All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2017 - The Michael Knowles Show
48:07
Ep. 35 - RIP, Hef: The Playboy Philosophy — plus, Mailbag!

Playboy playboy Hugh Hefner has died at 91. We’ll examine how the Playboy Philosophy transformed America. Then, Erielle Davidson, Zo Rachel, and His Eminence Paul Bois join the Panel of Deplorables to discuss sex, sex, sex, half naked lady football players, and President Trump’s partial birth abortion ban. Finally, the Mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Playboy, Playboy, Hugh Hefner has died at 91.
We'll examine how the Playboy philosophy transformed America.
Then, Ariel Davidson, Zoe Rachel, and his eminence, Paul Bois, join the panel of deplorables to discuss sex, sex, sex, half-naked lady football players and President Trump's partial birth abortion ban.
Finally, the mailbag, in which I am accused of idolatry and clear up much religious confusion.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
So Hef is dead.
Sad day.
Sad for Hef and his family.
Yeah, it wipes out all the NFL news.
So now we have to do a whole show about sex.
And I actually sort of feel bad for Hugh Hefner when I think about this.
This thought occurs to me every time either some libertine dies or a virtuous great man dies.
Because you sort of think, well, Hefner probably had a lot of fun in his life.
He probably had one or two fun experiences at least.
And he's dying with his family and friends around him, his 26-year-old wife around him.
And the thing that people are going to say about him is, man, he had a fun life.
He had a good time.
I bet he had a lot of fun.
But when a good man dies, he's surrounded by his wife of 50 years and his memories and his children and his friends.
And they say he was a good man.
Maybe they even say he was a great man.
And it does really put things into perspective.
It shows that hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully, as they say, which actually we'll get to in a mailbag question.
So we have to delve right into it because Hugh Hefner, it was a colorful character.
He was a lot of fun to watch.
He, depending on your point of view, destroyed America or brought it into an age of Aquarius.
But he did have the playboy philosophy.
And here is Hef explaining the playboy philosophy to another sort of playboy, William F. Buckley, Jr., Yes, it covers a lot of ground.
I'm not talking about whether or not you reject Cotton Mather's accretions on the Mosaic Law, but whether you reject the Mosaic Law.
Do you reject, for instance, monogamy?
Do you reject the notion of sexual continence before marriage yourself?
That is to say, you as a philosopher of the new ideal of sexual liberation.
Well, I think what it really comes down to is an attempt to establish a, you know, what's been called a new morality, and I really think that's what the American, you know, this thing called the American sexual revolution is really all about.
It's an attempt to replace the old legalism.
It's certainly not a rejection of monogamy as such, but very much an attempt In the case of premarital sex, there really hasn't been any moral code in the past, except simply a thou shalt not.
Well, that's a code, isn't it?
Well, perhaps.
I don't think it's a very realistic one.
It's amazing to watch those two men who come from completely different sides of the sexual revolution, the cultural revolution, and to just look at how they comport themselves.
Bill Buckley is sort of smiling, he's relaxed, he's confident, he has a depth of knowledge that he's bringing out.
And then you cut to young Hef who cut a decent jib.
He's a fairly good-looking guy, but his brows are furrowed.
He seems nervous.
He seems almost to have a sort of shame on him to be discussing the revolution that he is helping to lead.
And the question that we have to ask ourselves is, what does the sexual revolution look like 60 years later after Hugh Hefner ushered in this era?
And the numbers don't look good.
Rape rates have tripled since 1950 according to the FBI annual crime reports.
In 1965, 24% of black infants were born out of wedlock.
3.1% of white infants were born out of wedlock.
Today, 72% of black infants are born out of wedlock almost three times or exactly three times rather.
And 29.4% of white infants born out of wedlock.
In 1960, the divorce rate was 22%.
Since 1985, the divorce rate has wavered between 40% and 50%, more than doubled.
Today, more black babies are aborted than born in New York City.
And porn is a $5 billion per year industry.
The numbers are apparently $4 billion from in-store purchases and another billion dollars on the Internet.
This isn't the only way, though, to think about sex and sexuality.
As Hefner says, he's reacting to puritanism.
He's reacting to prudishness.
But you wouldn't call a guy like Bill Buckley exactly a prude.
And here is Bill Buckley giving another sense of sensuality and sexuality.
Mr.
Buckley, do you think miniskirts are in good taste?
Do I think what?
Miniskirts are in good taste.
On you, I think they are.
Good legs and good face.
Good legs.
I never would have figured you for that kind.
Don't you just love the guy?
Bill Buckley, I love just sometimes just when I'm in the shower, I'll just be reading news headlines and I'll just say like William F. Buckley Jr.
I mean, where did that guy go?
Where did that culture go?
Who knows?
But it makes a real point, which is Bill Buckley isn't saying, go away.
I hate miniskirts.
Miniskirts are terrible.
