Ep. 1162 - The CDC & FDA Float A Wild mRNA "Stroke" Conspiracy Theory
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
The CDC and the FDA admit that the “Fauci Ouchi” from Pfizer might be linked to strokes, the “gold standard” evidence for transing the kids has just collapsed under the weight of a new scientific study, and a statue in Boston for Martin Luther King Jr. does real disrespect to Dr. King.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Use code DO NOT COMPLY to get 40% OFF new annual DailyWire+ membership plans: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
4Patriots - Get 10% OFF with code 'KNOWLES' at https://4patriots.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The FDA and the CDC now see an early signal of a possible link between the Pfizer COVID vaccine and an increased risk of stroke.
And I, for one, think it is terribly irresponsible of those government agencies to spread what I have been reliably informed for the past three years is a baseless and dangerous right-wing conspiracy theory.
Now, before I am taken off YouTube less than one minute into my show, I want to be clear that that possible risk is not merely being reported on social media.
It's not even just being reported by news agencies such as Reuters.
See, right there, there it is.
U.S., FDA, CDC, early signal of possible Pfizer bivalent COVID shot length to stroke.
By the way...
The original headline didn't even include the word possible.
The original headline just said, FDA CDC see an early signal of Pfizer COVID shot link to stroke.
And then they had to edit it.
They said, this story has been refiled with an edited headline to clarify that the link to a stroke is possible.
Not definite, but, you know, it's there, man.
It's there.
And why is it there?
How do we know it's there?
Because the report is coming straight from the agencies themselves.
Here it is, right on the FDA's website, which for me raises only one question.
If the endemically dishonest FDA and CDC are finally admitting what many of us suggested and were castigated for suggesting from the beginning of the vaccine rollout, can you even imagine how bad the risk situation actually is?
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Nell Show.
My favorite comment on Friday is from Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog, who says, The professor showing the students gay porn sounds like he's pushing conversion therapy.
That's true.
That's actually a very good point.
That Penn State professor who told all his straight students to watch gay porn so they could feel more gay, that is a kind of conversion therapy.
But in our culture, the conversion is only allowed to go in one way.
You're never allowed to convert toward the side of conservatism or tradition or truth, justice, and beauty or any of those.
No, no.
It's just whatever the libs want to do today.
That's the only thing you're allowed to convert to.
Everything else is going to be illegal.
The libs are really coming after us.
And when situations get dicey, when maybe the power starts to go out, you're going to want to check out Four Patriots.
Right now, head on over to 4, the number 4, Patriots.com.
Use code Knowles.
A tree branch hit a power line in Ohio in 2003.
It shut down 21 power plants.
Around 100 people died.
We have a power grid that was designed in the 1800s.
Even the White House sees that.
They're saying that two-thirds of the grid is at least 25 years old.
So they recently announced billions of dollars to update it.
How long is that going to take?
That is why having your own solar power is more important than ever.
With the 4 Patriots Patriot Power Generator, you get a portable solar generator that does not install into your house.
You can take it with you wherever you go.
The 4 Patriots Patriot Power Generator is powerful enough for your phones, medical devices, even your fridge.
Right now, you can go to 4Patriots.com, use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to get 10% off your first purchase on anything in the store.
You'll also get their famous guarantee for an entire year after your order, plus free shipping on orders over $97.
A portion of every sale is donated to charities that support our veterans and their families.
Go to 4Patriots.com, use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to get 10% off.
That is 4Patriots.com, use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, I don't want to have to say I told you so.
In this case, though, I not only will say I told you so, but I'm going to have to take responsibility for telling you the opposite of what is so, because my doppelganger, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, typified the liberal establishment for the last three years in what she had to say about the COVID vaccine.
Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.
Remember that?
You remember the virus stops.
You remember Dr.
Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Joe Biden.
If you get the shot, you are not going to get the virus.
You remember that?
Remember when they told you the shots were completely safe?
If you raised any questions about it whatsoever, you were not only wrong and stupid and uneducated, but you actually were a murderer because you were...
Convincing people not to go get the vaccine that would have absolutely no deleterious health effects whatsoever.
And you're preventing them from stopping the spread.
Because don't forget, you get the shot, that totally stops the spread.
Doesn't matter that none of that was true.
Doesn't matter that nothing they told us about the vaccines, or COVID for that matter, was true.
That's what you had to believe.
