Ep. 2039 - Horrifying Organ Harvest Story Goes Viral

This episode has brought you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co/noles, candidate of ULS. A new poll out of Michigan has conservatives blaming immigrants and college educated white women for all of our country's problems. And I'm like the girl in the meme. I say, why not both? Why not, but there's enough blame to go around. But in fairness, one of those groups actually is more responsible than the other. We will examine the underlying psychological issues, then some happy statistics, vice president J.D. Vance. Currently leads not just the Republican field, but all the Democrats in the 2028 presidential prediction markets. That's the real key here. We'll see how the right-wing primary shakes at, but we want to make sure that the Republican beats the Democrats. Strangely though, some right-wing activists are angrier than ever because of it, finally turning back to unpleasant news. And Australian woman has become the first person to have her organs harvested after committing suicide. Welcome to the ethics of our brave new world. I'm Michael Noltsis, the Michael Nolts Show. Welcome back to the show Luigi Mangione has just pled guilty to one of the charges that he faces after the killing of the health care CEO, Brian Thompson, cold blood. Meanwhile, his supporters are still defending him and his supporters tend to be the aforementioned liberal white women, where the white women at. They are outside of the courtroom defending a murderer. We will explain why. First though, I want to focus on the ladies in the Michigan Senate primary. This is a really, really worrisome set of numbers that's just come out. So how's the race stand right now? You've got the Democrat Abdul El-Sahead who is the woke DSA, socialist candidate who alternately plays jihaddi and gay. He's trying to appeal to both sections of the Democrat Party. You have the lavender section and you have the green flag, crescent moon section. And the good news is a new poll just came out from Fox News. Among registered voters, the Republican mic Rogers is leading. So this is the gamble right now for the Democrats. If they nominate the radical DSA candidates, who frankly are not really any more radical than the mainstream Democrats, because the whole Democrat party has given way to radicalism and has really embraced the Democrat Socialists. But if they nominate the radical candidate, then it should make it easier for the Republicans to win in the general election. But this is a midterm election with all the headwinds going against Republicans. So the Democrats are taking this gamble. They're saying, what if we nominate the radical candidate and already we're likely to win? It's just how the year is set up. So if we win with the really radical candidates, then we're going to get even more of what we want. And the way it's playing out right now among registered voters, they're going to lose that bet. Among registered voters, the Republicans are more attractive than the radical Democrats. Here's the rub. If you change your lens from registered voters to likely voters, or you dial it up in further to certain to vote, the people who are just dead set on voting for their guy in November, the Republican loses. In fact, the numbers precisely flip right now. Among registered voters, it's 51 for the Republican, 47 for the Democrat. Among certain to vote, it's 51 for the Democrat, 47 for the Republican. So who is voting for Abdul El-Sayed, who is a deeply unattractive candidate? Well, if you look among white voters, Mike Rogers is way way up. The Republicans up by 14 points, 56 to 42. If you look among non-white voters and non-white voters in Michigan, largely means immigrants, then you've got Abdul El-Sayed way, way, way, way up. The non-white voters vote much more in lockstep with their racial and ethnic identity than the white voters do. White voters have basically no racial identity. This has been born out in surveys for many years at this point. Every other race has very high degrees of racial identity. White people have basically none, which is why it's so funny that we constantly hear about white supremacy, white identityarianism, white nationalism. That doesn't exist. Statistically in America, that does not exist. Black nationalism, Hispanic nationalism, Asian nationalism, all of that exists to much, much higher degrees. So among non-white voters, Abdul El-Sayed's up 42 points, 70 to 28. If you look at men, men very reasonable. The Republican runs away with it, 55 to 44. If you look at women, women are voting for Abdul El-Sayed, but only by a little bit. He's only up one point among women generally, but don't forget that includes married women, that includes all the normal women. Then you get to the white women with the college degree, then you get to, what are the, the awfuls, they call them, the affluent white female liberals. The awfuls are given it to the Democrat Abdul El-Sayed by 23 points, 60 to 37. So who do we blame? Do we blame the non-white voters, which in Michigan, largely means immigrants, or do we blame the women? Why not both? Why not, but we could blame both of them. This explains, these poll numbers explain why Abdul El-Sayed right now is leaning gay. Remember he posted that, that campaign ad? This is from his account where it's him singing, "Oh, I want to dance with somebody and it looks like this really gay high school musical." Well, a lot of people are scratching their heads. Why is he playing this way? He's playing this way because his chief base is affluent white liberals, specifically