Any woman who wears them is going to be burned in hell forever.
And we all need to wear burqas.
Absolutely not.
That isn't the opposite of playboyism, of the playboy philosophy.
The answer is to make a little joke about it.
To say, yeah, I like nice legs, I like miniskirts, they look really good on you.
For the society, they're probably not a good sign, but if you're wearing one, that's just fine by me.
It's a more human approach, and I'm not sure exactly what Hugh Hefner was reacting against as he's describing Puritanism and the Playboy philosophy, but it isn't that.
He isn't reacting against traditional sexual practices and traditional sexual morality.
It seems to me that...
These people, they think they invented sex.
They think that they invented all of this.
But they didn't do that.
They just made it more boring.
They accomplished the impossible.
Playboy's subscriptions have been falling for decades.
They may have been consumed in their own revolution.
And they created men that aren't manly in the real sense.
They might be libertine, but they're not liberated.
They're not really free.
It reminds me of C.S. Lewis's Men Without Chests in Abolition of Man.
He says, quote, And that might be the point.
Hugh Hefner says, well, the old sexual laws, they're outdated and ridiculous, and we need to get past them.
Get past them to what?
What is going to replace that?
He says he's going to build a new morality.
He didn't build a new morality.
He just got rid of morality.
But you can't see through things forever.
And Lewis goes on, quote, To find traitors in our midst.
We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
We're creating these men where when Hugh Hefner dies, I don't think a lot of people are going to say, there was a great man.
There is a life well lived.
We'll joke about it.
We'll say, oh, he had a good life.
Yeah, gosh, I wish I had that life.
But we don't really mean that this is a guy who lived a life worth admiring.
We won't tell our children, do what Hugh Hefner did, because he was a man without a chest.
And speaking of chests, we need to get to people who certainly have chests.
That would be the Lingerie Football League.
I think it's now called the Legend Football League or something like that.
I guess that's what they say it's called now, but it's the Lingerie Football League.
I actually didn't know this thing existed until this morning, and then I did a lot of research over my morning coffee.
And it's this league where women wear skimpy outfits and play football, I guess.
But the reason they're culturally relevant right now is that they're standing up for America while the NFL player ingrates are taking a knee.
The LFL, the last bastion of hope for our country, the LFL is coming out and saying, quote,"...the LFL recognizes everyone's First Amendment right to protest, but our nation's flag and anthem are far too sacred." Quote, "...too many fellow Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice so that our flag and anthem continue in all its majesty." Well done, ladies.
A great show for America.
Really appreciate you.
With that, we have to bring on our panel of deplorables.
I was thinking for this show, which is all about sex, sex, sex, I figured that we should do an all-female panel.
They've told me absolutely not.
HR simply will not be able to handle the complaints that come in.
So instead, we brought on one female, Ariel Davidson.
We have on Zoe Rachel and his eminence, Paul Bois.
Everybody, thank you for being here.
Zoe.
So, can you hear me, Zoe?
Are you plugging your thing in?
We're on a real tight ship over here at the Michael Knowles Show.
It was setting up during the panel.
Considering the subject matter.
Yeah, he was doing some research on the Lingerie Football League, too.
Now, I know that you're a former Lingerie League player, and these women are really the voice of reason here.
Is it time that we finally buy into the feminist notion that women should rule the world?
No, no.
That hasn't worked out.
I mean, when Adam took that advice from Eve, who wanted to assume authority at that point, and the weird thing is that Eve got her suggestion from another guy.
So it kind of balances out.
That is true.
It was that other guy who told me.
It was that other guy.
But what does that have to do with my looking at the Lingerie Football League?
This presents a real theological problem.
Because you've got to think with your head, man.
It's hard to do that when you're looking at lingerie.
That is true.
The blood rushes away from my brain.
Ariel, between the Playboy philosophy and feminism, men have got it pretty good.
Easy sex.
We don't need to pick up the check.
We don't have to open the door.
We don't have any accountability.
The age of chivalry is dead.
But in the age of the Playboy philosophy, how can women regain their status?
Wow, that is a loaded question.
I have a lot of feelings on it.
When I don't know where to start, I'll start anywhere.
By the way, Ariel, that's a great way to begin with how women can reclaim their status is say, I just have so many feelings.
All the feelings are rushing into me.
Please, go ahead.
All right.
Well, the first thing I will say is what struck me about your sort of description of the sexual revolution.
I would add to that the advent of the birth control pill played a huge role in sort of the double standard when it came to premarital sex for women versus men.
And so I think there's a sort of...
I think the birth control pill needs to be given sort of its due course.
When it comes to in terms of feminism and chivalry, I think feminism in pushing the sexual revolution of the female and more sexual openness Has been detrimental to how men perceive their role in society.
And so I think, like, you know, now the most common image of the woman is this 30-something-year-old woman.
