Ep. 1248 - The Transgender Facts Liberals Don't Want To Hear
A recent study shows detransition rates are much higher than “trans” activists pretend, a liberal magazine reveals the grisly reality of abortion, and an 81-year-old woman graces the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
Ep.1248
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get a FREE 5G Samsung Galaxy phone! https://www.puretalk.com/landing/KNOWLES
Cozy Earth - Use code KNOWLES for up to 35% off your order!
http://www.cozyearth.com
ZipRecruiter - Try ZipRecruiter for FREE: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/knowles
- - -
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
Amid all the debate over transgenderism, one of the pro-trans crowd's favorite talking points is that rates of regret and detransition are low.
They will often say that the rate of detransition is 1%, maybe 2%.
But it turns out...
That, as with most transgender arguments, that talking point is not true.
A new study on a sample of about 1,000 transitioners has found a detransition rate of nearly 30%.
3-0.
Hat tip to Megan McArdle from the Washington Post for calling attention to this study.
It is called The Continuation of Gender-Affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, and it found that the four-year trans hormone continuation rate was just 70.2%.
70.2%.
That's a far cry from the 98%, 99% statistic that the trans activists promote.
The rate of detransition was even higher in women.
It was 30%.
It was 35.6%.
And perhaps most interesting of all, it found that people who started cross-sex hormones and the transition process as minors had a higher continuation rate as adults.
Now that fact is unsurprising in itself.
Of course, people whose normal development was impeded by cross-sex hormones, people for whom detransition would be much more difficult, are much less likely to attempt it.
That part is not all that interesting.
What is interesting is that this higher rate helps to explain why leftist activist groups and the big pharma companies that fund them seem so hell-bent on peddling transgenderism to younger and younger children.
The younger the victim, The more likely he is to stick with the transition, and the more money goes into the coffers of the people peddling the transgender madness.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
We've got to get to the most important story, which is that an 81-year-old woman has made it to the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.
And frankly, one, she looks very good, especially for her age, and two, at least it's a woman.
So I guess that's a win in the culture, I don't know.
It's still not great though, we will get to that in just a moment.
First though, Big Pharma is funding all this trans stuff.
If not all the trans stuff, Big Pharma is funding a lot of the trans stuff.
And this is not unique to the transgender movement.
This is how politics often works.
So a story came out yesterday.
Big Pharma is funding organizations, activist organizations, to push transgenderism into hospitals.
The Human Rights Campaign.
That's the leftist organization that has the equal sign.
They existed to redefine marriage and say that the marriage now also includes unions of two men and two women.
That was the equal sign bumper sticker.
So you basically avoided the entire debate over what marriage is by simply framing the debate as a matter of rights.
Who has the right to get married?
And the HRC was very effective, and then the Supreme Court redefined marriage.
So what was the HRC going to do?
It pivoted.
It became a pro-trans organization.
The HRC is this leftist group that has something called the Healthcare Equality Index.
And the Healthcare Equality Index measures, quote, healthcare facilities, policies, and practices related to the equity and inclusion of their LGBTQ plus patients, visitors, and employees.
Now, who funds the Healthcare Equality Index?
I'll give you a hint.
It's Pfizer.
It's Pfizer and other pharma companies.
HRC admits this.
You don't need to put on your tinfoil hat and go digging for it.
HRC says right on their website that the Healthcare Equality Index, quote, was funded in part by grants from pharma, P-H-R-M-A, and Pfizer.
We all know Pfizer.
...gigantic pharma company that tried to inject us all with poison for the last three years.
It's a little bit of a digression.
Pfizer, very, very powerful pharmaceutical company.
And PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Researcher and Manufacturers of America, is the trade organization that represents the nation's leading biopharmaceutical research companies.
So it's Big Pharma broadly.
I don't even mean just a single advisor.
It's the whole industry is funding the HRC and then HRC, the activist group only concerned with equality and freedom and politics, they go in and they effectively act as the salesman for the Big Pharma drugs.
They go in, they say in the name of Equality and dignity!
You need to give these gigantic pharmaceutical companies a lot more money and then the hospitals acquiesce.
It's not that this is all about money.
But money provides a lot of the firepower for this activism.
I think some people think that the way that the CIA operates, or the way that intelligence agencies operate, is they go down to their labs and they create these special, half-robot, humanoid-like creatures to go out there and subvert different political movements, be they on the left or on the right.
And the only time that's ever happened is in the case of Pete Buttigieg, who was literally assembled by hand in Langley, in a laboratory somewhere below the earth.
But for most cases, no, that's not how these groups operate.
Whether we're talking about the government, like the intelligence agencies, or whether we're talking about corporations, like these big trade organizations.
Usually what happens is when these groups want to wield influence, they will go and they will find Activists that already exist.