Until now, three years later, they're willing to admit, in the face of a ton of evidence...
Yeah, okay, maybe there's a link between the shots and stroke.
Yeah, maybe there's a link between the shots and heart problems.
Yeah, maybe there's a link between the shots and blood clots.
Yeah, maybe there's a link between the shots and nerve damage.
Yeah, maybe, maybe, maybe.
Seems like a big L for the science, wouldn't you say?
Because at the time...
We were told, well, look, whatever Dr.
Fauci says, whatever the FDA, whatever the CDC says, that's the science.
Dr.
Fauci said, I'm a representative of the science.
That's why people don't like me.
Well, man, that science just sure seems to be getting a lot of things wrong, right?
It does.
Now, what you will hear people who defend the science say now is, well, that's not the real science.
They'll say, Dr.
Fauci, no, no, that's the politicized science.
Or the FDA and the CDC, no, that's the corrupted science.
What we need to do is trust the science, the real science, capital S. You'll even hear a lot of conservatives say this.
That was not my argument.
My argument from the early days of COVID was not, you've got your scientific data, but I've got my scientific data, and my scientific data are better than your scientific data.
That was not my argument.
My argument in the early days of COVID was, I don't believe your scientific data, but even if those data were true, I've got my political philosophy.
I've got my inherited tradition.
I've got my anthropology, my view of human nature and political communities.
I'll simplify it.
I've got my rights, okay?
And I don't give a damn about your stupid scientific study that's probably bogus anyway, because there are other modes of knowledge and there are other things in our society that we should value beyond the musings of witch doctors wearing white lab coats.
That was always my argument.
I think many conservatives share that view of things, but there were some conservatives who wanted to play by the Libs' rules and simply have a tit-for-tat over the science.
Oh, you've got your statistics?
Well, I've got my statistics.
You've got your study?
Well, I've got my study.
The problem isn't with the science.
The problem is that true science has never been tried.
That's basically the argument that we're hearing at this point.
From the people who really defend this scientistic worldview.
The kind of people who argue against transgenderism by saying, well, women just have two X chromosomes.
That's what it's all about.
No, it's more than that.
Women actually are more than their body parts.
Women actually are more than their genome.
It's not simply because women's bodies look a certain way that that's the reason that women shouldn't go into the men's bathroom and men shouldn't go into the women's bathroom.
It goes deeper than that.
I'm totally sick of hearing this line that basically amounts to the true science has never been tried.
It reminds me of the communists and the socialists and all the other utopians.
If the true science has never been tried, then why are we trusting it?
If it can never be instantiated in real life, then why are we trusting this?
My view is that science is fake.
I gave a speech on this at Wisconsin Lutheran not that long ago.
And my view, I know it's somewhat controversial, but it appears to be shared by one of the most powerful tech billionaires on the planet.
That would be Peter Thiel.
We have to ask some very tough questions whether this notion of a STEM shortage is actually something of a fairly big lie that we've been told.
One of my colleagues believes that the STEM shortage was a left-wing conspiracy theory, but he believes it was concocted by the Reagan administration in order to encourage too many people to go into these fields and drive down all their wages.
But even if there's no sort of full intentionality along those lines, it's sort of an incredible gloss on things.
And, you know, I sometimes wonder whether the people who are in STEM fields are actually even worse off than the people in humanities field.
I think in the humanities fields, you have a pretty clear sense that you will not be employable based on what you've studied.
And so...
You will scramble really hard to figure out what you're actually going to do, whereas the people who are in these STEM fields may be under the illusion that there are actually well-paying jobs in those fields.
I love this clip.
This clip has been going viral over the past few days, and it's a very good argument, which is that...
We're all told that you should major in STEM, don't major in the humanities.
But that might be mistaken because it's giving you false hope.
Because at least the people majoring in humanities know that they're not going to get a job based on their degrees.
The people in STEM believe that they will, but very often the people who are in STEM are not learning things that are directly applicable to some job.
Certainly not in the M part of STEM, the mathematics part of STEM. The parts that are not just applied science, engineering and the like, things that should be applicable to trades.
But even then, if you study some particular type of engineering, if you're just studying a preparation for a specific job, well, that might become outdated six months later.
Or ten years later, you're studying something that is not going to give you an education applicable to lots of different types of jobs.
And that's been my argument, too.