She's probably single.
She's probably having trouble finding a man who's at her education level because women are graduating from college at higher rates than men are.
Of course, they might be completely uneducated like everyone else who graduates from college.
Right, exactly.
But you make a good point.
More women are graduating.
They're ostensibly more educated than men.
They are.
And so the image of the proverbial forever single 30-something-year-old woman is becoming more commonplace now.
And I think a lot of that has to do with, you know, being able to be completely independent also means that we haven't created a need for men as much.
And, you know, both men and women need to feel needed by the opposite sex.
Ultimately, I think that's the thesis of women are from Venus and men are from Mars, that you need to create some sort of need for the opposite sexes in your life.
If women can hold their own doors, If they can, you know, do everything independently on their own, then men sort of feel useless.
And in that sense, what is the point of chivalry, right?
If we can do everything on our own, what's the point of needing men?
And vice versa.
You know, if men are becoming increasingly more independent and distant, and there's not really a need for women, then they too will not feel that they need a relationship.
I will tell you though, Ariel, every night as I put my head on my pillow, my fiancee's sweet little Lisa leans over and she does say, Mac, I do not need you.
I never need you.
And yet the converse is not true.
When she goes away for a week or two to New York, my life falls into shambles.
I am living like a hog in sewage.
The walls are falling down from my apartment.
So there's a real double standard there.
Right.
Oh, is there?
Absolutely.
So she doesn't need you.
She's just performing her due diligence, or she's performing her charity.
It's charity.
Yeah, you're her charity case.
Absolutely.
That's good.
Yeah, so I guess that was a long-winded answer, but that's sort of, you know, I think how feminism has killed chivalry in a lot of ways.
That would be sort of my argument.
At least third wave feminism, and to some extent, second wave feminism as well.
Sure, yeah.
Yeah, and you make a good point that the way out of it is to feel needed, to feel possessed, to feel in need of the other's support and supporting the other.
Your eminence, obviously, your view, I assume you'll be speaking ex-cathedra, will be infallible.
Hugh Hefner was a charming guy, and it's hard not to like him.
He was even apparently monogamous during his three marriages, so try to unpack that.
But he does say he didn't cheat on his wives, his multiple wives.
How did Hef go so wrong?
Well, that is a very loaded question, Michael.
And I'm, of course, going to give my Catholic perspective on this.
Now, I'm going to start with a quote that Hugh Hefner said in an interview in 1974.
He said, quote, He also said, part of the reason that I am who I am is my Puritan roots run deep.
My folks are Puritan.
My folks are prohibitionists.
There was no drinking in my home.
No discussion of sex.
And I think I saw the hurtful and hypocritical side of that from the very early on.
What Hefner was operating under in his family life, who were Methodists, is a heresy in the Catholic Church known as Gnosticism, which completely and totally denies the flesh and says that the flesh is evil and all spiritual existence in relationship to God exists primarily in the spirit, primarily in the mind, and Descartes would expand this into a philosophy known as Cartesian philosophy.
So, essentially what that is, is it denies material in aiding in your salvation process.
This goes back to John Calvin.
John Calvin had sort of the similar thing that all human beings are totally depraved.
Total depravity.
Yeah, total depravity and matter is part of that.
So essentially when that happens is you essentially say that matter is essentially useless.
Sex becomes just a utilitarian thing.
It's primarily used for procreation.
It's no longer about the bonding and man and wife coming together in multiple different ways, spiritually, physically, and partaking in the joy of that, which also produces a child.
It rejects things like music, creating beauty, creating beautiful So you think that he's reacting just from one complete extreme all the way over to the other extreme?
Exactly, yes.
They're two sides of the same oppressive coin.
And you know, Norm MacDonald made this point once.
I think it was on some comedy album of his.
He said, scientists say that men think about sex every 1.5 seconds.
And that he knows that isn't true because he knows what he's thinking about.
And he knows the precise amount of time that men think about sex, which is every once in a while.
And there is this – it seems to me people say like either we're just completely sex-obsessed.
We have to just – everything has to be concupiscent and lustful and sexy or we need to like all throw on potato sacks and whip ourselves whenever we have an impure thought.
And obviously both of those are ridiculous.
Yes, of course.
And, you know, I mean, unfortunately, you know, puritanical values have been a part of American culture for a very long time.
I mean, you know...
Great grandpappies, Knowles, you know, four guys on the Mayflower, they were pretty religiously zealous.
Yes, I mean, it got so extreme.
I mean, we had, of course, like in the 1950s, in I Love Lucy, they couldn't use the word pregnant.
You couldn't show a married couple...
I don't use it.
On this show, you say enceinte.
Thank you very much.
You couldn't use the word pregnant.
I mean, there are lots of things that it goes to an extreme.
And when you create that extreme, you create a whole entire another extreme.
And it's out of balance.