People who are already inclined ideologically their way.
And what they'll do is they'll just give them a little push.
They'll give them money.
They'll give them a little bit more access and a little bit more influence.
I'm not saying that HRC only exists for the money.
Clearly they like the money.
They're a very well-funded organization.
But what happened here is the big pharma companies found these activist groups, they juiced them with a ton of cash, those activist groups act as the shock troops, the people on the ground, and then big pharma makes a lot of money.
Sometimes the way that this works...
Is it the pharmaceutical companies?
They'll bypass that middleman salesperson, and they'll go straight to the doctors, and then they'll pay the doctors, they'll buy off the doctors, and then the doctors will sell their drugs for them.
Okay?
That is a direct business model, not a very reputable or admirable business model, but it is a direct one.
Now, when you want an effective and moral and just business model, you've got to check out ZipRecruiter.
Right now, go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Knowles.
When you want to hire the best people, you've got to check out ZipRecruiter.com slash Knowles.
Hiring used to be really hard.
You would post your job on multiple sites, hope the right people see it, and then wait for them to apply.
Same goes for finding a job.
You'd upload your resume to every job posting site, comb through never-ending lists of jobs, trying to find the right position for you.
ZipRecruiter is the best place to find the right position, or if you're an employer, the right person to head your team, or to join your team.
So right now, go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Knolls.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Try it for free.
ZipRecruiter's matching technology excels at finding the most qualified candidates for a wide range of roles.
If you see a candidate you like, You can easily send that person a personal invite so that he's more likely to apply.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
See for yourself!
Go to ZipRecruiter.com slash NOLS to try ZipRecruiter for free.
That is ZipRecruiter.com slash NOLS.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
In Oregon, The director of an Oregon pediatric gender clinic, so the places that are transing the kids, we've just learned has received thousands of dollars from a pharma company that coincidentally makes puberty blockers.
Wow, what are the odds?
Cara Connolly is the director of the gender clinic at Doernbecher Children's Hospital in Portland.
She's received at least $3,100 from Endo Pharmaceuticals.
According to data from the U.S.
government's Open Payments Transparency Program.
Now, what does this mean?
You might say, well, $3,000, that's not big money.
First of all, three grand is three grand, okay?
And that's the only payment that we know about from this one particular pharmaceutical company.
But let's say that it's just three grand.
Let's say that Big Pharma's just going around to individual doctors and paying them three grand, two grand, even, I don't know, a thousand bucks.
What does that mean?
Well, according to analysis from ProPublica, they've discovered that, quote, doctors who received payments linked to specific drugs prescribed more of those drugs.
This isn't rocket science.
This isn't gender science, okay?
It doesn't have to be so complicated and obscured by all this jargon.
Turns out that when you fund something, you get more of it.
When you incentivize something, you get more of that behavior.
And this report from ProPublica found out that, quote, on average across all drugs, providers who received payments specifically tied to a drug prescribed it 58% more than providers who did not receive these payments.
There is always a financial component here.
Again, that does not mean that it's all about the money, but what this tells you is if you want to stop certain depraved behaviors like transing the kids, one effective way to discourage transing the kids is going to be to go to the financial backing to cut off the source that is providing all this fuel for the movement.
So yes, we gotta go in, we gotta ban this stuff.
Obviously, we gotta pass laws, we gotta make this illegal.
For doctors who continue to do this, we need to throw them in prison.
We need to wield the law as best we can, but we can also try to cut off the funding here.
We can say, pass a law.
Okay, Big Pharma, you're not allowed to fund the human rights campaign.
Quote-unquote, human rights campaign.
What a ridiculous title for a left-wing group.
We can go in there, we can say, hey, Big Pharma companies, you're not allowed to bribe doctors anymore.
Sorry, no more bribing doctors.
Sorry.
And then what are we going to see?
58% decrease in the likelihood that the doctors prescribe these drugs.
You want to talk about quacks and corruption in the medical industry?
This is the most disturbing story I have seen in a very, very long time.
It seems like I say that almost every single day.
This one really is it.
It's from the Atlantic.
Very long story.
It's called the abortion absolutist.
Warren Hearn has been performing late abortions for half a century.
After Roe, he is as busy with patients as ever.
You look at this guy, I'm not exaggerating, you get the impression that you are seeing the face of the devil himself.
This is an old guy who has specialized for now upwards of half a century Not just abortion.
Can you imagine the kind of doctor who says, I'm going to go get my medical degree so that I can engage in the very fulfilling, gratifying task of killing babies every single day.
Multiple babies every single day.
But then furthermore, the kind of abortionist who says, and I'm not just going to kill those really little tiny babies where it's kind of hard to make out their body parts.
