Ep. 1955 - This Is the Most Horrifying Video Michael Knowles Has Ever Seen
Michael Knowles condemns a viral video of men mocking a surrogacy-born infant and a legal mandate forcing an abortion due to missing fingers, labeling these acts as the commodification of children. He contrasts this with Gallup data showing young men increasingly value religion against liberal nihilism and cites a UK study suggesting feminist teachings foster gender antagonism. Knowles further argues that keeping maiden names or prenuptial agreements undermines marriage, supported by Pew Research linking shared surnames to lower divorce rates, before addressing Hungarian elections, the Second Amendment's pandemic role, and his own pregnancy announcement. Ultimately, the episode frames modern societal fractures as consequences of treating human life as a transactional commodity rather than an intrinsic good. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Young Men Return to Religion00:03:18
Young men are returning to religion en masse.
We've heard this anecdotally for years.
That slogan is no surprise.
But for years, it did not show up in the polls.
So a lot of people said, oh, it's not real.
You're imagining it.
This is anecdotal.
Now the results are in and the social consequences are huge.
Then speaking of the difference between men and women, a new study out of the UK shows that the war between the sexes is also real and it is the women who are the aggressors.
Finally, a homosexual couple goes viral with a little baby for the most horrifying video I have ever seen in my entire life.
I'm Michael Knowles, this is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
A woman has been legally obligated to kill her baby in the third trimester.
And the reason for this is the surrogacy industry.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, though, I want to tell you about cowguys.
Go to cowguys.com.
Big Pharma messed up your skin.
Can you pronounce every ingredient on the lotion bottle?
Probably not.
Does your moisturizer read like a lab report?
Probably does.
What Big Pharma did to food, they did to skincare too.
They really messed around with it.
They used slick marketing to convince us to rub industrial byproducts on our faces.
Here's a problem.
Skin issues are extremely common nowadays.
Looks like everyone knows everyone struggling with bad skin or some kind of skin condition.
Guess what we used for generations before those chemical companies took over?
We used tallow.
It is what your skin actually understands because it is biologically appropriate.
Sweet little Elisa, who is expert in these things, she tallow pilled me many years ago for all sorts of cosmetic, you know, underarm, all that kind of stuff.
And so she's an aficionado.
She has very high standards, as you can tell.
And I brought her cowguys.
I said, try it out.
And sometimes she's down on trying the new products.
She goes, whatever, I'll try it.
She goes, you know, Mac, it's great.
It's great, Mac.
She loves it.
It's got the SLA stamp of approval.
We love cowguys.
Go check it out for all your cosmetic tallow needs, especially the underarm is great.
Cowguys.com.
Grab free tallow bomb with your order.
A lot of bad stuff in the news today.
A lot of, I frequently mention weird sex stuff as one of the defining features of our decadent time.
This is weird, sure, but this is real bad sex stuff.
This shows you the very close relationship between weird and bad.
It's dark, man.
And I hope I'm a glass half full kind of guy.
I hope that the silver lining in that storm cloud is that seeing just how bad the weird stuff gets and how quickly will maybe spark a conversion.
The best news story of the day, speaking of conversion, is that young people generally are returning to religion, to all religion, especially traditional religion, especially Christianity, and actually, especially Catholicism.
The Collapse of Moderate Democrats00:11:08
This shift is most obvious in young men, but it is at this point undeniable.
The atheists can cope.
The secularists can cope.
They can bury their head in the sand all they want.
This is real stuff.
Coming out of Gallup, really great news.
Importance of religion among U.S. men and women by age.
So you look not at the boomers, not at the Gen X, not even really the millennials.
It's the Zoomers that are doing this.
Women and men.
For the women, okay, you know, the numbers are.
Not great.
It's okay.
But the men have shot up in the last two years, two, three years.
42% of men aged 18 to 29 now say that religion is very important in their lives.
In 2022 to 2023, that number was just 28%.
So this is totally undeniable.
A 14 percentage point increase.
A 14 percentage point increase, meaning a 50% increase among young men.
Who in just two, three years say that religion is very, very important in their lives.
Now, are they actually doing it?
They could say that.
There's the expressed preference, but is this coming up in the revealed preference of their actual behaviors?
Yes.
Monthly religious attendance among young men has jumped up to 40%.
That's up from 33%.
This is the highest level in over a decade.
And it splits based on party affiliation.
So for Republican men, the number is way up.
Among Republican women, the number is up too.
For Democrat men, it's not up.
For Democrat women, same thing.
So this really does split.
And you can't map parties exactly onto religion because, as I've mentioned before, the very idea of the left and the right comes from the French Revolution when the religious people were all on the right and the irreligious, the anti religious people were all on the left.
So I think it is fair to say if you are a religious person, You should be on the right.
It doesn't map perfectly, but you should be on the right at a very practical level.
If you are a religious person today in the year of our Lord 2026, you should be voting Republican.