And unfortunately, Part of me says that if we ever get it back, it will just go back to another puritanical extreme.
And it's something that also affects the Catholic Church.
There are people in sex like the SXPX where they talk about when they have sex with their spouse.
It's like they make sure all the clothes are on and you can't ever enjoy it.
Yeah, more than two minutes and it's a sin.
Yeah, exactly.
I know.
I've read the books.
I'm just confused by the homonym sex and sex.
That's sex advice from Paul Bois.
Ariel, did the Playboy philosophy win?
The magazine is in doldrums.
Subscriptions peaked decades ago, but obviously there's this huge porn epidemic.
Porn is a gigantic industry now.
It goes beamed directly to your cell phone or your computer.
Did Hefner win?
I think that the movement that Hefner was riding sort of the wave on or he helped to forge the path for, that is still very much relevant.
I think that technology has sort of transformed how information is transmitted.
So if we look at what's happened to Playboy as a company, the reason that subscriptions have gone down probably has a lot to do with how you don't really need to pay for porn anymore.
You don't need to pay for sexually explicit images.
I'm sorry, I gotta make a phone call after this.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Go ahead.
I think the internet is a horrible thing and a wonderful thing for a lot of different reasons.
But, you know, my point being that the sexual revolution is something that Hefner, I think, himself helped to foster, and he's sort of become a cultural enigma.
I think in a lot of ways he did win, and I think the person that Hefner was behind closed doors is probably very different than the person he was.
It's sort of like you described earlier, this happy-go-lucky, very jovial person.
It sounds like there was a lot more going on behind closed doors of his company and just internally within his own mind.
I did want to point out there was something I came across In an article, I think it was a New York Times piece on him, they described how during the civil rights movement he actually sent a black journalist by the name of Alex Haley to actually go interview the founder of the American Nazi Party because he wanted to explicitly make that neo-Nazi uncomfortable and he wanted to expose his very bombastic racism and I thought that was very interesting because that's a side of Hugh Hefner that we don't really hear as much
about but he was very forthright about having You know, people come to the Plain Boy Mansion who are people of color, various different people of different backgrounds, and he made an explicit effort to do that.
There actually is a lot to be said for the guy.
He was clearly more intellectual than people give him credit for.
He was bolder on some political issues.
And so, yeah, he actually did do some good things, even if he destroyed the country.
He did some good things, but he did do a lot of, you know, I don't know, there was a memoir that came out from one of the Playboy Bunnies, I think it was called Down the Rabbit Hole, that was pretty damning of Hugh as a person and sort of the lifestyle he lives.
So like I said, I think there's a balancing act here of the person Hugh is, or Hugh was, excuse me, behind closed doors and who he was to the public.
As is true of all of us, I'm sure.
Zoe, are we just a bunch of prudes to be disrespecting the half?
Well, to that, I want to say something very, very serious.
Something very sobering.
Do y'all think that Hugh Hefner is in his afterlife right now soliciting those 72 versions to see if they can be in a centerfold for the jihadists who died in the name of Islam?
Dude, he did something.
There's a market there, man.
I was wondering, did he have a last minute conversion to Islam?
One would imagine.
That's just prudential.
He was a big donor.
He was a big donor to the Democratic Party.
That's true.
He could just get up there and say like, this is it, man.
This is more of this.
I get this for eternity.
Damn.
Nothing changes.
Can I get a show of hands of the fellas in here who like to see boobies?
I've heard they're nice.
Friends have told me they're nice.
Boobs on the First Amendment.
That's right, I saw it on the news.
...with his hand in the air.
His hand is in the air.
I'll bet you Ben and Jeremy are walking around with their hands and they say, yes, I like to see boobies.
Here's the thing.
I think it's proof of concept that men like to see boobies.
You know why?
Because naked women are valuable.
There's value in naked women.
Now, which means that I think it's more valuable than pay $3.99 to see a naked woman.
You really want to show value in a naked woman?
You're flippin' married!
And that way you have access, not just the visual of the boobies, you got access to them to show that you're really valuable.
So marriage is a subscription to boobies.
A very expensive subscription.
A very lifelong subscription to boobies.
Well, that's the Zoe revolution.
We have the Zoe philosophy to follow, the Playboy philosophy.
A very good one.
Now, in related news, we have next week, the Congress will vote on The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
This act came up in 2015.
It was shot down.
Now, President Trump says it is a high priority for him to sign the bill, pass it into law, and protect and ban late-term abortions so that he can protect these unborn babies.
Now, I think we're all probably happy about the content of the law, but it does raise a federalism question.
Ariel, should we be passing these laws at a federal level or should we leave it to the states?
Ah, that's a tough one for me, because I, you know, I'm someone who is adamantly pro-life, especially when it comes to issues like the partial birth abortion.
I am in favor of passing this on a federal level, and I'll tell you why, because I don't think there's any murky gray area when it comes to sort of What a partial birth abortion is.