I'm going to kill late term babies.
That's this guy.
And he's still doing it.
And according to the Atlantic, he's busier than ever.
What do we mean by late term?
We're talking about killing babies at 25 weeks gestation.
We're talking about killing babies at 30 weeks gestation.
To put that into perspective, this is what a baby looks like at 30 weeks gestation.
I just googled 30 week preemie baby.
These are, in every single way, in every physical way, babies who just look exactly like babies that you see, newborn, really young babies, right when mama goes to the hospital, gives birth, comes out, this is exactly what they look like.
They're a little bit smaller, so they're being treated a little bit in the NICU, but they, in every single way, are babies.
Their skin looks like their skin, their limbs look like their limbs, their faces look like their faces.
And this guy goes in, And kills them multiple times a day for 50 years.
He has admitted in this article to killing a girl just because she's a girl.
Because mommy didn't want a girl.
Mommy wanted a boy.
So he goes in and kills a baby who looks something like this because she's a girl.
And if she had been a boy she would have lived but she's a girl so she's got to be murdered.
Same thing, he admits to killing a boy for being a boy.
He admits, this is an amazing work of journalism by Elaine Godfrey.
He admits that he's killed babies with a still beating heart after he takes them out of his mother's womb, out of their mother's womb rather.
He admits that he's woken up in terror, that he's been haunted by the images of these babies and their beating heart.
Like the Edgar Allen Poe story, the heart just beating, wakes him up.
And he admits that half, or maybe even more than half, of the women who come to him seeking an abortion don't have any medical argument for seeking that abortion.
This is such a phenomenal work of journalism, really probably deserves a Pulitzer Prize, because one, this author from the Atlantic has gone out, found this story that basically no one had heard about, And she has knocked down so many of the lies of the pro-abortion movement.
What does the pro-abortion movement tell us?
The baby's not a baby.
Here it is.
Look at the baby.
You can see, that's a baby.
What does the pro-abortion movement tell us?
Oh, late-term abortions don't happen.
They're so exceedingly rare.
Oh, it never happens.
What are you talking about?
This guy's busier than ever.
Oh, people don't kill their babies because of their sex.
They do.
Oh no, the women who, if you seek a late term abortion, it's because your life is threatened and you need to protect your life.
No, this guy admits half the time, more than half the time, they just don't want the baby.
So they're just going to go to this guy and kill the baby.
The other reason this story is so important is because this is not just one guy.
This is not just some extreme case.
This is not just the fringe of the industry.
This is what all abortion is.
The reason that we are particularly horrified, the reason why even the majority of people, the vast majority of people who would call themselves pro-choice, would still recoil in horror and think that this should be banned, is because we look at the baby and bypassing our reason, we just have this intense, visceral, emotional response to images of vulnerable little babies that we can immediately recognize to be babies.
But there's no essential difference between this baby and the baby at 20 weeks, or 15 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 5 weeks, or the baby from the moment of conception.
Still a baby.
Still an individual human life being snuffed out.
A person being murdered.
with the assent of the mother at the hands of Mengele Redux over here.
Okay?
That's what abortion is.
Abortion stops a beating heart.
And you can't always see the beating heart as clearly as that doctor has sometimes outside the womb, but it stops a beating heart.
Abortion is undertaken for selfish reasons.
It's not always as clear as, oh, I don't really want a girl.
But it's child sacrifice at the altar of a false god.
And ultimately at the altar of the self.
Undertaken for selfish reasons by the people procuring them and undertaken for selfish reasons by the doctors who do it to make a lot of money.
To say nothing of whatever other psychological problems they've got.
This guy, in a just world, This guy would be clearly violating the law.
And if he continued to clearly violate the law, he would be executed by the state.
He would be convicted by a jury of his peers.
He would be, he would receive capital punishment.
This guy is one of, if not the single worst mass killer in American history.
Mass killer of the most vulnerable innocent people.
Brilliant journalism, really good stuff.
I don't know if the author intended it to be such brilliant journalism, but it certainly is.
We need to show what abortion looks like.
I know that's a controversial tactic of the pro-life movement.
It's extraordinarily effective.
We need to show what it looks like.
There's a group that just went out, they got a boat, and they decided to go protest a party held by Planned Parenthood.
Here's how they did it.
They got signs, they got a bullhorn, and they got pictures of what abortion really looks like.
And here's how the pro-life group interrupted this little nice seaside cocktail soiree of people whose raison d'etre is to murder babies.
This is an organization that does this to little babies.
You guys are brainwashed.
Honestly, open your eyes.
A three-year-old could see, a five-year-old could see that this is wrong.
This is so utterly shameful.
Shame on all of you guys.
Open your eyes and look at what you're supporting.
Activism here, right?