It's another place I break with a lot of the kind of modern conservative talking points, which say if you go to a school, if you go to a college, you should not major in literature or history or philosophy or anything like that.
That's for the libs.
You should just major in engineering.
And in a way, I think the opposite is true.
I share the concern that the humanities fields have been completely destroyed by the libs and by wokeness, and the science fields have largely been destroyed by them, but not entirely.
Maybe you shouldn't go to college at all.
I'm totally open to those things.
But if you're going to study something, I think you should study the liberal arts.
I think you should study not the technical arts that prepare you for a job.
I mean, if you want to go to a vocational school and you want to go to a trade school and you're doing that with your eyes wide open, go for it.
But if you want to get a liberal arts education, then actually study the liberal arts, the point of which is to help you make sense of your freedom, help you make sense of your culture, help you make sense of these higher things, that you can then go get some on-the-job training to apply that to a real-life profession.
Because so much of our modern political...
Chaos owes to the fact that people don't understand anything beyond certain applied sciences.
But we don't understand the bigger questions.
Why are we doing the things that we're doing?
How do we make political decisions?
What is a human being for?
And do I have to listen to Dr.
Fauci and get that dangerous shot that could potentially mess up my body?
And if I don't have to do that, then why?
These are the deeper questions that are not simply going to be answered by the science.
Let's take a look at the science on transgenderism.
There's a new study out that knocks down another study.
And the other study, the new study knocks down, was considered the gold standard in evidence for transing the kids.
There was a gold standard pile of evidence In support of medically transitioning trans-identified children.
It's called the Dutch Studies.
And this was what all the libs pointed to to say, actually, this is why we've got to put little kids on puberty blockers, and why we've got to put them on hormones, and why we've potentially got to chop them up when they become teenagers.
because it alleviates all their pain and it makes them feel much better and everything's hunky-dory.
Well, there's a new peer-reviewed paper just published last week that looked at this gold standard Dutch study evidence and found it, quote, has profound previously unrecognized problems and requires, quote, urgent attention from the medical community.
This is according to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, which is an international group of over 100 clinicians who do not want to trans the children.
So the paper here, which involves this group that has not only clinicians but researchers, is called The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine.
Okay, I'm glad we've got our studies.
I'm glad for people who are persuaded by this stuff that we can point to a study now and say, see, there's the study.
Believe that study.
Don't believe that study.
But you don't need a study to know that a little boy is a boy, okay?
If you need a guy in a lab coat to tell you that a little boy is not really a little girl, then something has gone wrong in your education.
Something's a little messed up in your brain, okay?
This is the result, not of bad biology, okay?
Not of bad chemistry.
Not of bad applied sciences.
This is the result of bad epistemology.
By which I mean...
This is a result of people not knowing how we even know things anymore.
I referenced a really great book that's about to come out, I just gave a blurb for it, called Evangelization and Ideology.
And so it's on a completely different topic from what we're talking about right now.
But the author, Matthew Petrucic, There's a really good way of thinking about this in the book, which is that the things that we're debating right now are politics.
That's at the center of the series of concentric circles.
You've got the politics.
Outside of politics, you've got applied morality.
Your view of applied morality is going to affect your view of politics.
And outside of that circle is morality broadly, the more abstract moral principles.
Outside of that circle, you're going to have epistemology.
How do we know things?
How do we deduce things about the moral order and everything else?
Outside of epistemology, you're going to have anthropology.
What is human nature?
What are human beings?
We, the people who are supposedly going to know things.
Outside of anthropology is ontology.
What is being?
What does it mean to be?
And then outside of ontology, you get theology, which is the question, what fundamentally is reality all about?
What underlies all of the other stuff that we're talking about here?
We're making errors at every single step of that series of concentric circles, but the big one is epistemology.
The fact that we think that we can only know things if we can look at it under a microscope.
It's why we use all of this ridiculous language now when we talk about transgenderism in particular.
We say, well...
You know, a biological male went into the girl's bathroom the other day.
I'm using very scientific language.
This is the kind of language that a clinician in a lab coat might use.
Yes, I took my stethoscope and I found out that this fella wearing stiletto heels in a dress with the biggest Adam's apple you ever saw, he's actually a biological male.
Oh, so he's a guy.
Well, I'm using very technical, scientific-y sounding kind of language.
No, he's a guy.