It's not that the Republican Party is perfect.
The Republican Party is the worst party in the United States other than the Democrat Party.
Politics is imperfect, but there's really no excuse on the non negotiable issues things like murdering little babies, things like marriage, the fundamental building block, things like recognizing a moral order.
You got to be a Republican.
And that's coming up in the data.
This is not just me as a partisan trying to rally people to vote.
This is just a fact.
The religious surge is among Republicans and specifically Republican men.
So you say, well, what about the women?
Well, the women are going up a little bit too, not quite as much as the men, but this is fine to me.
This makes perfect sense because men lead trends.
Men lead.
That's what one out of, A thousand women is Margaret Thatcher.
I'm not saying women can't lead things.
I'm not saying they can't be involved in public life.
I'm not saying they can't change public opinion.
They certainly can.
There's the Joan of Arc exception.
There's the Margaret Thatcher exception.
But generally speaking, 999 times out of a thousand, it is men who lead at the individual level, at the family level, and at the political level, the polity being an extension of the family.
And so if men are leading, just like men led the way out of religion, so too men are leading the way back into religion.
This is a great trend.
It tells us two things one thing about the polls, one thing about religion.
For years now, we've heard this coke from the libs and the secularists, which is that you, oh yeah, you keep saying, you guys on the right, you keep saying that religion's coming back up.
Not really.
Religion's been in decline for decades.
At best, maybe it's plateaued off.
There is no surge in religion.
We don't see it in the polls.
Yeah.
Sometimes polls lag what's actually happening because polls reflect social phenomena that have already happened.
There's really two levels here.
One is, People will say, yeah, you're only seeing a surge in religion among people in prominent fields, in politics, in media.
You're only seeing it in certain cities.
You're only seeing it among people who are very online, very plugged in, but that's not reflected broadly.
Yeah, okay, that can be true for a while, but all political movements are led by political, I mean lowercase p, you know, social things happening in public.
They're always led by a determined small group, but that group influences other people.
So, yeah, the return to religion might have been led by some nerdy guys in Washington, D.C., or New York, or whatever, but that has downstream effects because of influence.
And now that is showing up in society, and therefore now it is showing up in the polls.
We talked about this, what was it, yesterday or two days ago, on the Israel issue, which is related because it's the Holy Land.
We said for years we've been seeing this crop up online in certain influential circles that there's a turning against the nation state of Israel.
But people said, oh, it's not a big deal.
It's not really showing up in the polls.
Now it is showing up in the polls.
You had Harry Anton on CNN just a few days ago saying that support for Israel has collapsed.
It had already substantially collapsed on the left.
Now it's showing up as collapsing among moderate and non liberal Democrats.
They said, well, the Republicans, the right wing, that's the holdout for massive support for Israel.
That has collapsed too, especially among young people.
I'm not even making any normative judgment about that.
I'm just making a point about the polls.
You can, in fact, believe your eyes when you're seeing things happening around society.
It won't always be reflected en masse until a little bit later, but it often is reflected.
So that's the first point on the polls.
And so, regardless of what you think about Israel or Palestine or whatever, on this separate issue, on the return to religion, I think anybody of goodwill would have to say this is a good thing.
But some people don't believe it.
They don't want to believe it.
How can it be possible?
We're in this enlightened age.
How can people still follow their sky daddy and this old book that was written 2,000 years ago or more?
How could they possibly believe this?
Folks, religion survived the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was a revolution against the king.
Obviously, they killed the king and the queen, but it was a religion against the ultimate king, the king of kings.
It was a revolution, rather, against the king of kings.
They went in and they desecrated churches.
They took out statues of the Blessed Mother.
They put in statues of the goddess reason.
They tried to prohibit Christianity.
They persecuted priests.
It was an all-out assault on religion.
And guess who won?
Who won, the Jacobins or God?
God won.
Religion survived the communist revolutions, not just the revolution in Russia, which 100 years after the Bolshevik revolution is building cathedrals again.
It survived all the other communist revolutions.
Religion survived Darwinism.
Darwinism, which said that there really is no fixed human nature.
Darwinism, which was interpreted to mean that there is no such thing as sin.
There's no such thing as providence.
There's certainly no such thing as an act of God, pure act sustaining all being.
They said that's just made up.
Guess who won?
Darwin or God?
Guess who won?
God won.
Two world wars.
The disillusionment that came out of two world wars.
Surely that would have finished off religion, right?
How could a good God permit such suffering?
Who won?
Gavrilo Principes, who killed the Archduke Fran Ferdinand, kicked off World War I?
Or God?
God won.
Who won?
Hitler or God?
God won.
Fast forward to today, the liberal decadence that we're in.
Another challenge to religion.
We got it so good.
We've got maximum individual autonomy.
We've got iPhones.
We got money.
We got more food than could be imagined.
We have technological innovation beyond the wildest dreams of our grandparents.
Who won?
