the way that some people on the right do. This is why, though I love the market, I find the market to be an instrument to human flourishing. Private property is an essential instrument toward human flourishing. But it's, but it is an instrument pointed toward the good of the whole political community. If capitalism and private property and private enterprise are being disordered and perverted

and abused to justify and incentivize the killing of children, then we've got to stop that. We have a responsibility in the political. community to go in and say, no, Amazon, you don't get to, you don't get to subsidize your employees killing their kids. No, we're going to get together in our political community. We're going to pass a law against that. We are going to restrict your free actions in the free market. We're going to put onerous regulations on private business and capitalism so that you don't pay to kill kids. Because we know it's in your economic interest. We know you have an incentive to do that. So we're going to change that incentive.

Every marketplace, we talk about the free marketplace in the economy, we talk about the free marketplace of ideas, and usually the way we refer to it as this kind of rollicking, open, anarchistic space almost where there are no rules. But that's not how marketplaces are. There are rules to marketplaces. That's what defines a marketplace. Marketplaces are within a certain geographical area. There are certain rules of etiquette and behavior that you have to observe.

There are zoning restrictions that you have to observe. The same is true politically and morally. Amazon does not have any right, any fundamental sacred right, to pay for its employees' abortions. And what we should do, once the Republicans retake the House in Congress, they should pass a law and ban it and outlaw it and say, no, it's not just you, Amazon, it's any, you're not allowed to pay for your employees' abortions. There's no right to an abortion, and there's no right even for private individuals. industry to do that either. It's simply wrong. It's egregiously wrong. And we're going to stop it. We have to be honest about some of the potential pitfalls of capitalism or of our own economic policies if we don't want to lose our economic vision. Because if our vision for politics and the economy gets perverted

and leads to really bad outcomes, then it's going to be overthrown and we're going to lose the whole damn thing and we're going to end up living under a bunch of commies. Okay. Another, another issue that we've got to be careful with here when we talk about capitalism and individualism is what it does to the family. Story here about a ficto-sexual. Have you heard of fictosexuals? I had not. Now I have. Fictosexual man who married a 16-year-old hologram can't communicate with her after software support was eliminated. Star crossed digital lovers here. This is a man a 38-year-old Japanese man who wed a holographic image of a 16-year-old blue-haired anime character. So it's not that the technology is 16 years old, but that the character depicted is 16 years old.

The character's name is Hatsuni Miku, and he fell in love with this character. He apparently had a difficult social life. He was bullied at work. He was ostracized, and so he is now pretending to be married. to this digital character, but it's really their star-crossed levers because the company stopped updating the software, so now he can no longer even pretend to interact with the hologram. Obviously, this guy's got a lot of problems. He should receive some help, and his coworkers who were bullying him should be nicer to him, and he should be brought into real community.

this sort of thing should not be encouraged or even really permitted. The extremes of individualism, the extremes of do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt me, that has no place in a conservative political philosophy. It has no place in Japan or our country, for that matter. We live in a society. We have a responsibility toward one another. This ficto-sexual story is not just some weird tabloid quirk. It's where society is headed. Because what lies at the bottom of this is that reality doesn't really matter anymore.

That's the basis of this. Reality doesn't really matter. Physical reality, spiritual reality. We can now move into digital reality, virtual reality, the metaverse. We can go and deny the realities of sex. We can pretend to be the opposite sex if we want it. If we're living in the metaverse, it doesn't matter because our bodies don't really play a role in virtual reality. We can deny our community. We can just fall in love with a computer and end up in a solipsistic hell. We can fall in love with a computer and just end up in our own delusions and our own fantasies. And this is encouraged by technology and by an extremely individualist society and economy and politics. And that's the It's not good. That's not going to make anybody happy. This guy is, the ficto-sexual is not happy. I bet he's very lonely and very sad. And he thinks that pretending to be married to a computer is making him happier and is providing a sort of band-aid over the pain. But it's not making anything better. It's actually only making the condition worse. We've got to speak honestly about that. That's what a lot of this abortion debate is over. Even the kind of basic conservative

legal argument. Hey, look, if we overrule Roe v. Wade, you can still get abortions in New York. You can still get abortions in California. That's fine. That's fine by me. But it's not fine. It's not fine. Okay? Certain things are just true and certain things are false. Certain things are good and certain things are bad. And certain things shouldn't be tolerated anywhere. And we actually do have the right to make that claim. We have the right to tell our fellow Americans to some degree how to live. that's not authoritarian, that's not fascistic, it's not totalitarian, it's called living in a society. It's called being a citizen. That's what that is. And Americans once understood that, and we have become alienated from that, not only because of the radical left, not only because

of Marxism, but also because of the disorders and perversions of a kind of capitalism, too. And if we want to preserve our traditional system of free enterprise and private property and the American way of life, we need to be honest about that and we need to correct that sort of thing. Speaking of romance, speaking of virtual digital romance, Skeet Davidson, Mr. Pete Skeet Davidson, that guy from Saturday Night Live, who is destroying Kanye West's marriage to Kim Kardashian, Pete Davidson has taken his predations to a new level.

he has gotten the initials of Kanye West's children tattooed on his neck. This is extremely creepy and weird behavior. He was texting Kanye. He said, hey, man, I want us all to get along. I just want to be friends with your kids. And Kanye said, you're never going near my kids. Absolutely under no circumstances, weirdo. Get out of here.