It's not like there are different types of male.
There's a scientific male, there's a spiritual male, there's a psychological male.
It's just a guy.
You're a guy.
Why?
Because, getting to the anthropology, human beings are body and soul, and those two things are linked because we're hylomorphic.
So you can't have a female soul and a male body.
That's bad anthropology.
And how do I know that?
Well, because I can reason philosophically, because I recognize that man is made in the image and likeness of God, because I can recognize the existence not only of matter but of form, and I can recognize that the soul is a substantial form of the body.
None of that requires a microscope.
It's because my epistemology is not limited to this stupid way of thinking that we all talk about today.
Those are much bigger problems.
You want to know what...
What transgenderism is all about, I've got a clip for you right here.
This is a clip that's just going around of the new owner of the Miss Universe contest.
This is what transgenderism is all about.
Welcome to the Miss Universe organization.
From now on, it's gonna be ran by women, owned by trans women, for all women, for all women really around the world to celebrate the power of feminism.
Diverse cultures, social inclusion, gender equality, creativity, the force for good, and of course, the beauty of humanity.
So, do you think you need a study to know that something is wrong about that?
That person is Jakafong Jakrajujatip.
I'm probably mispronouncing that name.
He goes by Ann.
He used to go by Ann Drew.
He is the current owner of Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA beauty pageant organizations.
And he is a fella who has had some surgery to make him look more like a woman.
And he says that the contest is now run by women.
I don't think he's really fooling anybody.
The clip is going viral specifically because he's not fooling anybody.
He's not fooling the conservatives.
He's not fooling the feminists.
It's very offensive to women, I think, to say, Hey, ladies.
Yeah.
Us gals.
You know, we're here.
We're finally running Miss Teen USA and Miss Universe and all the rest of it.
Isn't that girl power, huh?
The women are thinking, This is not...
I think I'm kind of being had here.
I don't think that the women are actually running these pageants yet.
Right.
Right, of course not.
But everybody looks at that and we say, okay, we know that something's wrong with that.
I urge people always to cultivate a conservative insight.
It's one that Russell Kirk talks about a lot.
It's one that Edmund Burke, one of the founders of modern conservatism, talked about a lot.
And that is...
Trust your prejudices most of the time.
Not all of the time.
You can have unjust prejudices and that can be a bad thing.
But most of the time your prejudices are going to be correct because your prejudices are prejudgments.
And prejudgments are the way that we have to operate in the world.
Because for every decision that we make, we make countless decisions all the time.
Where we're going to walk, what we're going to wear, who we're going to talk to, what we're going to say, what we're going to drink, what we're going to sit down and do.
What's going to distract our attention?
Will we answer the phone?
We make these decisions all the time, and we don't write 50-page long treatises of perfectly rational explanations as to why we make those decisions or why we feel a certain way about certain things.
We couldn't do that.
We wouldn't be able to operate in the world if we did that.
And so we've got to rely on our gut.
We've got to rely on our instinct.
We've got to rely on just prejudices, which is to say the inherited wisdom that we have from our tradition.
You might not be able to articulate precisely why it is wrong that a dude who's had a bunch of weird surgeries and is wearing stilettos is prancing around on stage calling himself a woman and taking over Miss Universe.
In the name of women.
You might not be able to articulate in the perfect rational way why it's wrong for a man to go into a girl's bathroom.
I think given enough time you probably could, but you might not be able to write on the spot.
That's okay.
You still know it's wrong, and you know it's wrong because of something that Leon Kass, the great bioethicist, referred to as the wisdom of repugnance.
You know that that's wrong.
It's okay to know that.
You don't need some scientist to give you permission to know the things that you already know.
The scientists are wrong most of the time anyway.
Speaking of the weird trans stuff, there is a young teenager, really sad story, California teenager, who was exposed to some naked man at the YMCA while she was getting changed.
This is Rebecca Phillips, just 17 years old.
She explained this disgusting situation during public comments at the January 11th Santee City Council meeting.
My name is Rebecca Phillips, and I'm 17 years old.
I am not a resident of Santee, but I am employed at a local restaurant, the Omelette Factory, and I work out regularly at the Santee YMCA. Just two weeks ago, after finishing my shift at my job, I went to the gym to swim laps.
As I was showering after my workout, I saw a naked male in the women's locker room.