Liberalism or God?
God won.
Are you noticing a trend?
Even if you're not that religious, though odds are you're becoming more religious, I'm just reading the polls, but even if you're not, if you were just a gambling man, you should not bet against God.
I've made this point before.
Betting against the Holy Spirit is a very, very bad idea.
Why is religion surging?
I think I know right now.
There are different reasons why religion would surge after different conflicts.
after the French Revolution or the Communist Revolution or the World Wars or what have you.
But I think the reason that religion is surging right now, especially among young men, is a realization and a recognition that the world does in fact have meaning.
I think the defining feature of decadent liberalism in our age is the claim that the world has no intrinsic meaning.
Your life has no intrinsic meaning, but the meaning that you give it.
So it is incumbent upon us to create our own meaning.
We are self-owning, self-actualizing individuals.
And if our life is to have meaning at all, it is we who imbue the world with meaning.
That's the claim of our present stage of modern decadent liberalism.
And the reason religion is surging right now is because we all know that isn't true.
We all know that things have meaning beyond our feeble capacities of reason, beyond our feeble control.
We know that the world itself does, in fact, have meaning.
we are recognizing that there is a kind of a divine logic to the universe, which is indeed the very first verses of the Gospel of St. John.
In the beginning was the Logos translated by St. Jerome as verbum in Latin, translated into English as the word, which is a fine translation, but it doesn't encapsulate the fullness of the original word, Logos, which is divine reason, rationality, meaning.
In the beginning was reason, order, logic, meaning.
And the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.
Divine Logic and Family Blame00:16:15
We recognize that.
And so the attempts to recreate our understanding of the world, the attempts by Karl Marx, the attempts by Nietzsche, the attempts by Hitler, the attempts by decadent liberal moderns, the attempts by whomever, are less persuasive.
They ultimately don't fulfill the longings of our heart and they don't fulfill the understanding of our intellect.
So people are saying, oh, I guess that didn't really work out.
You know what?
Maybe I'll go back to that one institution, the only one that has survived in our civilization from modernity, from antiquity through modernity.
Maybe every smart person for all of human history statistically was right.
Okay.
Speaking of our decadent age, A video went viral yesterday that is, and I say this without one iota of hyperbole, the most horrifying video I have ever seen in my life.
It's not graphic exactly, it's not pornographic, it's not violent, obviously.
It is a kind of violence, but it's not visually violent.
And it encapsulates in less than 60 seconds the horror of the supposedly enlightened, wonderful, luxurious civilization that we're living in right now.
And it should impel us to radical social change.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, I want to tell you about Lucy.
Go to lucy.co slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Most nicotine pouches out there are all the same, plain, predictable, nothing special.
Our sponsor, Lucy, they've gone and done something different.
Their pouches go all the way up to 12 milligram strength.
Just too much from way too much for me.
I like their lower end one.
Even the shape, though, is designed to fit just right.
So the thing about the Lucy's, they have these Lucy breakers.
And, you know, just as a little treat, you don't have to be doing them all day.
Just a little Lucy breaker treat.
You pop it and the flavor goes in through the pouch.
And then you get had a dinner party a few weeks ago, introduced them to my friend who's a true aficionado of the nicotine pouches.
We were into it.
Okay.
Go check yours out today.
Lucy is the only pat.
That delivers long lasting on demand flavor.
Get 20% off your first order when you buy online at lucy.co slash Knowles, K N O W L E S with promo code Knowles.
If you don't want to wait, check out their store locator to find Lucy near you and grab it today.
Here's the fine print Lucy products are only for adults of legal age.
Every customer is age verified.
The product does contain nicotine.
Nicotine is quite an addictive chemical.
A video has gone viral.
I won't say viewer discretion advice just yet.
I'll just tell you what happens in the video.
You can determine if you have the fortitude to watch this.
It's two guys, two homosexuals who apparently went out to the baby store, custom ordered a baby, picked an egg from one woman, bought it, picked a womb from another woman, rented it, went to a perverse, unethical doctor, scientist, and said, okay, here's my money.
Give me a baby now.
I want to order a baby with the intent to deprive that child of his mother.
The two fellas get the baby.
And then you'd say, well, that's horrifying, but we know that that happens a lot.
Then the guys film one of the guys bouncing the baby when the baby calls out for mama.
And then the homosexuals mock the baby for wanting his mama.
Mock the baby who then begins to cry.
With that preface, if you want to just fast forward for a minute, close your ears, close your eyes if you can't take it.
I think it's important to watch this kind of thing because I think it's important to see.
You know, we can argue all day.
We can read essays all day.
I'm reminded of Joseph Conrad in the introduction to Nigger of Narcissus, who says that the scientist deals in facts and the thinker deals in ideas, but the artist wants you to see something, and art can be very persuasive.
If you can stomach it, you should see this video.
Hey.
Hey.
Who do you want, Dada or Pop?
No, mama.