And you can tell a major difference between the left and the right based on where they fall. on the Kanye story. I think a lot of people are just going to ignore the Kanye story because the Kardashians are an absolute plague on American culture. But the Kardashians are very popular. Kanye West is probably the most popular entertainer in the world. Even Skeet Davidson is fairly popular. And so these people have our attention. The conservatives tend to be Team Kanye and the Libs tend to be Team Skeet and Kim Kardashian. This is not only because Kanye West put on the the MAGA hat and like Donald Trump. I think it actually has nothing to do with it. The reason is because Kanye West very publicly wants to save his marriage and keep his family

together and raise his children. And Kim Kardashian does an interview in Vogue magazine and says, my 40s are just going to be about me. Enough of other people. Enough of living my life for other people. Like, you know, my kids and my family and my responsibilities toward my community and my God. No, no, I'm just going to do it for me. Me, me, me. And I'm going to date this meth head looking Saturday Night Live comedian who gets my kids' names tattooed on his neck like a total creep. That's what I'm going to do, me, me, me. And the same thing with Skeet, who's going in and taking another man's wife, which is just wrong. And what the Libs argue is, well, Kim Kardashian wasn't happy in her marriage. And look, there's no evidence that Kanye West was abusive in any way, that he was

some kind of ogre, but, you know, he's a weird guy, he's eccentric. I think everyone knew that going in. And so Kim should just be able to leave whenever she wants, because the left has absolutely no respect for marriage and has been trying to destroy it for a long time. Because, getting back to our earlier discussion about hyper individualism, the left and some portions of the right actually agree on a fundamental political issue, they think that the basic unit of society is the individual. The left says it's just the individual and we have to collect them all together into the collective and the misguided part of the right says the fundamental unit of society is the individual and we've got to keep them individuals. Those are two sides of the

same coin. That's why both of those ideologies as they advanced seem to go in the same direction, whereas the actual alternative is that the basic unit of society is not the individual to be collectivized or otherwise. The basic unit of society is the family. And the family provides a real bulwark against the predations of the radicals who want to upend our entire culture. The family is sacred. You want to talk about something that's actually sacred. It's the family. The left says it's sacred to destroy the family, whether through legislation or through baby sacrifice or anything else. The right says no, to preserve the family is sacred.

So what do we do about this? What do we do about a culture in which kids are, are, across the country are the victims of things like divorce, of mommy bringing creepy boyfriends like Ski Davidson around, of, of tumultuous sorts of relationships and upbringing? the answer is, make it a little harder to get divorced. I'm not even saying make it illegal to get divorced, but make it a little harder to get divorced. Until about half a century ago, you had to provide a reason to get divorced. When you enter into a marriage, you're signing a contract, and it's not just any kind of contract.

It's not like you're just putting together an accounting firm. You're getting together and saying, I am making a vow to create a fundamental political unit here with babies, with responsibilities. So it's going to be hard to get out of it. Now, for the last half century, we've had something called no-fault divorce. That's been a disaster for everyone, for kids, for husbands, for wives, for everyone. After a wife gets a few wrinkles around her eyes, the husband can just leave her now. Without having to really do anything at all, without having to prove cause, he can go and shut up his secretary. Or in this case, the wife, when she gets sick of her husband's eccentricities, can just leave and take the kids and expose the kids to some creeper.

like Pete Davidson. Kanye has nothing that he can do about it. That's not good. It's not good for anybody. And it gives us a society in which the Skeet Davidson's of the world can go in and screw up all of our families. Don't do it. Don't let that weirdo do it, man. An earlier American cult, an earlier and saner American culture would not have let Skeet Davidson around its kids. But now that requires a change in our politics, and that requires a change in our law, a reversion to the traditional American way of life. And we might be getting a change in our law because we've got one of the most vocally pro-family candidates right now who just won a big primary in Ohio. The Ohio GOP Senate primary has been one of the weather veins to see which way the GOP is moving and which way the country

is moving. This was the race between J.D. Vance. He's the author of Hillbilly Elegie. He's been running a campaign as the kind of boy from Appalachia who's not going to shill for mega corporations who's much more of a Trumpy kind of candidate who says we need pro-family policies forget all these kind of crazy intellectual abstractions we need to support families we need to support workers we need to support the traditional American way of life we got to watch out of that trade we got to seriously diminish immigration we got to protect america that was jd vans's campaign he was running against josh mandel josh mandel was one of the he was actually moving much more in that direction as well, but he was widely perceived as being a little bit more of the older