There's no subtlety here.
There's no, well, we have different views, but we're going to sort of have a reasonable conversation to meet in the middle.
You know that I'm all for that.
And I've had conversations with pro-abortion people, and we've been very civil when we're just presenting arguments.
I'm all for civil disagreement.
I'm all for gentlemanliness.
But different issues call for different kinds of tactics.
These people are murdering little babies.
And so that requires rhetoric that is a little bit more pointed and direct and urgent.
The graphic photos are very effective.
Imagine if you were there at this party.
You would have two options, and only two options.
You could either look at the photos, or you could turn away from the photos.
And this is very effective for people who say that they're pro-abortion.
If you're working for Planned Parenthood, odds are you are a stone-cold killer and you're not going to be all that moved by these folks.
Sometimes you are.
I mean, there are great pro-life leaders who worked for Planned Parenthood, who worked for the pro-abortion movement, some of whom helped lead the pro-abortion movement.
They became huge pro-life advocates.
One of the founders of the National Abortion Rights League, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, was one of those people.
But you've only got two options.
If you're that person, you're looking at those pictures.
You can either look steely-eyed cold, in which case you are, clear to everyone around you, a stone-cold psychopath, or you can look away.
And the vast majority of people who are not would-be serial killers, or literal serial killers in some cases, They would look away.
They can't look at it.
And the mere act of looking away is instructive.
The act of looking away from these photos is instructive to the public, broadly.
Why can't the abortion advocates stand by their belief?
Stand on their principles?
Look what they're doing square in the face?
What does that mean about what they're doing?
And it's instructive to the pro-abortion people themselves.
To the people who look away.
We can learn things about ourselves from our own behavior.
And very often it's easier to change our minds than to change our behavior.
And if you have that gut, visceral reaction to, whoa, I can't look at this, this is evil.
I'm looking away.
Huh, I guess I've learned something about myself.
Maybe I've learned something about what the reality of this is.
Do not go soft.
An instinct among conservatives sometimes, especially when we're winning, to back off a little bit.
Don't back off this issue.
We've got to talk about it.
When you want to talk to your friends, you've got to check out Pure Talk.
Right now, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
Do you remember the last time you got a free phone?
You started out feeling great.
And then came the hefty activation fees, the four-line requirements, and of course that binding contract.
PeerTalk is giving you a free 5G Samsung Galaxy phone without the feeling that you've been duped.
When you switch to PeerTalk's unlimited talk and text data plan that comes with a mobile hotspot, you will get a 5G Samsung Galaxy for free.
That's right!
Unlimited everything at a fraction of the price at Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile.
Here's another thing, you'll be on America's most dependable 5G network.
Not just a similar network, you'll be on the same one.
How do I know?
I am a customer.
Make the switch to PureTalk, the cell phone wireless company that I am proud to stand behind because they have a fabulous service and they are proud to stand behind our mission at The Daily Wire.
Their US-based customer service team, which frankly is reason enough to switch, can help you switch in as little as 10 minutes.
You can even keep your own phone number.
Go to PeerTalk.com slash Knowles for your free Samsung Galaxy when you sign up for unlimited talk text and unlimited data.
That is PeerTalk.com slash Knowles.
K-N-W-L-E-S.
Peer Talk.
Wireless.
For Americans.
By Americans.
The libs thrive by obscuring reality.
That's what they do, okay?
We'll get into that in one second.
First though, you can never start thinking about Father's Day gifts too early.
This is what I tell my wife most days of the year.
I say, you gotta start thinking about Father's Day, okay?
Don't let that slip you by.
Very important.
A gift of Jeremy's razors is dual purpose.
Not only are you helping your dad look his best each day, you're also kicking woke out of his bathroom.
There is no other razor that can do that.
Shaving is not just about grooming.
It's about embracing masculinity and feeling like a real man.
All right, take it from me.
Save 30% off on Jeremy's Razors.
Select bundles and Razor starter sets as part of our Father's Day sale.
Go to jeremysrazors.com today.
Help dad kick woke out of his bathroom.
The libs thrive by obscuring reality.
New slogan just dropped.
New jargon, politically correct phrase just dropped.
You remember diversity and inclusion?
I mentioned this at the end of the show yesterday.
Diversity and inclusion?
That's out!
That's cancelled!
That is passé, old man!
Get with the new hip lingo!
The new hip lingo is diversity and belonging.
Very different, but this is what I'm told by the New York Times.
Why some companies are saying diversity and belonging instead of diversity and inclusion.
Before I read this article, I just saw the headline.
I said I know exactly why they've done that.
Because diversity and inclusion is an anodyne sounding euphemism for a hideous activity.
And the hideous activity is the leftist campaign to incite race hate against white people and sexual absurdity among everybody.