Do you want Dada or Pop?
Who do you want?
Dada or Pop?
Nope.
Do you want Dada or Pop?
No way, Jose!
I think.
Oh.
There is no mama.
I'm so sorry.
You have Dada and Pop.
You have Pop.
Two choices.
No mama.
No mama.
No, mama.
Dada or pop?
Oh, no.
If I said what I really think watching this video, if I said what I really felt watching this video, I would probably lose my show and I might be prosecuted and I would certainly have to go to confession if I said what I really think, what I really feel watching that video.
And I suspect many of you feel the same way.
So we don't want to give total vent to maybe the deeper and darker reactions that we have to that kind of video.
However, it is perfectly right to feel angry looking at that video.
In fact, it would express and reflect a defect in our character if we did not feel angry looking at that video.
A little baby wants his mama, and a couple of men mock the baby, laugh at the baby, and said, you don't get a mama.
If the baby had lost his mama because the mama sadly died, as happens, it's a fallen world, and sin and death pervade the world.
If the baby had lost his mama through accident, chance, the brokenness of this world, we would feel really sad.
We wouldn't necessarily feel angry.
We'd feel really sad, though.
But this is different because these two men did that to the baby.
They abused the baby in that way.
There is no other way to describe this.
It is child abuse.
I'm not saying that those men beat the baby.
I'm not saying that those men want to harm the baby.
Those men might be motivated by what is, at least in its kernel, a very good instinct, which is we want to have children.
We want to procreate.
We want to raise children.
We want to educate them.
The perversions of their desires and their own selfishness have led them, nevertheless, to abuse that baby, which is now fully expressed in their mockery of the baby and their filming of the baby while the baby is crying out for the mother that those men have intentionally deprived the baby of having.
And I don't know why the men are doing it.
Maybe it's a kind of defense mechanism.
Maybe it's because deep down they know they've done something wrong.
Deep down they know something is really disordered here.
Regardless.
This should obviously be illegal.
Obviously.
The only person who can be said to have rights in the matter of procreation, it's not the homosexual guy who really wants a kid, but he finds women icky.
It's not even the single parent who doesn't want to go out and get married or was not able to go out and get married, so then goes to the store to buy a baby anyway to deprive the baby of the mother or the father.
It's wrong to deprive the baby of a father, too.
Especially though for a little baby, it's really, really wrong to deprive the baby of a mother.
Notice while that man is mocking that baby, crying out for his mother, at no point does he take the baby and hold the baby next to him on his chest, rub the baby, oh, that'll be okay, Gucci, Gucci, it's okay.
Because that's what mothers do.
Fathers don't always do that.
Even heterosexual married fathers don't always do that.
We relate to babies differently than mothers do.
That's why babies need mothers and fathers.
And especially little babies, especially need mothers.
And this is very, very wrong.
Horrifying.
I've seen, I said, this is the most horrifying video I've ever seen.
I said, the most horrifying, Michael?
Yeah, the most horrifying.
Well, Michael, have you ever seen a video of war?
I have.
I've seen a lot of videos of war.
I've seen videos of people getting killed.
Yup.
I've seen videos of violence and crime, graphic, horrible, terrible videos.
This is worse because this represents a kind of a perversion of the will, a degree of selfishness and blithe cruelty that boggles the mind and certainly the heart.
And we have arrived here because of lots of social errors.
It's not entirely the fault of those two men.
This is a social phenomenon.
Those two men were told growing up that men and women are basically the same.
They were told that by feminism.
And then they were later told that by the gay rights movement.
Those two men were told by liberalism that the most important thing in the world is not reason or charity or, but our own individual autonomy.
Those two people were told by capitalism that markets.
Are the be all and end all that we ought to serve the invisible hand of the free market.
Those two men were told by communism that the family doesn't really matter, that really we're all just one big kind of amorphous blob in a national polity.
There is a lot of blame to go around.
I'm not blaming those two guys.
Those two guys might have gone out and bought that baby and intentionally deprived him of his mother for what in their minds were very good reasons.
Vomit inducing.
It's horrifying.
It makes any even reasonable person feel at least a little bit tempted to violence.
And you have to resist that.
You don't want vigilante violence.
But it's that bad.
It's that bad.
And it needs to be illegal immediately.
Full stop.
Now, we'll get to a related issue, which involves the surrogacy industry momentarily.
A woman is now legally obligated to kill her kid in the third trimester.
Because of this, because of this whole industry.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, though, I want to tell you about Toothpillow.
Go to toothpillow.com, code Knowles.
We've started calling dysfunction normal, even in our kids.
Here's the truth when a child's palate doesn't grow properly, their airway can't develop as it should.
Breathing becomes a struggle.
The signs are all around snoring, restless sleep, poor focus.
constant congestion, teeth grinding.
Does that sound familiar?
That's because most adults still live with it too.
That's where our sponsor Toothpillow is here to help.