white liberal women. So he's going to play up to their sort of flamboyant gay preferences. He needs to win the non-white immigrants. He needs to win 80% of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan. But he'll get those. The non-white voters are voting overwhelmingly for him. Their voting is a block. So the chief reason that we have, the most immediate reason as to why we have all of these radical leftist, socialist, overwhelmingly racial identitarian, increasingly Muslim sort of candidates rising up throughout the country is because of mass migration. That's full stop. If we didn't have mass migration, we would have a lot of normal politicians, relatively normal politicians. But I assign more blame here to the liberal white women with the college degrees. And I assign more blame because when you look at the non-white voters by which we mean Muslims in Michigan, they're just voting in a very rational way. If you import a bunch of people who don't assimilate, who come from a radically different culture with a different religion, a different language, and different customs, and you tell them not to assimilate, guess what? They're going to vote in the way that benefits their faction, their unassimilated faction. So what they're doing is not destructive for their own political community. The voters in Dearborn, Michigan don't view themselves as Americans. The voters in Dearborn, Michigan don't aspire to throw away their old foreign customs and become as American as Apple Pie, as you saw with a lot of immigrants in the early 20th century when there was a very, very serious push for assimilation. They're not doing that. They're voting for the good of their own political communities. They just don't identify with the political community of the United States. With the white liberal women with the college degrees, their voting habits are purely destructive. They are voting for people who want to ruin their country. They are voting for people who campaign with a son-piker who says that America deserved 9/11. They're voting for people who say they want to make America weaker. They're voting for people who want to bring in foreign customs and destroy the customs of the United States. The white liberal women with the college degrees are really proving the idiom true that all of leftism just comes down to screw you, Dad. That's what's going on here. By the numbers, the immigrant problem is worse, but by the absurdity, by the perversity, by the pure destructiveness of it, it is the white women with the college degree. They will bear the responsibility, if Abdul Al-Said wins and right now it's anyone's race. Turning to the presidential election, we do have a little bit of good news. Our sponsor, Kalshi, has just come out looking at not just the Republican field for 28 or the Democrat field for 20 or 28, but the whole race. Right now, JD Vance leads the whole pack. JD Vance has 20% odds on Kalshi of winning the whole thing outright, followed by Marco Rubio, who's at 16%, followed by Gavin Newsom and 11% followed by AOC at 9.6%. This is really, really good news. One, it's because you've got two Republicans leading the two top Democrats. Whether it were JD Vance or Marco Rubio, that person would win according to the prediction markets, which are different from polls, but in some ways they're more reliable than the polls. And when you look at the candidates overall, it's Vance. Now, this backs up what we saw. I think it was a Marquette poll that came at a couple of weeks ago, which showed that JD Vance is the most popular figure in the Trump administration. Trump's approval among Republican voters is about 76%. So it's lower than guys like JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth. Now, I think you got to grade Trump here on a curve because Trump is the chief. He's the guy, the buck stops with him. So he's taking most of the attacks, most of the slings and arrows coming his way. No surprise that he's been dinged a little bit among Republican voters. Hegseth doing very well, Rubio doing even better, but JD Vance leading the pack. This is a little surprising because JD has taken a lot of hits at least in the political media, at least among the activists set. He's taken way more hits than Marco Rubio has, for instance. Marco Rubio has had months of just constantly positive press. And yet, JD Vance is still, has a high approval rating among Republicans, then Rubio does. Rubio is very high too. Rubio's doing a great job. But what does this tell us? This tells us that there is a big disconnect between the political media on the right, the activist groups on the right, the lobbyist groups on the right, and the actual Republican voters. And after all those hits, people, I think, very dishonestly trying to pin the, the Iran war on JD Vance, JD Vance, who is not the commander in chief, not the nation's chief diplomat. He's the vice president who, according to reports, was rather skeptical of the Iran war from the beginning. I thought it was very dishonest. I thought it was just people who were trying to attack Trump, but didn't have the Williams to attack Trump. So they attacked Trump's wicked advisors in particular, their, their least favorite one, which is JD Vance. But there was a huge chasm between that and the actual Republican voters. What it tells me is that the anti-Vance discourse that you might have seen on social media, that you've seen coming out of the pundit class, the chattering class, and some of the, the right wing publications, that is totally disconnected from actual voter preferences, and it's