I'm not going to go into detail and spare our viewers, but needless to say that it is something that is violent.
It is gruesome.
Ariel, I'm sorry, because I was reading about this on Everyday Feminism.
A partial birth abortion, that's when you just take out a slight little sack of cells that's a part of the mother through a completely clinical and normal procedure.
No, not at all.
Wait, that's not it?
No.
Oh, wow.
Yes.
I know.
Horrible.
Basically, if you are a woman, you give partial birth to the fetus or the baby.
Let's call it baby for what it is.
You give birth to the baby.
It's basically half out of your body, and at which point they are allowed to murder the child as it is halfway out of your body.
But if the mother doesn't want it, then it's not murder, right?
I think that's what Aristotle talks about in the ethics.
Right.
Life is subjective, right?
So it's whatever you decide life to be.
That's the mystery of life, as Sandra Day O'Connor would say.
Right.
So what bothers me about it is I don't think there's any gray area when it comes to this.
I think this was a good call and I support Trump in supporting this.
I think we're one step closer to creating an agenda that is much more hostile to abortion.
I think what's happened At least on the left end of the spectrum, it's sort of become a cause of celebration.
And I think it's disgusting.
I think it's morally reprehensible.
And I applaud Trump for supporting this ban.
I just would like to see it actually happen.
Because in terms of defunding Planned Parenthood, that hasn't happened yet.
We have yet to see that happen.
And so, you know, this is one step closer to showing that Trump is actually going to follow through in some of the things he said during his campaign.
He has to walk the walk.
And one point on the word fetus.
People on the left, they always try to draw a distinction between a fetus and a baby.
Just as a matter of language, the word fetus means offspring.
So a human fetus is human offspring.
It comes from Latin.
For some reason, they think it means, I don't know, like unicorn or something.
But it does mean offspring.
There's no difference between those words.
So Democrats defeated this bill two years ago.
Do the Democrats really believe that being the party of killing sentient, nascent human life is a winning campaign platform?
Well, convenience is popular.
You know, and when it comes to Democrats, that's what they're all about.
You know, a majority rule.
You get a majority by things being popular, and a popular thing is convenience.
So, of course, it's going to do well, well, for lack of a better word, for them politically to be opposed to something like that.
But if I may, can I answer a question, the question about, you know, whether this should be handled on a federal level or a state level?
Absolutely not.
No way.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Please.
Listen.
It's very simple.
We have a supreme law of the land, and we all have to live under it, and we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
You can't make a decision on this on state level.
This isn't even a question of it should be in court or not, because you're taking the court to actually deprive somebody of their right to live.
That's not something that the court would be like, what?
We're not going to do a hearing on that.
That's ridiculous.
So even on a state level, if the state decided to make it legal, then the federal government has the right to come in and say, actually, no, you're imposing on somebody's right to live.
That is when the government is supposed to be involved.
I think we're all limited government people here.
Yeah, absolutely.
But the objective of government is to protect our God-given rights.
Should this be a question of being in the States?
No.
The most fundamental right is the right to life.
So if you don't have that, you can't have a limited general.
Can't have the rest without them.
This is definitely a step in the right direction.
Yes.
But what about all those unborn babies who were aborted before they are capable of feeling pain?
Do you think, as a matter of politics or morality, that conservatives should fight this abortion fight later on in second, third trimester, where there's broad support for banning abortion?
Or should conservatives be logically consistent and say we just need to outlaw abortion, overturn Roe v.
Wade, human life is sacred from the beginning?
Yes, I certainly believe.
I'm an absolutist on this.
I mean, if I were president, I would sign an executive order right away and just declare that Roe v.
Wade was complete crap and it's gone.
That is the monarchy.
Monarchist Pablo.
That is the monarchist in me, yes.
So just on a political level, obviously if I'm in the Senate and they bring forth this bill, of course I'm going to sign on to it and support anything that protects human life.
But I do think that the pro-life movement, and on the grassroots level they have this voice, it's certainly not on the political level, but absolutely, I am an absolutist.
Just say it.
Let's end it completely, totally.
Abortion is evil.
It is It's the worst moral scourge to happen to this country since slavery, and we just need to voice it as much as possible every day until the public finally gets the message.
The pro-life generation of my generation is pro-life.
Takes that very seriously.
But the people, you know, baby boomers, people who were around when abortion came onto the scene, they don't really have that intensity.
But the younger generation really does because we see its fallout.
That's true.
And the boomers also gave us a terrible national debt that we'll never be able to pay, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm sorry, Zoe.
We cut you off.
No, no.
I thought the question was for me, but it was for his imminence.
Sorry about that.
Absolutely.
Sorry, Ariel, go ahead.
No, I was just going to say as well that I think technology is on our side too here.
In the 70s when Roe v.
Wade came about, they didn't have the technology that we have now.