Mr. Davies, his kids are the right age for this.
Mr. Davies swears by Toothpillow.
This is both my oldest daughter and son, who at the time were three and five, had palate alignment and breathing issues.
We were told treatment would likely mean waiting until they were older for more invasive options.
Fortunately, my wife found Toothpillow online.
In our case, we saw improvements in months, not years.
Looking back at the before and after photos, it's remarkable what Toothpillow did for my family.
Now, my youngest son wants one just to be as cool as the big kids.
There you go.
There you go.
Can't beat that.
Right now, go to toothpillow.com, use code KNOWLES, K N A W L E S, to get your kid assessed for free.
The woman has also gone viral.
This is from Olivia Maurel, giving a little light into the surrogacy industry.
Because what I think most people think of when they think of IVF and the surrogacy industry is this is a way. to help infertile couples achieve their dreams of having a family.
And isn't that good?
What could be wrong about this?
It's more babies.
Isn't that pro-life?
Where are you pro-lifers?
Why would you oppose this?
This is great, right?
Now, a lot of the time that the IVF stuff, it goes to homosexual guys and you see those, or lesbian women or single parents, and you see those videos that we just saw.
You say, well, okay, that's pretty bad.
But what about, you know, come on.
What about the ordinary, you know, just married couples, they're infertile, doesn't work.
What's wrong with them going out and buying an egg, renting a womb, and creating a child?
Well, here's one of the legal problems that comes about as a result.
In the surrogacy contract, it is just normal to have abortion causes.
So, the commissioning parents have the choice, if they wish, to demand an abortion from the servant.
So, there was this case where a surrogate mother was pregnant.
She was in her third trimester.
And the baby, after the Oshisa, was found missing two fingers.
And the commissioning parents did not want a child missing two fingers.
So, they asked the surrogate mother to perform an abortion.
She was in her third trimester, I have to say, full grown baby.
Indeed.
And so she refused.
She wanted to keep a baby.
She refused.
She said no.
Unfortunately, she received a letter from lawyers of the commissioning parents saying that the contract had to be enforced and that she had to get an abortion or else she would not receive the money.
And in Posita, she would be sued.
So she was forced to abort this baby just because he was missing two fingers.
Okay.
So, question you got to ask yourself.
Try to prioritize your reason and your intellect here beyond your visceral reaction, which is probably one of anger listening to that story.
And you see cases like this litigated all around the country, all around the world.
This is not a one off event.
But you have to ask yourself why shouldn't the commissioning couple be allowed to sue?
Why not?
If the baby is a commodity that customers have purchased and the product comes out defective, Again, I know you might say missing a couple fingers, that's a pretty modest defect.
It's like you go out and you buy a coat and a couple of stitches are off.
That happened to me.
I bought a nice coat and a couple of stitches were off.
I thought about returning it.
I said, nah, it's okay.
I'll just wear it.
It's no big deal.
But, you know, some people would say, I don't want the stitches off.
I'm going to go exchange it.
I'm going to go.
They'll destroy that coat.
They can't sell it.
And I'll buy another coat.
So if the baby is a commodity, why shouldn't the commissioning couple, like you commission a painting, you commission a car?
Why shouldn't it be expensive too?
It's more expensive than most cars to buy a baby.
Why shouldn't the couple be allowed to say, We don't want it, destroy that product and sell me a new one?
Why not?
War Between the Sexes Explained00:11:09
I can't come up with a reason if the baby were a commodity.
But we all know the baby's not a commodity.
No human being can be said to be a commodity.
A human being is a rational creature made in the image and likeness of God.
Which itself bears rights, the very rights that we claim when we talk about the commodities that we buy and own.
So then you get to the inescapable conclusion if the baby is not, in fact, a commodity, then you should not be able to commission and buy and return the baby.
And I know, I have sympathy.
I have less and less sympathy over time, but I have sympathy for people who didn't think through this all that well.
For people who say, well, if not for IVF and surrogacy, I wouldn't have my niece or my nephew or my kid for that matter.
You're telling me I shouldn't have my kid.
I'm not telling you that at all.
Kids are great.
Kids are goods in themselves.
But not every means to produce a child is morally justifiable because the ends don't justify the means.
Good ends do not justify immoral means.
You can make a kid through rape.
And the kid who is conceived as a result of rape is good.
It's good that you have your kid.
I know people who are conceived as a result of rape.
I certainly don't think they should be killed.
I certainly think they have exactly as much moral worth as any other person.
That does not therefore justify rape.
Doesn't justify the immoral ends.
With the IVF and surrogacy industry, it's a little more abstract because there are markets and there are vendors and there are scientists and lab coats.
And so it's easier to convince ourselves that this is somehow not immoral.
But the couple gets to sue to kill the kid if the kid doesn't come out the right way because the customer is always right in markets because the kid has been defined wrongly, enormously wrongly, as a commodity, which he is not.