That's all it means.
Diversity and equity and inclusion, all those policies mean in practice is discriminate against white people and promote sexual disorder and chaos and madness.
And tell dudes that they're chicks and chicks that they're dudes and people that they can be in throuples with two women, four guys and a billy goat.
How is that a throuple?
I don't know.
It identifies as three.
That's all DEI is.
And so why are they changing the euphemism?
Because they are on what Steven Pinker at Harvard calls the euphemism treadmill.
Steven Pinker is a liberal guy, but he observed this fact about language, and I talk about it in my book Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, which is available wherever you want to.
Hello, where's my bell?
Okay, finally.
The euphemism treadmill observes that political activists have to change euphemisms regularly because the purpose of political euphemisms, especially when we're talking about something like political correctness, is not to soften harsh truths, not to use just a slightly more polite phrase, but to lie, to deceive people.
If you say that an illegal alien is an undocumented American, you're not just softening the truth a little bit, you're lying.
You're telling the opposite of what is true.
Whatever the illegal alien is, he's not an American.
And so if you call him an undocumented American, you're just telling a lie.
But what happens is that when you lie through the use of this language, ultimately people begin to remember and to recognize the odious underlying reality of the thing that you're lying about.
And so the odious underlying reality of that thing starts to color the euphemism, even if it's the floweriest, nicest sounding euphemism ever.
So the euphemism takes on this stench.
The euphemism takes on this nasty kind of connotation.
And so the radicals, if they want to keep up the racket, they've got to change the euphemism.
So I knew that instantly when I saw that headline.
I said, okay, maybe I'm being prejudicial.
Maybe I'm rushing to judgment.
And then I read the article and that's exactly what it is.
The Libs are realizing that people have turned against DEI.
And so instead of saying, all right, we're going to abandon this very unpopular and unjust and hideous sort of political campaign, they say, no, you know what we're going to do?
We're just going to change the slogan to diversity and belonging instead.
The thing is.
It will work for some time.
Political correctness, which we now call wokeness, has worked pretty well as a political campaign.
So it will dupe people for some time, but the odious underlying reality of that campaign is going to dawn on people again, and they're going to change the words.
Again, speaking of politically incorrect terms, there is a Member of Parliament in the Motherland, British MP, who is attacking a Conservative Tory MP For referring to the ideology and the intellectual movement of cultural Marxism.
Now, speaking of that book I told you about earlier, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, that's my number one best-selling book, national bestseller, you can get that, thank you.
For the first part of that book in particular, I talk about this intellectual movement that dominated leftist politics in the 20th century.
Well, according to this left-wing MP, Quote, cultural Marxism is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory supported by neo-Nazis and groups like the BNP.
Disturbing to see another Tory MP spreading it after Suella Braverman did the same in 2019.
We can't let far-right language be normalized in politics.
I don't blame cultural Marxism or Neo-Marxism or 20th century Marxism, all of which are synonymous, for everything.
In fact, I think that that intellectual movement is blamed for more than it should be blamed for.
And I think the reason it's blamed for more than it should be blamed for is because a lot of conservatives don't realize that liberalism is bad too.
That not every terrible thing in the world owes to Marxism, actually liberalism.
The modern kind of liberalism, the classical kind of liberalism, liberalism broadly is also very bad and is responsible for a lot of ills.
So sometimes I think conservatives project some of the ills of liberalism onto other intellectual movements including cultural Marxism.
That doesn't mean that cultural Marxism doesn't exist.
It's a very well-known intellectual movement described as such as a cultural kind of Marxism by the very prominent left-wing intellectuals at the very prominent institutions which they taught and operated for Much of the 20th century.
If you look back on Wikipedia, just a few years ago, cultural Marxism was part of the Marxist tradition in the West that really came to the fore in the 20th century and it was promoted by thinkers such as
Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, the Frankfurt School actually predates the Frankfurt School a little bit with Italian thinkers like Antonio Gramsci or Lukács over in Hungary or a number of other people.
And these guys had positions of prominence.
They taught at very prominent American universities, including Columbia University.
They worked with the government.
Herbert Marcuse worked with the OSS, which was the precursor to the CIA.
Herbert Marcuse then went on to become the father of the New Left.
Again, I didn't give him that title.
It was the leftists who gave him that title.
He remains extraordinarily influential.
They're fairly interesting thinkers.
They're wrong.
Ultimately, they're wrong about everything.
They're wrong, in the meantime, about a lot of things.
But they have lots of interesting observations.
I've read them extensively.
In fact, I wrote a book about these guys.
To say that that doesn't exist is simply ignorant.
But this Tory MP, one, doesn't know anything about anything.
Ironically, though she would accuse us of ignorance or dog-whistling or whatever, she has never read these people.