I immediately went back into the shower, terrified, and hid behind their flimsy excuse for a curtain until he was gone.
I ran into a bathroom stall to change as quickly as I could, organizing my thoughts to share with the people at the front desk.
When I asked the YMCA management what their policy was regarding transgenders, they confirmed that the man that I saw was indeed allowed to shower wherever he pleased.
As long as you are not a red flag on Megan's law, The California Sex Offender Registry, a grown male, can shower alongside a teenage girl at your YMCA location here in Santee.
I was made to feel as though I had done something wrong when I talked to people at the YMCA. An absurd story.
Obviously this teenage girl should not be made to shower with naked dudes because those dudes happen to have some sexual perversion that makes them derive pleasure out of pretending to be a woman and stripping down in front of little girls.
Obviously that is the case.
And she says, you know, I was made to feel wrong I was made to feel wrong, like that's bigoted, like that's prejudiced.
Obviously that's not wrong.
She's right.
She, this girl, with her natural prejudices, is right.
And most of the scientific establishment today that pushes this woke PC line of transgenderism in all their lab coats, with all their microscopes, they're completely wrong.
Like they are wrong a lot of the time.
Like they were wrong about what they told us about COVID and the vaccines and lobotomies and leaching and so many of the other wacky scientific theories that have come up over time.
So, girl, 100% right.
Not her fault at all.
Now, I have, I think, a deeper reaction to this that I haven't heard anyone else bring up, and it's probably going to be controversial, and Media Matters is probably clipping this out right now.
But I don't care, because I think, actually, the fact that nobody is talking about this is why conservatives so frequently lose in the culture.
Why do women go to the YMCA? Why?
It's the YMCA. What's that?
The Young Men's Christian Association.
Why do women go there now?
There used to be something like the YWCA, Young Women's Association.
There are gyms for women.
There are all sorts of things for women.
Why is it now that everything has to be totally mixed?
I'm not saying it's this girl's fault.
Why did this girl go to the YMCA? No, she was invited to the YMCA. She's probably a member at the YMCA. I'm asking, why does the YMCA admit women?
And why does our culture want women to go to the YMCA? Why can't there be separate spaces in certain fields for men and for women?
Well, because increasingly we're told that men and women are not different, they're not complementary, they're interchangeable.
And it's not just the libs who believe that.
The libs are the ones who pushed it.
But many conservatives have accepted that as the truth.
And what conservatives do is we always just fight the craziest, newest symptom of a cultural error that goes much, much deeper.
So what you'll hear conservatives say is, well listen, I don't care about I don't care about gay marriage.
I don't care about feminism.
I don't care about this, that, and the other thing.
Everybody can do whatever they want.
And I don't care if a man wants to put on a dress and get his body chopped up by a doctor if he's over 18.
I don't care about any of that.
But don't do it with the kids.
Yeah, I don't care about, listen, I don't care if you go in and read a bunch of stories in a crazy sexualized outfit as part of Drag Queen Story Hour to fifth graders, but don't do it to third graders.
That was actually the argument in Florida.
When Florida, which, good on Florida, they went out and they banned this kind of weird grooming trans education stuff in elementary schools.
They only did it from pre-K through the third grade.
In fact, one of the jokey ways to refer to the bill was the wait till 8 bill.
And then starting at 9 years old, then you can be exposed to all this kind of transgender propaganda.
Just don't do it to the 8-year-olds.
Okay, well maybe to the 8-year-olds, but don't do it to the 5-year-olds.
Okay, well don't trans the 2-year-olds, and we just keep retreating.
But transgenderism is the natural consequence of this fundamental error that men and women are interchangeable.
And that's an error that goes back not just to gay marriage.
That's an error that goes back not just to the gay rights movement of the 1990s.
That's an error that goes back, at the very least, to feminism.
Because all of these movements take part of the same faulty premise.
Feminism says a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
Men and women are exactly the same.
The only difference is that our bodies look a little bit different.
And even then, that's not a big deal.
Okay, if that's true, then obviously you're going to have the normalization of homosexual relations.
If a man and a woman is the same thing as a man and a man, the same thing as a woman and a woman, then it's all the same.
And if you're going to do that, then you have to redefine marriage.
And if you're going to do that, if a man and a woman are exactly the same, then why the hell can't that guy shower in the locker room with a 17-year-old girl?
Why not?
Men and women are exactly the same.