totally disconnected from prediction markets. So not just what people are saying their preferences are when they talk to pollsters, but even where people are putting the money. You know, I saw this a little bit firsthand over the weekend. It was kind of funny. I responded to a comment of someone criticizing me because I don't know. I wasn't attacking JD Vance, and I can't help but notice. I think a lot of the attacks on Vance are astroturfed, and I think a lot of them are foreign. I'll give some of my evidence for that in a second first, though. I want to tell you about Helix. Go to helixleap.com/nolest. Do you know what I did on Saturday? On Saturday, I go upstairs with my wife, and I open up something that I've been sitting in my house for a little bit. It's my new helix mattress because, look, for me, I would have let guests sleep on the floor, but sweet little Lisa said, "We should treat our guests right. We should get them a better mattress. We should get them a helix." So I open it up. Even for me, I'm not the biggest, most adonic guy in the world. Nevertheless, I get the mattress on the bed. You open it up. It's really, really easy. It moves all the way up. Sweet little Lisa and I lay down on top, test it. It is so magnificent. It's just an incredible mattress brand. You don't need to get my bed. You can get the bed that is made for you. Take their quick sleep quiz. Your match for the perfect mattress. It's absolutely wonderful. Highly recommend. There is a reason that Helix is the most worded mattress brand out there recognized by experts. Like Forbes and Wyard, they give you 129 sleep trial, limited lifetime warranty. You're not going to need either of those because you're going to love it. You can keep buying new Helix mattresses, including for your guest room. Go to helixleep.com/nolescanadavls, get 27% off-site wide exclusively for listeners to this show. Helixleep.com/nolescanadavls, 27% off-site wide exclusively for listeners of this show. So over the weekend, someone who's going after vans is the crazy, you want to talk about the disconnect between the online discourse and actual voters is people going after vans because they were trying to tie vans to some like academics who appear at a conference. And the academics read a political philosopher from the 20th century. This guy, Carl Schmidt, who, while a prominent political philosopher, was also a Nazi, as were a number of Germans during the mid-20th century. And so they were basically what they were trying to say is that vans is a Nazi. That's what a lot of the discourses come down to. And I said, this is totally ridiculous. It's a full of non-sequiturs. I think this is pretty unfair. Then people were going after vans for, they said he wanted to destroy the American hegemony because he raised questions about the global reserve currency status of the United States. They were calling them some kind of subversive, Catholic post-liberal. But then you look in many of the questions that he was bringing up years ago, we're also brought up by Protestant libertarians. So it was all just so in the weeds. And I felt so dishonest. So I pointed this out. And I get a comment on X from teacher Julie O.A., whose responding said, you know, I strongly dislike Michael Knowles more and more each day. Because I was making a comment on a comment on a political philosopher, on a theological strain, on an academic conference, on a point about the economy that somehow vaguely related to vans. I strongly dislike Michael Knowles more and more each day, and really what this account was upset about was that I was defending the vice president against where I thought was a very unfair attack. So one of the great features that Elon Musk brought to X is you can tell where the accounts are based. Let me see where this account is based. There's no name other than Julie, there's no face, there's nothing really identifying this account. Let me see where that account is based. So I looked at it and the account is based in Ghana, in Ghana, accessing Twitter from Ghana. So it's not even like the account is based in Ghana and accessing it from New York City. It's from Ghana, accessing it from Ghana. It's either a bot or a foreign operative account. I love my Ghani's audience, my Ghani in audience. This show actually does have a pretty big international audience. I love that. I'm all about that. I love that people are paying attention to the show and the different political and philosophical and especially religious currents that we talk about on this show. But I said, this just doesn't make sense. It is not believable that some ordinary Ghanian citizen is that plugged in with all of the esoteric nuances of the political ideologies that float atop the intraconservative movement debates that then pertain to the Republican party. It's just not believable. This is an op. And of course all of social media now is flooded with foreign bots, foreign influence and activist campaigns here. I mean, look, if you've ever worked on a political campaign before, I've worked on plenty of them. You know that this is how political campaigns work, but I found it to be really, really silly. And for Republican voters who are trying to ascertain the state of the race, are we really going to get blown out of the water? The Democrats totally going to run away with it in 2028. One, it's a little too early to predict that. But if you want to know the state of the race, let's look at the polls of actual voters. Let's look at the polls of, let's look at what the prediction markets are saying. Because I think the vice president