We can look in and see elements of the child that we never would have been able to see prior.
We can see fingernails, we can see hands, we can see toes.
I mean, these are the sort of things that you just wouldn't You know, this is something that will, it shouldn't be that we need to see it to believe its life.
That's not my point.
But if we're trying to make people understand what we're fighting for, that is really a powerful weapon and that's in our core and that's in our favor.
And I can already start to see people on the left sort of shaking their boots as more and more science comes out about how sentient the baby is at a really, really young age stage of development.
And it's amazing too because Shapiro said – there was a great little viral video going around from his last speech where he said the sentience doesn't matter.
We shouldn't be able to kill someone in a coma.
And there is this point that I think when we bring up all of the scientific advancements that let us see the unborn baby – I think, well, fingernails aren't the reason we have a right to life.
Even a beating heart isn't the reason.
People have a pacemaker or whatever.
But it is politically and emotionally very compelling.
So should we rely on it for that reason?
I mean, you know, it's tough because, like I said before, I shouldn't be saying, oh, we're going to quantify life by what we can see.
But maybe if it will help us to start the conversation, then I'm all for that.
Because at this point, it's about reaching people in a way that we can...
Show them, okay, this is what you're actually killing.
Because now, in certain states, you don't even need to have an ultrasound before you go through an abortion.
You don't even need to engage at all with the child you created before you decide to kill it.
And so in my mind, that's horrible.
Of course, you don't want to see it before you kill the thing.
That's kind of a bummer.
Right, right.
Absolutely not.
You don't want to walk around.
It's just awful.
Anyway, I obviously have a ton of sympathy for the women that go through with this.
I know it's not an easy choice.
But when it comes down to having the conversation about when life begins and trying to make people understand what we're fighting for, I'm in favor of using technology to do that, as long as that's not our main line of argument.
I mean, my environment should always be life begins at conception.
Yeah, and you might say it's a simple choice, but not an easy choice.
That distinction that Ronald Reagan drew.
He said there aren't easy answers, but there are simple answers.
It is clear.
It's just very difficult to accept the implication that human life is sacred from the beginning.
Absolutely right.
Okay, panel.
Man, what a...
What a serious show.
All I wanted to talk about was lingerie ladies and sex, but you've brought me back down to ideas and things like that.
Thank you for being here, Ariel Davidson, His Eminence Paul Bois, and the one and only Zoe Rachel.
Now it is time for the mailbag.
Okay, now I think we should probably say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube here.
We've got these great questions for the mailbag.
I'm accused of idolatry and Catholic idolatry at one of them, so we'll be answering that.
But you cannot see it.
Unless you go over and subscribe at thedailywire.com.
I know you really want, but I'm sorry.
It's not up to me.
We thank everybody who's a current subscriber.
They help us keep the lights on.
For the rest of you, it's $10 a month, $100 a year.
And what do you get?
You get no ads on the website.
That's very helpful.
You get my show.
You get the Andrew Klavan show.
You get the Ben Shapiro show.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So what?
But guys...
Guys, come on.
You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
The indestructible Leftist Tears Tumblr made from crushed up and hardened, reinforced bits of Stephen Crowder mugs.
It is housing wonderful vintages this year.
We have NFL players.
We have George Clooney.
We have Hillary Clinton.
Every single one of her tweets fills up a full Tumblr full of delicious tears.
So go over there right now.
DailyWire.com.
We'll be right back.
All right.
The first mailbag question is from Arlay.
Hey Michael, I love your show and I really love how many people you bring onto the show.
Thank you.
A recent poll showed that over 60% of Trump supporters say that they will support anything that Trump says.
Does this poll worry you?
Why or why not?
I'm really worried about the other 40%.
What about those guys?
Why aren't they pulling their part in supporting our...
No, I am not really worried about this demagoguery.
And this week in particular showed it to me.
The victory of Roy Moore in Alabama over Luther Strange in the Senate primary for the special election.
President Trump endorsed Luther Strange.
Roy Moore was a more Trumpy candidate.
He ran the Covfefe-er campaign, and the people of that state voted for Moore.
They gave Moore the nomination instead.
I don't think it's because they don't like President Trump.
In Roy Moore's victory speech, he said, I don't care that Trump didn't endorse me.
I support his agenda 100% as long as it's constitutional.
So I think what that shows is Ann Coulter's thesis that the support for Trump is based on issues.
It's based on what he's doing.
doing.
It's based on a fortitude to take on sacred cows and revered left-wing cultural institutions and beat them up and stand firm, unlike a lot of spineless Republicans.
So there is a difference between the Trump movement and Donald Trump.
It isn't just a mindless cult of personality like we think.
I don't really believe the 60% number, but in any case, if we do, then...
I think these numbers change a lot because political polls are constantly, constantly changing.
Next question from Jake.