Oh, okay, you're willing to admit finally that men and women are not exactly the same.
Well, then how far back are you going to take that?
Are you going to take that back to men and women have different roles within a marriage?
That marriage therefore has a special meaning and that sexual difference is at the heart of that?
That men and women have different roles within a political community and within society?
Are you willing to say that?
Even many conservatives probably would not want to do that.
Because it's not just the libs.
One problem is, conservatives are very often just fighting for the liberal position five years ago.
And that's why we keep losing.
Now, speaking of marriage and weird sex stuff, there's a headline.
This is pretty bad.
This is pretty bad.
It's gone viral.
And I have a take on it.
Today's show is going to be called Michael's Unpopular Opinions.
But why not?
That's what we're here for.
I'm not here to pander to you, okay?
I'm not here to sugarcoat you and throw you only what you want to hear.
I'm here to tell you the hard truth as I see it.
So this is the headline.
Exclusive.
Daily Mail.
Husband of Tennessee cop gone wild, Megan Hall...
Stands by his wife and tries to salvage their marriage after she was fired for having sorted sex romps with six colleagues as she shrugs off the scandal and says, it's time to move on.
She's 26 and her husband is 28 and...
She slept around with a lot of guys.
So someone writes to me, because I've spoken on the show about how I don't think divorce is good and should be avoided pretty much at all costs.
Though in certain instances, if a woman or her children face the threat of violence, say, a separation, a physical separation, might be permitted or even morally required.
But divorce, per se, is very bad, I think.
Someone writes and says, hey Michael, in the case of this article going around about the woman who cuckled her husband six times with his colleagues, do you think that's sufficient grounds for divorce?
And the answer, the real hard answer, strange as it may sound to our modern culture, no.
No, that's not sufficient grounds for divorce, at least as far as I see it.
At least as far as the traditional Christian teaching is.
The traditional Christian teaching on divorce, which is still believed by the Catholic Church and many, if not most, Protestants and Christians around the world, is that there is no good reason for divorce.
Basically.
Again, in certain limited circumstances, there could be an argument for a kind of a separation, and I'm not denying that.
But that there is no good reason for a divorce.
And I'm somewhat surprised that people are so surprised by this because this was standard Christian teaching until relatively recently.
And when I say relatively recently by the scope of Christianity, I mean the past few recent centuries.
Some Protestants have argued that divorce is good in certain cases or can be permitted.
But...
I don't really see why this is so shocking.
It's kind of like when you bring up abortion, and people say, well, do you oppose abortion?
You say, yes.
I say, well, do you oppose abortion?
What about in the case of rape and incest?
It's really the same thing, right?
When we're talking about incest, almost always we're talking about rape.
So what about in the case of rape?
And you say, well, that's a very hard case.
I agree.
It accounts for way less than 1% of the abortions that happen every single year, but My premise is that human life has value from the very beginning, and it's wrong to kill people.
And also, killing your baby is not going to make up for a terrible crime that was committed against you.
It's not going to make you feel better.
It's probably going to make you feel worse.
It's not going to bring justice to your rapist at all.
It's just going to commit an injustice against a little baby.
And so, from my premise that human life has value from the very beginning, I have to conclude that abortion is not permissible.
Period.
It's the same thing here.
If you're arguing that marriage is the perpetual union of a man and a woman for the good of the spouses and the sake of the education and generation of children, then that's that.
If your premise is that marriage is indissoluble, Meaning, you know, if you find out that the marriage was fraudulent in some way, that a husband was actually hiding that he was previously married, or the spouses didn't mean their vows when they said their vows, or there was some element of fraud, you could have an investigation that's called annulment.
Meaning the marriage was null from the first place.
But if you really believe that marriage is indissoluble, what God has joined, let no man separate, then you just can't support divorce.
In recent centuries, some Protestants have pointed to the so-called acceptive clause in the Gospel according to St.
Matthew, which says that except for the case of porneia, which is sometimes translated as adultery or adultery, Except for the case of that, divorce is no good.
And they say, well, this is an exception.
This is a novel argument from the perspective of historical Christianity.
The line does not appear in the Gospels of St.
Mark and St.
Luke.
It does not appear in the writing of St.
Paul.
The meaning of the word porneia is quite...
I don't think it means what people say that it means.
I don't find this argument particularly persuasive.