And if the kid's not a commodity, then we shouldn't have a market for kids.
We shouldn't have stores for kids.
We shouldn't have custom order catalogs for kids.
That's the inescapable conclusion.
That's going to be a hard conclusion for some people.
Show me the flaw in my reasoning.
You can't.
You can't.
So you can't write an essay showing me the flaw in my reasoning.
You can't produce a logical syllogism showing me the flaw in my reasoning.
And crucially, you can't watch those two videos.
You definitely can't watch those two videos and show me the flaw in my reasoning.
So do we have the political courage to do what we all know is right?
That's the question.
Speaking of men and women, there's a new study out of the UK.
This is being reported in the New Statesman.
Where is it?
Where's my study?
It shows that women and men. are in fact at loggerheads.
We are real confused about the sexes.
Obviously.
Theme of the show today.
But for years, we've been told that this war between the sexes is being driven by angry young men, misogynistic, angry young incel men who hate women.
And what this has found is that it's exactly the opposite.
This is a story published called Angry Young Women by Emily Lawford and Scarlett Magg, published in the New Statesman.
I'll just read you a little bit because I know we have to get to the mailbag.
The literary conversation was winding down.
They're describing this event at a feminist society.
The literary conversation was winding down.
I asked the table how they felt about the young men they knew.
I don't care for them, said a girl named Ruby, imperiously.
She had red hair and lots of silver jewelry.
They're not bad people, but they refuse to call out their friends who make other girls uncomfortable.
They'll laugh at jokes that are sexist, racist, homophobic.
They don't care about political issues.
I don't think they like women a lot.
If a man is attracted to you, she said, he might talk about things like toxic misogyny.
If he doesn't fancy you, he won't bother.
I feel like a lot of it is quite sexually motivated with men.
I don't like these men.
So then the author writes I asked if they'd consider dating a man with different politics.
They all immediately said no.
I don't think I'd even be friends with one, said one girl.
They don't see you as human.
No, I don't know.
I'm a man with different politics, or I have quite distinctly different politics than these feminist women.
I think women are human.
In fact, I think I view them as much more human than they view themselves.
Much more accurately human than they view themselves.
Only one woman, Evelyn, admitted to having male friends, though she was worried this made her a pick me, trying too hard for male attention.
It also didn't feel like students just trying on radicalism for funds.
This didn't feel like just a passing fad.
There is a real set of stratification of different groups under 30.
The internet has pushed young men and women further apart, and the people they interact with on the internet reinforce their beliefs.
In a vicious cycle, the femisphere, not the manosphere, the femisphere, both reflects young women's dissatisfaction and perpetuates it, radicalizing them further.
So, first of all, we all should have realized this.
Yes, there is tension between the sexes.
We used to say there wouldn't be a war between the sexes because everyone's sleeping with the enemy.
Then, when they stopped sleeping with each other, that should have been our first clue.
Okay, maybe there is a war between the sexes.
Ancient wisdom, the gods of the copybook headings coming back.
But we should have realized that it was the women who were angry at the men more than the men angry at the women because for decades the media told us the opposite.
And whatever the liberal media say is wrong, not just a little bit wrong, but usually perfectly wrong.
And so they've told us about these angry young men for a decade.
The opposite was true.
I'll tell you why.
It's very simple.
I'm not saying there's no misogyny.
I'm not saying that men don't make jokes about women, or in some limited cases, men genuinely don't like women.
But here are the numbers.
It was published in the study.
Overall, do you have a positive or negative view of the opposite gender?
Men.
72% say positive because, you know, we like ladies.
They're great.
They're a little frustrating sometimes, but we like them.
They're one of the top things that we like.
Cigars, ladies, sitting.
I don't know.
I'm just describing myself here.
The Yankees, I don't know.
But ladies are higher than all of them.
I don't know.
The cigar, even more than cigars, I would say.
72% positive.
21% neutral, 7% negative.
For women, only 50% say they have a positive view of men.
29% say neutral, so a little higher in the neutrality than men.
And then 21% say negative.
Women are three times as likely to view men in a negative light than men are likely to view women in a negative light.
Why?
What is it?
What's up with the girls?
I'll tell you exactly what it is.
For decades now, women have been told to compete with men.
That's what changed.
For all of human history until 57 seconds ago, men and women were told that they're complementary.
They go together like a yin and a yang.
They're great.
How's the song go?
Man needs a girl and girl must have his mate.
No, I'm screwing up the lyrics, but that's the idea.
We're made for each other.
But then feminism came in and said, no, no, you're not made for each other, women and men.
You're actually the same.
You're basically the same.
You look a little different sometimes, but you're practically speaking entirely the same.
Therefore, you need to compete with men.
You need to go in there, get that job from that man.
You need to go in there, take that spot at the university from that man.
You need to go in there, get those legal licenses and rights, so called, from men.
You got to compete with them.
Men were not really told that about women, inasmuch as they were told that they didn't believe it.