Michael, where can we watch your movie, Holly Weird?
Thanks, love the show.
So I've been in a bunch of these little indie movies that play at like 3 in the morning on Channel 5000.
But there is one movie where I have the lead role in it.
And right now it's at the Festival Circa.
It's called Holly Weird.
I'm hoping that we'll be able to have some sort of public viewing of it soon, either a screening in theaters or on video on demand or something like that.
But I'll keep you posted.
It's a really fun movie.
Coincidentally, this has nothing to do with my political work, but...
It is a movie that just lambasts Hollywood, so I think everyone is going to like it.
A providential coincidence.
Next question is from Johnny Miguel.
Just watched your interview with Dave Rubin.
I enjoy his videos and honesty in his opinions.
However, I'm not going to lie, when he was discussing the he-she pronoun controversy and the courtesy, it was a bit cringy.
He seemed to be making a large push for the emotional aspect of the argument, which comes off as weak.
All this is to ask, are we entering a new rabbit hole where we will have to give up sanity and in 20 years accept new pronouns into our language?
If so, how can we combat this?
Yeah, I disagree with Dave on this.
I am stuck with the question of how to be polite and courteous and a gentleman and also not mainstream delusion and pretend that reality is unreality and allow delusional people to try to define reality for the rest of us and call it bigotry if we don't buy into their madness.
I think he's wrong about this because Dave is a liberal.
He's a classical liberal.
He believes in the liberal mode of decision-making, which is we're going to vigorously debate ideas in public and the best ideas hopefully will come to the top.
But I think on this particular issue, he's falling into what Jonathan Rauch calls the humanitarian impulse of decision-making, which is the first consideration when you're making a decision is how not to offend people.
It's how to make people feel nice about themselves and not harm them.
Which I think is ultimately harmful.
I think the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so we might try to call someone whatever they want to be called.
But if we're not dealing in reality, then we're removing them from reality.
And it's, I think, condescending, and it doesn't help them to see the real world any better.
Shapiro also on this once said, I think it was his grandfather had a mental illness, and they got him medicine.
They didn't say that the radio really was talking to him.
They just got him medicine, and I think that's where the focus should be on that question.
Next question is from Father Greg.
Father Greg, a priest.
Dear Michael, the once and future King of Trolls, I'm a monthly subscriber, so I don't have a Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Sorry.
But can you answer a question for me?
I'm a Catholic priest.
Were I to attempt to bless leftist tiers, what would happen?
Would the tiers A, do nothing, as leftist tiers are already a maximal blessing?
B, reject the blessing, as since action follows being, the leftist tiers possessing the character of the leftist are thus not properly disposed to receive the blessing?
Or C, cofefe in saecula saeculorum?
I am awed by the perspicacity of your arguments and the insight in this question.
All I can say to you, Father, is...
That line is going to land for about five people in this audience.
But that's what we do.
We just go right for the most niche punchline we can.
Two people.
We're laughing at that.
Joseph...
Michael, I wanted to know your stance on the death penalty, what your stance on the death penalty is as a Catholic.
I'm also Catholic, but I keep getting told some of my friends with the same faith that we should never take the lives of criminals unless not doing so threatens the security of others.
What do you think?
I think that's total bunk, man.
I don't believe that at all, Joseph.
I think that's a relatively modern Catholic stance and it's promoted by people who are doing it in the name of the Catholic faith but not necessarily with the backing of that tradition.
Obviously, St.
Paul says that the civil authority has the right to do whatever it pleases, basically, whatever it does lawfully.
And the Catholic Church, the Catechism acknowledges that the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and that it is rightly part of the state's authority.
It says later that, quote, today it would be rare if practically non-existent because there is less threat of these criminals going back out and killing people.
We can keep them in these expensive institutions, which to me seems more cruel and unusual than killing them.
Father Rutler, whom I often cite, points out in a wonderful column called Hanging Concentrates the Mind, quote, as a highly unusual insertion of a prudential opinion in a catechetical formula, it would seem to be more mercurial in application than the doctrine of the legitimacy of the it would seem to be more mercurial in application than the doctrine It's a little rare and it's a little strange that in the catechism they offer this opinion about when it would be used or wouldn't be used,
And so one wonders what the status of that is compared to the clear statement that the civil authority has the right to kill people.
Ruttler also points out the medicinal benefits of capital punishment.
Dr. Johnson famously said, dependent upon it, sir, when a man knows he has to hang in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
And the health benefit of being killed by the government is, of course, that the criminal can focus his mind.
He can think of eternal things and the condemned have a frame of mind to die in a state of grace.
So, yeah, I support the death penalty.
I don't think the Catholic faith condemns it, and you should go right on, considering that the civil authority has the right to exact justice, a topic that is largely missing from our criminal justice system and criminology today.
From Raymond, another Catholic question, but this one's pretty good.
Michael...