But it's these hard cases that really allow you to see your premise.
In the case of abortion, do you really believe that life has value from the very beginning?
And that people are people, no matter how small, and it's wrong to kill people?
Okay.
Then you've got to stand firm on that, even in the hard cases.
Do you really believe?
You conservatives who say, I support marriage, I support family values.
Do you really believe that marriage is indissoluble?
Even if, look, it's a fallen world, we all make mistakes, we've all had tough situations happen to us, I'm not shaming anybody for being divorced, half of marriages end in divorce.
But in the principle of the thing, do you really believe that?
Well, if you really believe that...
Then this cop who's trying to work it out with his wife who's got problems, that cop is doing the right thing.
You know, Jeremy's Razors is offering a big discount right now, 40% off all Razor subscriptions.
Why?
Well, I'm glad you asked that.
One year ago today, Joe Biden tried to force vaccines on just about everybody.
Here's what Jeremy, co-CEO and God King of the Daily Wire, had to say about that.
We won't be enforcing Joe Biden's unconstitutional and tyrannical vaccine mandate.
That's it.
We'll use every tool at our disposal, including legal action to resist.
That's right.
That's the same Jeremy from Jeremy's Razors, who you may remember from that viral commercial.
Did you see any other CEOs out there publicly suing the government on your behalf?
No, just Jeremy.
And the best part about it is that we won.
The Biden vaccine mandate is as good as dead.
We said do not comply and you did not comply.
In fact, over a million of you signed our petition saying as much.
And today, together, we kick the government's ass.
So, are you going to keep buying from those other guys or from the guy who sued the government on your behalf and won?
For all the ladies out there, give your man something else to smile about.
Every time he picks up at Jeremy's Razor, he will remember just how much you care.
Trust me, if he listens to this show too, he will appreciate you even more.
We'll make it even easier for you.
Switch now, get 40% off on your Razor subscriptions at jeremysrazors.com.
Speaking of...
The marital embrace is a new statue in Boston of Martin Luther King.
I think, I guess...
The statue is getting a lot of play online.
Because some have said, there are two theories on what it looks like.
Some have said that it looks like, I guess it's just arms interwoven together.
Some have said that from certain angles it looks like a man engaged in another kind of embrace which is not as wholesome as the embrace of two arms.
That's one.
Some have said it looks like a man holding up a part of one's body that is not an arm.
And some have said that it looks like a guy hoisting up excrement.
That I'm trying to clean up all the jokes that I've seen online about this very, very ugly statue.
Apparently, according to the artist, it is a statue commemorating an embrace between Martin Luther King and his wife, Coretta King.
And the sculptor Hank Willis Thomas says that he saw this 1964 photo of MLK wrapping Coretta up for a hug after hearing that he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize.
And so this modern artist decided to depict this in a sculpture only with the arms.
And it's really, really ugly.
away.
Why is it ugly?
Most people don't seem to identify why the sculpture is ugly.
The sculpture is ugly because it is grotesque.
And the sculpture is grotesque in precisely the way that modernity is grotesque.
Which is that it forgets that people are supposed to have heads and chests.
So, the modern art is depicting people as just weird limbs, disconnected from the rest of the body, disconnected from the most important parts of the body.
The mind that makes us rational, and the chest, which gives us spiritedness, which represents courage, which represents our beating heart.
The lifeblood moving through us.
Modernity doesn't view men through the lens of heads and chests.
C.S. Lewis wrote a very, very famous work on men without chests.
Men who lose their spiritedness.
Men who lose their manliness.
And the whole culture seems to have lost its head.
Has completely lost its reason.
That's why we let men go into the girls' room.
And why we listen to what stupid Dr.
Fauci has to say.
Okay.
So...
So, people know intuitively that modern art is ugly and grotesque and we don't like it, and yet we keep seeing so much more of it.
Why is that?
One, it's because of the absolute perversion of the people who happen to be in power.
But two, it's because we often fail to give perfectly rational explanations of why modern art is so ugly.
But we all know it's ugly.
You look at a 14th century cathedral and you look at the embrace, this weird melange of arms kind of scooping together, we know that one is more beautiful than the other.
Look at the Pietà.
Look at the Embrace.
Tell me which one's more beautiful.
Look at beautiful Gothic buildings.
Look at ugly, modern, skyscraper-type buildings.
We know that the former are more beautiful than the latter.