is terrific. I'm a big fan of the vice president. I think Rubio is great too. I think there are even figures who are not in the Trump administration who could run good campaigns for president. As I've said before, I think there's a chance that Ron DeSantis could have a lane depending on how the Iran war works out, depending on the popularity of the Trump administration, because he's outside of the administration. He could run in the kind of Trump lane outside of the Trump administration, though that's very difficult. It didn't work out in 2024. I think Ted Cruz, a lot of people I think are underestimating Ted Cruz. I think Ted Cruz could have a real lane in 2028. It would, it would again depend on how things work out with the Trump administration, how tight president Trump's hold is on the Republican party. I think Rand Paul could have a lane. I don't think a libertarian's going to win, but he could have a lane to run in that party. I want to make sure that a Republican beats a Democrat. In other words, I want to focus on the chief threats to my way of life, to American sovereignty. You've got Democrats running candidates who openly have disdain for the country, want to make sure that we keep our eyes on the prize. But there's a lot of mischief, a lot of silliness going on in the shadow race for 2028, a lot of it very silly, and a lot of it coming from overseas. So speaking of the vice president, JD Vance made a really important point, I think, on how we think about socialism. One of the attacks that you're seeing in the shadow race for 2028 on the GOP side is people are trying to call Vance a socialist, which I think is pretty absurd on its face, but that's the argument. He's saying JD Vance, he's a socialist, his economics, his economic policy is no different from what the Democrats are offering, and Vance addressed this head on on Fox News. And my warning to my fellow Republicans will would be, if we don't get this right, don't blame young people for being sympathetic to socialism, we've got to blame ourselves, and I think what is so unique and refreshing about Donald Trump's economic policies is that it's not the same old economic ideas that you would have heard 30, 40 years ago. He's talking about rebuilding our industrial base, rebuilding the heartland, making our streets safer, making it possible for young people to afford to buy a home. This is how you stop socialism. You don't stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market. As much as I love the free market, you stop socialism by making people's lives better. And that's what we're trying to do every single day. I love this point because it's such a political point. People think that JD Vance is making an economic point, obviously as economic ideas, but what he's being attacked for right now, I think is not his economic argument. It's actually his political argument. What he's saying is we have to stop socialism, but you're not going to stop socialism by just mindlessly repeating slogans about the free market. You're not going to stop socialism by regurgitating the same kinds of political tactics that have failed in the past. What would the opposite of this be? The opposite of speaking to the affordability crisis would be the sort of thing that we saw during the Tea Party, specifically from Paul Ryan. I like Paul Ryan. I think Paul Ryan had good intentions. I think he wanted to solve our fiscal problem. Paul Ryan ran on austerity. The GOP Congress, under his leadership or partial leadership, ran on austerity. The Mitt Romney campaign ran on austerity and 47% of Americans being useless leeches. the fact that we need to cut cut cut. Ran on reforming entitlements, which is to say cutting social security and Medicare. How did it work out? It didn't work. It empowered Democrats. Democrats ran on that forever. They persuaded voters. They aired commercials of Paul Ryan throwing Granny off of a cliff. And guess what? You then had Democrat politicians implementing policies far closer to socialism than anything shady Vance is talking about. So, Vance is saying is you, you can't just recite the same old platitudes forever. You need to address people's real circumstances, because politics involves eternal principles, but it also involves constantly changing circumstances. And there's this temptation among the establishment Republicans to just go back to what feels safe. You know, in the 1980s, they would talk about the 1950s. And now the way that Republicans talked about the 50s and the 80s and 90s is the same way that establishment Republicans talk about the 90s today. Because it was a back, you know, a few decades ago and we have nice memories of it and nostalgia's history after a few drinks. But you can't actually return to the past. You can't return to the past and we shouldn't want to return to the past, because this is the key. The past contained the seeds for the present. So, there are some Republicans who they just want to feel safe. The past it's over and done with. We all made it through just fine. Many of the people who talked about the wonders of Ronald Reagan in the '20s and '20s. Many of those people probably would have opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Many of them probably would have been Bushes rather than Reaganites. The same attacks that you see lobbied at Donald Trump, now JD Vance. Those attacks that he was a cowboy, he was reckless, that he's uneducated, he's unsophisticated, that he's not see these insinuations of bigotry. Those were all the same attacks that were lobbied against Reagan in the '70s and '80s. People