These people whose intellectual work has laid the groundwork for many of her views and activities, even unbeknownst to her.
But furthermore, what she's engaging in is Ironically or maybe not, a product of cultural Marxism, a product of attaining cultural hegemony, a war of position rather than a war of movement, to use the language of Antonio Gramsci, whereby the libs take over the culture And you barely even notice that they've done it.
And then what happens?
Once they've attained that cultural hegemony, because they ultimately turn away from objective truth and reality, they deny the reality of what they've done.
It's really no different from Stalin erasing people that he liquidated out of his photographs.
People that he purged.
Just, oop, no, that person was never there.
Because if you believe that history is fundamentally a matter not of God's providence and not of ideas coming to their logical conclusions, and not of reason at least, because Marxists to some degree do believe that history is a consequence of ideas coming to their logical conclusions, but it's divorced from reason, it's divorced from objective truth, it's certainly divorced from God.
If you believe that, that it's really just fundamentally about the will, then you can go in and say, oh yeah, that prominent intellectual movement, yeah, that's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
It's so brazen.
It is almost as brazen as saying 50 years from now, oh, you keep mentioning Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton never existed.
What are you talking about?
That's a tinfoil hat, racist, phobic, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
I said, well, look at all the evidence and look at all the, we have all the video footage and we have all of the testimonies of the people.
What are you talking about?
That never happened.
Two plus two equals five.
What are you talking about?
Speaking of willful ignorance, conservatives are still focusing some of their firepower on Hunter Biden.
Nancy Mace, who is a liberal Republican, but she is kind of feisty and fiery and occasionally she's on the right side of an issue.
Nancy Mace is furious that the Democrats and the DOJ are not taking the case against Hunter Biden more seriously.
Here we have a DOJ and FBI who are, who are indicting Trump on misdemeanors and then will not investigate Biden for betraying his country.
And I have to tell you, absolutely no one can accuse me of being hyper-partisan or being in the tank for Donald Trump, but good Lord, the amount of evidence in this case is ridiculous.
They weren't hiring Hunter Biden for his brains.
They weren't hiring, certainly, Hunter Biden for his brawn.
They were hiring him to pay for access to the White House.
And we see this pattern repeat itself over and over and over again.
Obviously, that's true.
And you can hear Nancy Mace's exasperation.
The evidence that we have against Hunter Biden is ridiculous!
That's the problem.
That's one of the big problems here.
It is ridiculous.
It's insane.
If we only had a small amount of evidence against Hunter Biden, that would be one thing.
It would actually be easier.
I would feel better about our prospects of prosecuting this guy.
But because the evidence is so overwhelming, because his crimes were so cartoonishly villainous at every level, the white-collar crimes, the payoffs, the bribery, the deception, the fraud, down to the street-level crimes.
This guy's smoking crack, getting beaten up on Skid Row.
He's got a different hooker, it seems, every hour of the day.
He's filming all of his activities with all of these people, saying into camera, I am committing crimes.
Here is all the evidence of my crimes.
Then he leaves the laptop with all the evidence.
At a repair shop and the DOJ does nothing about it?
That's the problem.
It's so brazen.
It shows you the pervasiveness and the depth of the corruption of our government.
Yeah, it's totally ridiculous.
And what are you going to do about it?
What are any of us going to do about it?
Even if they do indict the guy, what are they going to do?
They're going to indict him.
They're going to try him on some lesser charges.
Then they're going to give him like five minutes probation.
Then he's going to go right back to selling his stupid doodles for half a million dollar a pop, which is the same racket that he's been playing the whole time.
The whole time that he's been an adult, that his father's been in politics, what's he been doing?
He's been selling influence, ultimately selling out the American government to the highest bidder.
He's just going to keep doing that.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
It's not just Hunter Biden's ridiculous.
It's the whole system.
The system is not going to destroy one of its own.
Even if the system made a little bit of an example out of Hunter Biden, that corruption is going to continue on.
Occasionally the libs will admit when they are in the wrong.
And I want to give them credit for it.
They don't deserve full credit for it, but they deserve a little bit of credit for it.
Jake Tapper, the other day, after the Durham report comes out, the Durham report, which shows there was no basis for spying on Trump's campaign.
There was no basis for the Russia hoax.
It was completely cooked up by the Clinton campaign.
The CIA director knew that it was cooked up by the Clinton campaign.
Not only the CIA director, but the head of the FBI, the vice president, the president himself, Barack Obama, they all knew it was a dirty trick campaign stunt nonsense by Hillary.
and they proceeded with a straight face to try to destroy Trump anyway.
It was spelled out clear as day in the Durham report.
Jake Tapper of CNN admits, huh, this is pretty damning.