But we don't trust our own prejudices.
We don't trust our own gut.
Our gut is right more often than our scientists are.
Rudyard Kipling wrote a great piece on this, a great poem, The Gods of the Copybook Headings.
Wise people throughout all of human history have understood that time-tested wisdom, the wisdom of the tradition, is 99 times out of 100 at least going to be better than whatever newfangled idea happens to pop into your head.
This is why I'm Often defending traditional conservatism as opposed to different brands of conservatism like neoconservatism or libertarianism which is often lumped in with conservatism.
I often go back to traditional conservative views with an emphasis on tradition.
Not because I think that a practice that has been done for a long time is the be-all and end-all and that any old practice ought to be continued into perpetuity, but just because I trust the wisdom of the countless generations of men who came before us more than I trust the prideful ideas of some over-credentialed, under-educated dummy in a lab coat.
Speaking of modern artists, Hunter Biden.
Breaking news, Hunter Biden, still not a great guy.
Not a great guy.
There is a story that's being reported now.
Hunter Biden is trying to prevent his illegitimate daughter from using the Biden family name as her own name.
The girl's mother, Hunter's baby mama, Ms.
Roberts just asked the circuit court judge Holly Meyer for her daughter's last name to be changed to Biden.
Why would she want her daughter's last name changed to Biden?
Because she says this would allow her daughter to, quote, benefit from carrying the Biden family name.
Biden name is now synonymous with being well-educated, successful, financially acute, and politically powerful.
Hunter Biden now going to court to try to stop this.
Hunter has denied that he's the father of this child.
Hunter has tried not to pay child support for the child.
Hunter and his entire family have refused to acknowledge the child.
Joe Biden won't acknowledge his own granddaughter.
Hunter then went back to court, tried to lower the child support payments that he is required to make.
This is Hunter Biden who's Hideous modern art canvases for half a million dollars apiece.
And Hunter says he can't pay the full child support that he owes to his daughter.
And now he wants to prevent her from taking his family name.
And the most shameless part of Hunter's latest story Slight against his daughter.
Also happens probably to be the truest, which is that the argument that Hunter Biden and his lawyers are making in court is that the girl should not take the Biden family name because the Biden family name is a disgrace.
That's the actual argument.
Hunter's lawyers are saying that if this little girl takes the Hunter Biden name, she's going to be attacked for it.
She's going to be smeared in the press.
That it's going to make her life worse.
And I don't think that the argument that Hunter's lawyers are making is the actual reason that he's trying to prevent her from taking the Biden name.
I think the Bidens are trying to keep her from using the family name because that would then...
If she used the name, it would require the press...
And everybody to acknowledge that she actually is one of Joe Biden's grandchildren, and the family wants to do whatever it can to ignore this girl, neglect this girl, not acknowledge that she exists.
Joe Biden puts up stockings at the White House for all of his grandchildren.
He doesn't include this poor girl.
Could you imagine you're growing up, your grandfather's the President of the United States, and he refuses to acknowledge that you even exist?
Could you imagine how that would make you feel?
That's a really terrible thing to do.
And Joe Biden, who sometimes has a reputation, he's always a nice guy.
Everybody likes Joe.
That's a really cruel, nasty thing to do to your own little grandchild.
So I think that's why the Biden family is doing it.
But the argument that they're making, I think, accidentally happens to be correct.
The Biden family name is an absolute disgrace.
And they are a representative of a whole modern liberal culture that is shallow, that is nasty, that is corrupt.
They are a byword for that.
I agree.
If I were the girl, I might not want the name either.
Probably want the perks that go along with it, and I'd like the name to at least force the family to acknowledge my own existence.
But Hunter's lawyers accidentally probably happen to be correct.
That Biden name sure is a disgrace.
Now, today is Music Monday, which means that I'm going to have to channel all of my genius powers of cultural criticism.
I'm a hip-hop mogul, man.
You know me.
I'm really hip to the jive on the cool modern culture.
So we've got a song that I will be reacting to over in the member block.
The rest of the show continues.
Now, you do not want to miss it.
This is actually our only member block of the week, which by definition makes it the best one of the week.
It's our only member block of the week.
I will be traveling a bit this week, and it's not going to be possible to do the member block for every show this week.
So head on over.
Become a member right now.
Use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, dailywire.com, slash Knowles.