want to return to the past because it feels kind of safe. There's something deeply conservative about that, but you're going to lose because the past contained the seeds of the present. If we rewind the clock back to 1999, guess what would happen. If we left everything the same, we would end up exactly right back here in the same place. You need to address people's actual concerns. We're not living in the same time as the 1990s. We've had decades of outsourcing our jobs of getting rid of American manufacturing. That has brought with it some economic benefits. There are economic benefits to free trade. There are economic benefits to being the world's global reserve currency. But there are some downsides too. So it doesn't mean you throw the baby out at the bathwater, but it means you have to address those downsides. And if all we do is ossify ourselves and just turn into Republican chat GOP where we're just reciting the same slogans of the Reagan campaign and wondering why they're having diminishing marginal returns, you're going to seed the political order to the socialists. In your pure fight against socialism, you're in your own self conception, pure fight against socialism, you're going to hasten the advent of socialism. Very, very important point from the VP. Okay. Now speaking of the socialists, a lot of women out there outside that courtroom defending Luigi Mangioni, after he pled guilty to one of the charges against him for murdering the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, we'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to take about pure talk. We've got a puretalk.com/noles, Canada VLES. There's certain things worth spending money on. A good suit, prime stake, a well-crafted mattress, cell phone service. Not quite. Your text message does not arrive more elegantly because you paid 120 bucks for it. I strongly recommend you check out pure talk. I've had my pure talk phone and service for six years now. It's incredible. It's the best hours. I know you heard like, "Oh, it's good towers." No, it's the best hours. It's the best service. It's the best customer service because they're American and they speak English. You get reliable talk, text, and data without paying an absurd premium for the privilege of sending your family the same memes. Pure talk is veteran-led, 100% US-based customer service, makes switching super simple. Take five minutes. Look at what you're currently paying for in wireless and prepare to become mildly irritated by your current bill. But don't worry. There's an answer. In the answers, pure talk. Go to puretalk.com/noles, Canada VLES, to make the switch today to pure talk. Do it right now. You will not regret it. Go to puretalk.com/noles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to start saving. Luigi Mangiani has pled guilty to a federal charge. He didn't plead guilty to the state charge of murdering Brian Thompson, the United Health Air CEO. He pled guilty to the federal charge of interstate stalking. The reason he pled guilty to that is to try to get out of the state murder charge because we have a principle in American jurisprudence against double jeopardy that being tried for the same crime twice comes from the Fifth Amendment. However, certain states beef up the double jeopardy protections, including New York State where Luigi Mangiani is facing charges. So what the Mangiani defense is hoping, I don't think they're going to succeed, but what they're hoping is, okay, plead guilty to the federal charge, the lesser charge of interstate stalking to try to get out of the tougher charge, which is the state murder charge. Now you would say, okay, you got all the Mangiani supporters, all these crazy women standing outside the class, outside of the courtroom. And you'd think, okay, well, now these pled guilty to one of the charges. Surely they're going to give up, right? Surely they're going to recant if they're support for Luigi. Not so, here's what one of them says. Do you think it's wrong that he murdered someone, regardless of why he did it? Everyone has a different opinion and I'm not going to say it was wrong or right because I do think I exist within a gray area of the opinions around this case, but I see it more as a revolutionary act of protest of the likes of which we haven't seen since the civil rights era. My reactions in court, um, relief, I guess is the word. I think for a very long time, people have ascribed this idea that supporters are painting him out to be guilty by having conversations about the healthcare industry. So to no longer have to fight that battle is satisfying and relieving. He has a lot of battles to fight. I want him to be happy and healthy, but I want America to continue questioning, you know, our current predicaments and why we allow our futures to be stolen away by all regards. The online grows who campaign for repeal of the 19th amendment. They have met their spokeswoman. Here she is. This is it. The face of 19th amendment repeal. And there are a bunch of women like her outside the courtroom. I was a little tough on the white liberal women earlier. I can't tell. She's white-ish. I can't quite maybe has a hint of Persian to her. But I think she passes. She's probably got a lighter skin than I do. She says, no, no, just because he played guilty. No, it doesn't mean I don't support him anymore. And she makes a point that actually goes deeper than the psychological irritations of unhinged women. She makes a point that actually goes down to leftist philosophy. This isn't just for the women. This is the most ordinary, revolutionary