Because men don't have to compete with women.
Men and women compete in a race.
Guess who wins?
The man.
Men and women compete in the job market.
Guess who wins?
Generally, the men.
Because women have kids, because women are more nurturing and they want to stay home with their kids.
They're biologically different.
Because women are a little more emotional sometimes, I think we would say.
Couldn't we say that?
I'm like, well, I get in trouble for saying that probably.
But it's true.
Men just have certain advantages in professional life, in political life, in business life that women don't have.
But women have advantages that men don't have as well.
Bringing us all the way back to the top, women are much more nurturing.
Women are necessary.
Women are the hand that rocks the cradle as the hand that rules the world.
So anyway, women are told they must compete with men.
And therefore they view men as rivals and therefore they don't like them at a much higher rate.
Then men don't like women.
No surprise here.
This is you pay your ticket and you take your seat, but it hasn't worked and it's made people very unhappy.
A related story I know I'm running late, I don't care.
There's a story coming out of Pew Research.
Couples who share a surname most likely have lower divorce rates overall.
Gee, you don't say.
When women take the name of their husband and there's one name for the whole family, that family is less likely to break up.
than when women insist on keeping their father's name.
They're always going to have a man's name, but they want to have their father's name instead of their husband's name.
The women who keep their last name are more likely to break up.
Spouses who don't share a surname divorce at about a 50% higher rate than those who do share a surname, and their divorces come about 30% earlier in their marriages.
Yes, of course.
But it's not just the surname.
There are a few instances where women keep their surname for professional reasons or whatever.
Again, I don't think it's great, but I'm not saying there's never a reason, but generally, 999 times out of 1,000, women should take their husband's last name because they're part of a family now.
And if they don't do that, then they're hedging their bets on the family.
I feel this way about shared bank accounts.
One out of 1,000, maybe the husband has a gambling problem, maybe the wife has a drug addiction, maybe there's some reason to keep bank accounts separate.
But 999 times out of 1,000, when couples don't have shared bank accounts, they're hedging, aren't they?
It's a hedge to say, well, if I want to get out of this marriage, at least it'll be easier to do so.
Prenuptial agreements are the same thing.
The Catholic Church does not allow prenuptial agreements.
You cannot have a prenuptial agreement getting married because it's a hedge.
And they say, well, this sacrament is for life.
If you get a prenuptial agreement, you're hedging.
You are acting as though you might leave the marriage.
Therefore, you're not buying into what the sacrament really is.
And guess what?
They're more likely to get divorced.
I don't recommend it.
If you're going to do it, do it.
This is what our Lord tells us about being lukewarm.
Prenuptial Agreements as Hedges00:06:07
Be vomited out of the mouth.
If you're going to do it, if you want to get married, get married.
But we've redefined marriage to be not just a lifelong union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the education of children, a good of which then is also the mutual support of the spouses.
Now it's just two people who live together or don't live together of any sex, could be two fellas, could be two women, leads to a lot of social confusion, leads to a lot of dissatisfaction, and that should change too.
Folks, do you want to get more of this beautiful mug?
Do you want to get more incisive commentary?
Do you want to be part of the community?
Do you want to give me your ideas so that I can take them and use them myself?
Do you want to get all the breaking news?
Do you want to get the notifications?
You got to go to the Daily Wire Plus app.
That's how you do it.
You can get the app on the App Store, Google Play, Roku, Apple TVs, Samsung Smart TVs, LG Smart TVs, I don't know, Commodore 64s.
You can get it everywhere.
Get the Daily Wire app right now, then click on my face and you'll be getting everything breaking.
Now, finally, finally, we get to the mailbag.
My favorite comment yesterday from Diane C9456, who says, Thanks for defining mogging, Michael.
I guess I'm old.
Yeah, you're not, you know, Luxon, you're not a hip, young, cool zoomer like me.
You know, kid, sup.
Our mailbag is sponsored by PureTalk.
Go to puretalk.com slash knowles today to switch to America's wireless company.
Take it away.
Hey, Michael.
This is daily listener, McDonald's employee Abba from Hungary.
And I really liked your coverage of the Hungarian elections on Monday.
And I very much agree with your takes.
I also want to add that on a personal level, Peter Mayer is even more terrible.
He's an absolute degenerate half-gay sex-free sociopath.
who lies about everything and the good Hungarians will fight and not give up.
Also, we love America and we love Trump, so please pray for us.
God bless.
Well, thanks for writing in.
I'm always so happy when I hear no get notes and hear voicemails from people who are listening all around the world, and especially this week from Hungary, because there's this huge op underway to say, actually, the guy who kicked out the most conservative leader in Europe, the last stand against mass migration and the predations of the European Union, actually, that it's fine that that guy lost.
And the new guy is even better.
The guy that the EU and Alex Soros and Hillary Clinton and Gavin Newsom were all thrilled won the election, he's actually secretly way more based than Orban.