Since you're a Catholic, allow me to ask this.
Why do y'all worship false idols?
I know the candle burning is from African voodoo, but saints elected by men.
Mary isn't divine.
You can't gain admission to heaven through your works.
You do good works because you are godly and saved.
Why do you call priests father?
They're not your father.
God is the father.
Then you have an earthly father, but priests aren't him.
I don't know if Raymond is just some arch-Catholic who's trolling me with this letter, but maybe not.
There's a lot of confusion about the Catholic faith.
I think that's why the majority of the mailbag questions are about that.
So let's go through all of your objections, Raymond, and I will dispel your confusion.
Beginning with candle burning...
As some part of African voodoo, the fluorescent light bulb is a relatively new invention.
For most of history, everybody, every place used candles to light the way.
And by the way, candlelight gives off a much more beautiful light than does Al Gore's stupid light bulbs with mercury on them.
So I think the candles are fine.
I don't think it's confined to African voodoo.
I think it's the way to illuminate the world other than the sun and the son of God.
Saints are not elected by men.
That's absolutely true.
Very often people say, well, Catholics worship saints and that's idolatrous or polytheistic or something.
Saints are those who have everlasting life in Christ.
Saints are referred to in many instances in the Bible and the church acknowledges That certain people are saints through a process called canonization.
So that's not all the saints.
There are more people in heaven than the churches called saints, but some we know are in heaven.
And the way we know this is because of the magisterium of the church.
That is based on a number of scriptural instances, but in particular, Jesus says to Peter, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.
Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
You have the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
So there is an authority that Christ is giving to Peter and then to the apostles to have some say, and to bind and to loose and have the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
So by definition, saints have everlasting life.
We ask saints to pray for us.
Now sometimes people say, you're praying to the saints, you're worshiping the saints.
That isn't the case.
We ask people to pray for us all the time.
We go in and we say, hey, you know, Bob is having surgery next week.
Can you pray for us?
Hey, I'm going through a rough time.
Please keep me in your thoughts and prayers.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Asking Joe Schmo to pray for you, but you're not comfortable of asking people that we know have life.
By definition, they're the people who are living.
They have everlasting life.
It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
I think it's just a misunderstanding of what it means to pray.
Next point Raymond has is Mary isn't divine.
That's true.
The church has never said Mary is divine.
Sure, we agree.
I think that's a straw man.
You can't gain admission to heaven through your works.
That's also right.
The church has never held that you can gain admission to heaven through your works.
The church has actually explicitly condemned this as a heresy.
This was a heresy developed in the 5th century.
Why do we call priests father?
Only God is the father, and if we call anyone else other than our daddy's father, then that's diminishing God.
I don't see any scriptural basis for this at all.
The Bible is replete with examples of people being referred to as father who are not literally the parents of children, but who are in positions of spiritual authority and responsibility.
Just to go through a few...
In Genesis, Genesis 45, 8, So it was not you who sent me here, but God, and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.
That's Joseph.
In Job, I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know.
In Isaiah, In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with a robe and will bind a girdle on him and will commit authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
And finally, St.
Paul in 1 Corinthians says, I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers.
For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
I don't think that all of those scriptural examples are heresy or blasphemous or disrespectful to God at all.
You know, one aspect of this where it ties back to politics is I reject ideologies per se.
Obviously, we indulge them a little bit, but the one thing I know about ideologies is that they're not true.
The reason that ideologies are not true is because they're rationalized abridgements of tradition, of reality.
They can't possibly comprehend all of reality.
And so the one thing that I know about religious sects founded by men is that they aren't true.
And they aren't true because I can understand them.
And if I can understand them, then they aren't true.
They're clearly founded by men.
I can understand Calvinism.
I cannot understand the Catholic Church, which for many people would be the reason why they would be Calvinists.
For me, it's the reason I'm a Catholic, because if I can't understand it, then there's a fair shot it wasn't founded by men.
Nobody in history has really been able to encapsulate and understand this thing.
It's good evidence that perhaps it was, as it says, instituted by Christ on earth.
G.K. Chesterton converted to Catholicism for precisely this reason.
He said that all these different sects are attacked for being too conservative or too left-wing or too this or too that.
But only the Catholic Church is attacked for both at the same time.
It's attacked from all sides, which might suggest that it has the right idea.
And just to hit this point, because a lot of the questions you brought up I think could be answered with a Google result.
I Google these things all the time.
If your worry is that something isn't clear, then I think you should look a little harder because shallows are clear.
Shallow religion is clear.
Shallow thinking is clear.
Profound things are deep and murky.
That isn't my line.
That's the line of Father Rutler.
He makes a very good point.
If something is so clear that you or I can understand it, I'm skeptical.
I'm skeptical of it, and I think we should approach our politics, certainly, our human interactions, and absolutely our I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Try to survive the weekend.
▲
Export Selection