kind of conservative movement type. So still, you know, hardcore and right wing, but maybe a little bit more of the tea party-ish variety. I don't know if that's exactly fair. That was the perception, though. And then you had Matt Dolan. He was an older Republican who was also running for this seat. and J.D. Vance won. And the breakdown is really interesting here because Trump endorsed J.D. Vance. Ted Cruz endorsed Josh Mandel. I don't know who endorsed Matt Dolan, but the race then came down to Vance and Mandel. And Vance pulled it out. Now, there were a lot of questions about these candidates because J.D. Vance had been much more liberal at earlier parts of his life. He had said lots of mean and nasty things about Donald Trump, and Trump endorsed him anyway. And so there were questions,

all these questions, as there always are about candidates of, is he sincere, does he really mean it? Is he really conservative? Same kinds of accusations against Josh Mandel, though they were more focused on J.D. Vance. That doesn't really matter. That's not really what I'm not talking about what will these politicians actually do. I'm talking about what do they stand for. What they represent? What's going to matter? This is a huge win. A huge win for J.D. Vans. It's a huge win for Donald Trump. And it is a huge win for the new right. Whatever the new right means, pro-family. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to

marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into, sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Anti-Mega Corporation. Pro America First. Anti-Globalization. Anti-immigration. pro-life, pro-raising a family on a single income, that kind of political agenda, that won, that got a big boost. The other candidate who is really pushing those kinds of things is Blake Masters, who's running for Senate in Arizona. We'll see how that goes. Depending on how these primaries shake out, and then depending on whether these guys can make it into the Senate, you could see a major

shift in the GOP and in American politics. And it's not just, about the technical issues of, well, according to the Constitution, actually, we have no right to impose certain tariffs on, no, it's not that. It's about pretty basic stuff. Stop killing babies, defend the American way of life, keep these weirdos away from our kids, whether we're talking about in school or whether we're talking about Skeet in the Kardashian household. Like, really basic, tangible stuff. So get ready for the Nazi comparisons. MSNBC's Medi Hassan is making the claim now that not just J.D. Vance and not just Donald Trump, but pretty much all of the Republicans are Nazis. I mean, it's easy in American discourse to talk simplistically about the far left and the far right as two equally dangerous fringe blocks.

Elon Musk has done it plenty of times just in the past week. But here's the difference. America's far left wants to give us free health care and free child care. America's far right wants to give us white supremacy and no democracy. And this asymmetrical polarization of U.S. politics would be laughable if it weren't so horrifying. We are living through an unspeakably dangerous moment. The pro-QAnon, pro-Neo-Nazi faction of the Republican body is poised to expand dramatically, come the midterms. We're just two years away from Donald Trump, very possibly re-seizing executive power. If that happens, we may look back on this past week as a pivotal moment.

when a petulant and not so bright billionaire casually bought one of the world's most influential messaging machines and just handed it to the far right. There it is. Did you hear that? He brought it back to Elon. This is all about Elon. Elon, who is a liberal guy who voted for Obama twice, who is a tech billionaire, but thinks that maybe, I suppose some conservatives should be able to speak a little bit more freely on one of the big tech platforms.

That is enough to elicit the shrieks of needs. neo-Nazism and racism and the end of democracy, because the conservatives get to have their voice heard. It is ironic, of course. I mean, on this question of abortion, which is causing the libs to lose their minds right now, the conservative argument that seems to be winning the day is we need more democracy on this issue. The Constitution does not definitively answer this question of abortion, so you've got to leave the political issue to the people. pro-democracy. The Libs are saying, no, we don't want that kind of democracy. No, no, no, we need some radical leftist lawyers to decide this question on the Supreme Court, much as they seem to hate the

Supreme Court. They sure do love it when the Supreme Court enshrines their radical and minority vision into the Constitution. Just writes it in there with invisible link between the emanations and the penumbres. They now say that the Supreme Court has lots of white people on it. And men, in particular, and they can't vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. Well, the court that enshrined Roe v. Wade was entirely men. So what are you talking about? The arguments are not coherent. And so what it boils down to is the same old thing.

It's racism. Eric Swalwell says, if you oppose the killing of babies, you're probably, you're racist. This guy on MSNBC is neo-Nazi. If you think conservatives should be able to speak at all whatsoever on social media, you're a Nazi. see, this is not the way that republics are supposed to conduct our political debates. This is not civilized. This is not standards. This is not norms that Americans have traditionally been used to.

But that's because this issue is different. That's because this is not just a little scholarly debate around a classroom. We're talking about questions of life and death. Expect it to become much, much more, not less, much, much more intense. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael The Michael Knolls Show. See tomorrow. 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 Nulls Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring, supervising producer Mathis Glover, production manager, Paul Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny D'emiko, associate producer Justine Turley, audio mixer Mike Coramina, and hair and makeup by Cherokee Hart. Michael Null's show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022. Today on the Matt Walsh show, we're told that the impending decision on Rovi Wade will help the Democrats because it will galvanize their base around the abortion issue, but as we've seen over the last couple days, abortion is actually the last issue Democrats want

to talk about, and we'll talk about why that is. Also, Rachel Levine at HHS says that there is no argument against castrating children. Democrats also actually want Trump back on Twitter, according to a new report. I wonder why that is. And in our daily cancellation, an obese woman fights for greater plus-sized representation in the travel industry. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.