And I thought.
I don't really buy that.
And I have traveled to Hungary a few times in the last, for different reasons in the last few years.
And that was not the impression that I got.
It seemed to me pretty clear that the European Union knew, the libs, the globalists, call them what you will, they knew they couldn't win with a leftist in Hungary, in post-Soviet Hungary.
They knew that wasn't going to fly.
So they needed a guy who was plausibly right-wing, but just not Orban.
And they got their guy.
Obviously, he won in a pretty big election.
But yeah, I didn't buy it.
I just, for me, a rule of politics, pretty simple.
If Hillary Clinton and Vanderlyn and Gavin Newsom and Alex Soros and all those people are on one side of an election, I'm probably going to be on the other.
So glad to hear that affirmed by a Hungarian.
Okay, next mailbag.
Good morning, Michael.
This is Arun.
So, I am a practitioner of the Second Amendment for personal safety reasons, but the principal objective of 2A is not personal safety, rather, it is corporate safety.
The idea is that the government should fear its armed citizenry and should therefore avoid tyranny.
Yet, in 2020, we saw that that didn't seem to be effective.
The government enacted harsh lockdowns, preventing people from so much as going out to eat at their favorite restaurant or having a bunch of friends over for a party.
And you didn't see Any citizens with AR 15s rushing to local McDonald's demanding to dine in.
So, my question is why did the Second Amendment fail when we needed it most?
Thank you, as always, for your insight.
Good question, Arun, as always.
Why didn't people take up arms and start shooting cops during COVID?
Is basically the question that you're asking.
And the reason I think comes from the Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of Independence reads, you know, after it describes the The predicate for the war, before it describes all of the offenses.
Don't forget, most of the Declaration is specific offenses that the king has committed, really meaning Parliament has committed against the American colonists.
But in the first draft written by Jefferson and in the final draft of the Declaration, they do take on the argument against revolution.
And they say prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.
And accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable. than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.
So in the case of COVID, it was very, very heavy-handed, but it lasted for a relatively short period of time.
Don't forget, revolutionary sentiment in the colonies had been building for a decade.
COVID happily lasted two, three years.
If we were still under the COVID regime today, there would be a stronger argument for a political revolution.
But I think Jefferson is right.
Jefferson, who's drawing on wisdom from Protestant sources who themselves were reading Jesuit sources, who themselves were reading St. Thomas Aquinas, who himself was reading the long tradition of political revolution, thoughts on the regime, God's providence and ordaining the regime versus the rights of the people to overthrow bad rulers.
Heavy-Handed COVID Regimes00:03:01
And he says, look, you need to be really cautious here.
And it is better to suffer evils of a regime in most cases than it is to actually engage in a political revolution, which might leave you worse off than you were when you started.
But when things just go on, look like they're going to go on forever, and it's intolerable, then you have, Jefferson would say, you have a right to revolution.
At the very least, you might say you have a license to it.
Okay, next question.
Hi, Michael.
So we seem to be on a similar life path at the moment.
We both have three boys.
I have a four year old, almost three year old, and almost one year old.
And we are pregnant with our fourth and just found out it's a little girl.
So I'm not sure if you're having a girl or not, but I am curious to hear your thoughts.
What do you think will be the differences in parenting rambunctious, very aggressive, active little boys versus potentially very sensitive, but super sweet and sassy little girls?
I just don't know what to expect and would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks so much.
I've thought about this question quite a lot.
Some of you, I haven't made a big announcement about it, but some of you know sweet little Elisa is indeed pregnant.
So we appreciate your prayers.
This became public because I was at CPAC and Matchlap decided to tell everybody in the room and in the world who was watching.
And so, anyway, I am very excited about that.
And we did, in fact, just find out.
I thought for now many years that I was incapable of producing a daughter because I'm simply too virile.
So I just kept producing sons.
because of my, I don't know, my high T levels, my kind of metaphysical masculinity.
I don't know what it was, but I'm very pleased to say that the new one is a girl.
So I'm very, very excited about that.
And I've thought, okay, well, how will this be different?
And of course, the most obvious difference is that I will now be able to do favors for criminals on the day of her wedding.
So I can't, you know, you don't do that on your son's wedding day, but on your daughter's wedding day, you can have big, fat Italian criminals.
come up to your office in your home, which is hosting the wedding, and you can promise to do crimes on their behalf to then incur their favor and win their loyalty and then force them to commit crimes on your behalf down the road.
So that to me is the biggest difference, of course.
And then beyond that, it remains to be seen.
Though I will say, Drew Clavin gave me this advice when our first kid was born.
Kids are born with their entire personality and they basically never change.
Which is a real mark in favor of nature because I have three boys.
They're all completely different, and they've all been completely different from the moment that they were born, at least.
And it's just how it is.
And I'm increasingly persuaded by the power of genetics, at the very least by the power of Providence.