communist man. Hassan Piker could make the same argument and has made the same argument, which is no, no, no. I support him because he played guilty. I support him because he committed the crime. I don't think in my delusions that he's being framed or something. I like that he killed the innocent health care CEO. I like that. That's a revolutionary act of protest. That's not just some frivolous hysterical woman that you can write off. One, those people vote. But two, that is what the leaders of the American left are openly saying. When Hassan Piker comes out and says we need to murder Republican senators because they're Republicans, we need the blood to run red with, with, oh, sorry, we need the streets to run red with capitalist blood. America deserve 9/11. When Hassan Piker says that, Hassan Piker is campaigning with all these prominent Democrat politicians right now, who is effectively the thought leader of the Democrat Party in the American left. When they say that, they mean it. And it's, it's not, you can't, I don't even think it's unfair to just point to Hassan Piker. We saw this after the murder of Charlie Kirk. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, you saw huge swaths of the Democrat Party justifying and celebrating political violence. And you saw it. I'm not even, yes, we saw it when the Democrat strategist on TV was blaming Charlie for his own murder before his body was cold. We saw that on MSNBC. Yes, we've seen politicians and activists all justifying, excusing, minimizing the murder of Charlie. But you saw it because that lady who sits next to you at work, she posted about it on Facebook. You saw it because those kids in your classroom, they defended the murder of Charlie. You saw it because you saw it reflected in the public opinion polls that showed that something like 28% of young Democrats, young leftists justified the murder. That's what we're up against. It's why I lose a little bit of patience with the kind of absurd activist attacks, mostly JD Vance is getting it right now, but the intro Republican Party firing squad here. It's why I lose a little patience with it because people just have totally lost a conception of where the enemy really lies, where the real threat to our way of life really lies. Now, speaking of death, there's kind of a depressing show, isn't it? Well, this one should really make us rethink how we think about ethics more generally. This is a story that occurred months ago, eight or nine months ago. But it's starting to get a little of attention right now. This is from Australia. Life site news is reporting on it. And what life site news is reporting, whereas there we go, is that for the first time ever, doctors have harvested a woman's organs after they killed her in an assisted suicide. So we have Oregon harvesting based on the dubious medical concept of brain death, brain death, which is not the same as death. Brain death is a kind of political term that emerged in the 1960s to solve a problem that certain unethical doctors were contemplating in the 1960s, with the advent of technology that could allow us to transfer organs from one person to another with the widespread use of this technology. There came this question, "When can we bring the organs to the new person, to the person who needs them?" Because once a person dies, the organs very quickly lose their vitality. The best way to transfer an organ is from a living person, but it would be unethical to harvest the organs from a living person. What can we do? We'll declare the person dead before the person actually meets the criteria of death. In other words, we'll redefine death. When it comes to organ harvesting, organ transplants, when it comes to the case of brain death, what actually kills the patients in brain death is not their brains. It's not some natural phenomenon. It is the harvesting of organs. It's when the doctors either pull the plug or when they start to harvest the organs. There have been really scary stories that have come out of this, people waking up, people who are showing signs of life while their organs are being harvested, fair bit of evidence that they feel some pain while this is happening. The ghastly stuff that requires a serious ethical review. You got that on the one hand, the organ harvesting. Then you have this other just absolutely hellish medical innovation, which is assisted suicide, where doctors who take a Hippocratic oath, first to do no harm, are actually the ones who are helping to kill the patients. This is a complete inversion, a satanic inversion of the medical field. It's a very widespread, America's Evil Top Hat Canada practice is at all the time. That's why now 5% plus of Canadians each year die of a doctor-assisted suicide. This is combining the two in Australia. I think this was in January, in Australia, a woman says she's going to kill herself, the justice system, which should prevent her from doing that because it is totally contrary to the natural law. It is totally contrary to civil statutes and all civilized societies. Nevertheless, the government says, okay, we'll help you kill yourself. Then they say, oh, you know what? We need some of those organs. Those organs could be put to good use. They might even have good intentions, but they say, oh, you know what we're going to do? We're going to kill this person and then harvest your organs and give them to other people. Most people realize there's something wrong with this. First of all, there's probably a reason this is the first time that this has ever happened as a matter of policy. You