Regardless, the report is now here, it has dropped, and it might not have produced everything of what some Republicans hoped for.
It is, regardless, devastating to the FBI, and to a degree, it does exonerate Donald Trump.
So, Jake Tapper goes even further than you might have expected.
Not only does he admit, okay, this is really bad for the FBI, damning, actually.
Not just a little bad, damning.
But further, and Jake Tapper can't go the whole way, but he has to throw a caveat or two in there, but nevertheless he says, it exonerates Trump.
Yeah, and that's great, and we should remember that.
And the next time the Libs try to peddle all this, the walls are closing in, it's Mueller time, he's a Russian Putin stooge, or whatever, you can say, hey, even Jake Tapper, who's a Lib, who started out his career as a Democrat political operative, who has remained a Democrat political operative, albeit one who calls himself a newsman on TV, but he's a little bit more fair than the other guys, he comes out and he says, yeah, okay, this exonerates Trump.
And the Libs will sometimes do that, Once it no longer matters.
The Libs will sometimes, occasionally, very often they'll keep up the lie, deny till you die, but sometimes they will admit that.
Years later, the Russia hoax began in 2016.
It is now the year of our Lord, 2023.
And finally, seven years later, the Libs will say, yeah, okay, I guess we kind of made it all up.
Oopsie, that's old news now.
Moving on, moving on.
My favorite comment yesterday, is from Patro-M, and we'll get to that in one second.
First, though, I've got to tell you why I feel so good, why I look so fresh, why I'm just so cozy at night.
That would be, of course, because of Cozy Earth.
Right now, go to CozyEarth.com promo code Knowles.
Everyone deserves the best of everything, including the best night's sleep.
You know me!
I am a simple man easily satisfied by the very best.
When it comes to sheets, that's Cozy Earth.
Our friends at Cozy Earth are here to give you super soft, luxurious, designer preferred bedding.
Whether you are looking to treat yourself or someone you love, Cozy Earth has a gift guide that can help you start looking for that perfect gift.
Cozy Earth's luxury bedding and loungewear transforms lives by offering the world's softest, Most luxurious and responsibly sourced bedding.
Do you ever wonder what it's like to be lying there on my bed in my boudoir?
Get that out of your mind!
I'm a married man!
But you can have a similar experience on your own bed with Cozy Earth.
Their products are temperature regulating and moisture wicking fabric.
It will keep you comfy.
Right now, they're extending their Mother's Day sale for a limited time.
Their site's offering a discount, and our listeners will still be getting up to 35% off with promo code KNOWLES at checkout.
Right now, head on over, promo code KNOWLES.
You can save up to 35% off your order at CozyEarth.com.
Okay, wonderful comment yesterday from Petro M, who says, it's a quote from Miller Lite, Hey Bud Light, hold my beer.
Do you get it?
I love a good one-liner.
You know, a good little Henny Youngman, all right?
Like, for instance, take my wife.
Please!
Okay, we've got to get to the really important stories now.
That would be the 81-year-old woman gracing the cover of Sports Illustrated.
This has created some controversy.
And if I gotta weigh in on just aesthetically speaking how the cover looks, Martha Stewart looks great.
Certainly for an 81-year-old woman.
Certainly for a 71-year-old woman.
Certainly for a 61-year-old woman.
She frankly looks great for like a 51-year-old woman.
Maybe even a woman in her 40s.
It is shocking how good Martha Stewart looks.
I don't only say this because Martha Stewart is a great, basically wholesome, traditional cultural figure.
By the way, it's not like she's wearing a bikini or something in this.
It's a pretty tasteful Sports Illustrated cover.
But we all suspect something is kind of wrong with this.
It just feels wrong to have an 81-year-old on your swimsuit cover, right?
But people are having trouble putting their finger on exactly what's wrong about it.
For one, she's a woman.
That's more than can be said of Sports Illustrated's cover in recent years.
There is a transsexual, a trans-identifying man in this issue as well.
Now part of why Sports Illustrated does this is because Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is an anachronism.
It used to be really kind of fun and titillating back in the 90s, even the 2000s, back before the ubiquity of hardcore internet pornography.
Back when people would go down to the newsstand, back when those still existed, and they'd buy the magazine and say, ooh, tee hee hee, we're going to see some pretty women wearing not a lot of clothing.
Ooh, tee hee hee.
But now you go on the internet and whatever the most depraved, disordered desire you can possibly imagine is, you can multiply it by 300 and you can find it at the click of a button.
So, sports illustrated, in order to stay relevant, to stay in the news, It has to create controversy.
And one way to create controversy is to pretend that dudes are chicks, which is obviously completely disgusting, but at least gets them in the news.
And then a better way for them to create controversy is to put an 81-year-old woman on the cover.