say, why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before? Oh, because it's obviously evil. Some people who are not particularly religious who don't care that much about bioethics, everyone feels a little squeamish about this, right? We just depressed people come into the doctor instead of helping the person. We just say, okay, we're going to kill you and, ooh, look at all those good organs. If you're the doctor here, think about it from their perspective. Think about it with a little sympathy. You say, well, there's no use in letting all these good organs go to waste, rather they're going to throw them into the dirt, or we're going to help people who are sick who need new organs. But you know, what would be so wrong about harvesting these organs? We don't want them to go to waste anyway. This is, to me, the perfect example of the ghastliness of consequentialist ethics. The kind of ethics that says that the ends justify the means, that good ends justify evil means. Well, well, look, I mean, yeah, I don't know. Look, I mean, it's probably not good to kill yourself, but look, it's liberal society. This is liberalism. You get to do what you want to do. Consent is the only thing that matters. All that we, all that we aim at is maximizing individual autonomy. So if you want to kill yourself by golly, that's your right. That's your natural right to kill yourself. Of course, that's not. That would be totally contrary to anything serious, natural law theorists, the developers of natural rights and philosophy, the framers of the constitution, any serious person, whatever thing. There's no natural right to kill yourself. They say, well, look, liberalism tells us autonomy is all the matter. So you're going to kill yourself. All right, that's kind of, maybe we say that's bad, but can't legislate morality, except all the time, because we necessarily legislate morality. But in this case, we're going to go hands off, we're going to pretend to be neutral. And oh, you know what? Some good can come out of that evil. And maybe even we're going to start committing evil. You know, these old people who they don't have much longer to live anyway, these sick people, these depressed people who are just a leech on society, these mentally deficient people, these disabled people, you know what, they're not living great lives. From my perspective, they're not living great life, the guy, the guy, he's missing a limb, you know, that guy, he's got a little touch of dementia, his life isn't really worth it, you know, his organs would be put to much better use in the body of that young person who got into a car accident. So you know what we're going to do? We're going to maybe encourage you a little bit to kill yourself, we're going to help you kill yourself. Then we're going to take your organs and put it into someone who we deem more worthy of them. You see how that works? So what is the answer to that? What the leftists say and what some of the confused people on the right would say is, well, we just need more regulations around this. Well, you know, we just need to make sure there are guardrails, there never are guardrails. Look at how assisted suicide has worked in Europe. It started out with, it's only going to be the very eldest people in the most pain with seconds to live. We're going to give them a little extra morphine. Now they're killing young people who are simply depressed. They're killing elderly people against their will, having to hold them down while they kill them in the Netherlands, horrible case in Belgium, the slippery slope, you just slipped down that slope immediately. So what's the answer? The answer is you need a different ethical system. This consequentialist idea, which you see in utilitarianism, which you see in just trying to calculate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, forgetting about the actual morality of any actions or the moral character of the people who perform the actions, that has failed. That has led us to this. We're not going to rewind the clock 30 years and fix all the problems because the seeds of this destruction were already present 30 years ago. Frankly, the seeds of this destruction were present 200 years ago. What is necessary is a re-examination of our moral calculus. It relates exactly what JD Vance is talking about in economics. We don't want to rewind the clock. We don't want to give up and adopt the opinions of our opponents, God forbid. We just want to recognize, we may have made some mistakes here. Fallen world, we all make mistakes and we need to correct those mistakes. In this case, the mistake is, assisted suicide, to some degree organ harvesting, there, you have to really, really draw a firm line on what the ethical, what the line of transgression would be. It's not just putting up guardrails. It's actually determining what is death, how do we protect life, which leads into all sorts of other questions, like abortion, which leads into IVF, because IVF almost always entails abortion. It requires a total revolution in ethical thought, and ultimately, it probably means returning to some of the wisdom of the past. There's a lot of talk right now in the American right about this horrible idea of post-liberalism or return, what that really means is a return to the classical political tradition. What it ultimately means is just saying, maybe Aristotle had a point. Maybe Aristotle, Cicero, maybe Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, maybe the founding fathers in the framers to a large degree had a point and we shouldn't have thrown out all of their wisdom. Well, what's the