So, okay, mission accomplished.
They did that.
But why is it wrong?
Why is it wrong that even this very good-looking woman, at 81 years old, is on the cover?
I go back to a line from St.
Gregory the Great, which has been popularized in recent years by St.
Josemaría Escriva, which is that it is not good to look at what it is not licit to desire.
And I'm not going to use this line in its precision.
I just mean it as a way to sort of get at why people feel like it's a little bit wrong to have an 81-year-old woman wearing a swimsuit on the cover of this magazine.
We think it's wrong because we know it's not... we should not be...
Sexually desiring an 81-year-old woman.
Even an 81-year-old woman who's a beloved cultural figure, who looks very, very good, especially for her age.
It's just, that's not right.
It makes sense to sexually desire when you're a young man and you're single and you're looking to date and get married.
It makes sense to desire the women around your age.
And then to follow that desire by asking the girl out to get a drink or to get dinner and then to follow that desire by dating for a period of time and then to follow that desire by getting married and to follow that desire by doing that thing that married couples do and then to follow that desire by creating children as a result of your
Your physical expression of that bond of love, that love which becomes so real that it actually becomes expressed in a new person, and to allow that love to deepen and to desire in a way that changes and deepens and grows over time, your spouse, until both of you are 81 and you're sitting on a porch somewhere sipping iced tea, looking at all your kids and grandkids.
That makes sense.
But it's kind of weird for young men who are supposedly the people who are buying the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.
To be ogling an 81-year-old, a woman who could be their grandmother.
That's wrong.
And even if Martha Stewart, I don't know if she's had any work done, give Martha the benefit of the doubt, but let's assume like most celebrities she's had like maybe just a little bit of work here and there or she's got personal trainers at least and good diet.
And let's assume that there's some airbrushing going on in Photoshop to kind of make the picture look a little bit better.
It's wrong to feel that desire.
Even if you say the whole concept of the swimsuit issue is a little bit wrong because it's inciting lust or something.
That's a whole separate argument.
But whatever it is, it's not meant for 81-year-olds.
It's just not appropriate.
Radicals want to distill all of life down to three bullet points on a napkin that they can call their political manifesto.
But life is more complex than that.
And one way to approach these kinds of thoughts is With moderation, and with prudence, and with practical wisdom, and with recognizing that things are meant to be in their proper place.
When a man behaves like a woman, that's improper, that's womanish.
When a woman behaves like a woman, that's proper, that's womanly.
They're both behaving like women, why can't they do that?
Well, because one is not proper to their nature, and one is proper to their nature.
And the nature of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is that it is not proper for an 81 year old woman to be on the cover no matter how good she looks.
Speaking of women of a certain age, a bit older than Martha Stewart, Cleopatra, not doing very well in the ratings.
We've talked about Cleopatra.
Which is the Netflix documentary about a famously white woman who spoke Greek, who is an ancient ruler around the Mediterranean, who's now being portrayed by a black woman in a way that is a little bit absurd, especially if we're talking about it in a historical product here.
Well, turns out viewers agree with my take that this is absurd.
The docudrama has a 2% audience score.
And not only that, because you might say, well, maybe it was political activists who bombarded the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.
It's only got 11% critics, too.
This thing is getting absolutely panned.
One audience member is saying, this is hopelessly inaccurate and a complete failure to understand Egyptian culture and history.
No depth or atmosphere of the time.
Just a poor attempt to Americanize Egyptian history by changing it to suit American culture.
Okay, that's what one of the viewers says, and one of the critics says, it's too soapy for serious history fans, and not enough soap for viewers who like juicy historical dramas.
It's just not proper.
I don't know who this actress is.
Maybe she's a good actress, but it's not her role.
She's miscast, and even a very, very good actor in the wrong role is not going to give you a great performance, and the work of art is going to fail.
Falsehood produces bad art.
Good art is truthful.
What falsehood produces is absurdity, things out of whack.
And absurdity and things being out of whack and incongruity, that can make funny comedy.
That is one of the most prominent constituent parts of funny comedy.
But it doesn't make beautiful art, it doesn't make documentaries, really.
People can suss that out.
When a modern artist goes around and points to a urinal and says, that's art, isn't it so beautiful?
Everyone knows it's not beautiful.
It's not because the urinal is a bad thing.
The urinal has a proper place.
It's called the bathroom.
It's called the men's room.
Or I guess, as we move into our brave new world, probably the women's room too.
But we know that that's absurd.
We would laugh at that.
And certainly in an art gallery, that would be absurd.
Things need to be...
In their proper place.
And the proper place for my iPad is in front of me on this table right now.
We are heading into the member block.
It is Woke Wednesday.
My producer, the intrepid Ben Davies, is sitting here.