alternative? The alternative is you're going to keep getting this. Get ready for granted to get a organ's harvested. Get ready for your cousin to get a organ's harvested if she feels a little depressed. Okay. Now, speaking of violence, I do want to get back to Hassan Piker because the left is doubling down on its support of Hassan Piker, and I couldn't be happier about it. Just though, do Catholics worship Mary? Does the church believe that the Old Testament prophets were frauds? Could God make a burrito so expensive that even he couldn't afford it? Almost always going to X for those answers is a bad idea, unless you were discussing those questions with his Eminence Cardinal Burke, one of the great men of the church, over a 15-year-old scotch. Now, coincidentally, that's exactly what we did in the latest episode of Off the Clock. Real posts from X, your actual questions answered by one of the most important leaders in the Catholic Church. Check out this teaser. Could God make a burrito so expensive that he could not buy it? I think there actually is a serious theological question. Hit in the in there. You said, "Can God make a square circle?" Well, so you're taking this question, the circle is a circle in the squares. The square God doesn't contradict himself. See, this is evidence as to why I want to ask my questions instead of taking them from Twitter. From internet trolls to serious theological questions from people like Ruslan K.D. Cardinal Burke responds to a wide range of questions alongside Michael Knowles. Watch full episode now on the Michael Knowles YouTube channel. My favorite comment yesterday is from Hardboiled Entertainment. The fact that JD Vance has anticipated AOC being the Democrat candidate should tell us he's preparing to face her properly. Yeah, I hope that's what it means. I suspect that is what it means. I was actually, I was really impressed with Vance's call on the AOC thing because I was surprised. I thought, when I asked Vance, who do you think the leading candidate is? I thought he'd say Gavin Newsom or somebody. When he said AOC, I said, "I don't know about it. I don't know if that's true. Is that a little too online and then sure enough, within a couple of weeks, you see polls come out. AOC was leading the pack. It was impressive. She was a guy who's got a pretty good political gut, which I guess you would expect as a guy who came from absolutely nothing and then rose up the ranks and made a huge name for himself. Begin the US Senator and vice president." Yeah, you'd expect a pretty good political gut, but that the AOC call was an impressive one. Okay. The Sunpiker, getting back to the Sunpiker. The Sunpiker is this left-wing, very, very radical provocateur who is called for violence against conservatives repeatedly instead of America deserves 9/11. Now he has been he's campaigned with Democrat candidates and he has been identified as one of the real leaders of the Democrat party, perhaps the the thought leader on the Democrat side. Now if I were a Democrat consultant, what I would do as Republicans are making that accusation, what I would do is say no way that's ridiculous, you guys are making a boogey man, we don't care that much about Hassan Pike or he's a he's an edgy streamer. We don't he's he's got his little place in the entertainment field, but he's not really helping to lead the party. You guys are you're attacking a strong man. But that's not what the Democrats are doing. They're embracing him. Mom Donnie embraces him. Abdul al-Sahead embraces him. All of these candidates, AOC embrace it. They all embrace him. Now you have many Hassan, my former debate opponent from Dartmouth. If you want to check out that debate, it's on I think it's on the Dartmouth political union, YouTube page. Medi is the author of a book. I think the title is how to win every debate or something like that. And so you can check out our debate from Dartmouth, which you might recall I did win. They scored it at the end. And anyway, now there's no reason to bring that up. I just point I did I did in fact win the debate against the guy who wrote the book about how to win every debate. But anyway, Medi Hassan, you know, he's had a TV show. He's a prominent voice on the left. Medi's son brings Hassan Pike. There are a lot of Hassan's on the left these days. He brought. Medi Hassan brings Hassan Pikeer onto his show, not to create distance between the mainstream Democrats and Hassan Pikeer. But to launder Hassan Pikeer's views. Classic one they throw you. America deserved 9/11. You've withdrawn that comment, I believe. Yeah, I said it in 2019. And you know, if you listen to the full conversation, you very quickly understand what I'm talking about. I'm. I'm a foreign policy blowback. Yeah, we're talking about foreign policy blowback. It could have phrased it better because it sounds like you're saying people deserve to die. Of course, we don't believe it. Again, in 2019. And then immediately I'm, I'm, you know, all over Fox News and getting, you know, an unbelievable amount of death threats. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. It is what it is. But I, I, you know, went on the young Turks and famously was like, I should have phrased things better. I apologize for those who I've offended, and I'm most importantly apologize for, for giving an opportunity to the right to just like use this again. This is a seven year old clip. You've already explained disowned. I have the same issue that clips of me that I've had to talk about. Yeah. Oh my goodness. It couldn't be a worse response. Good for us, but it couldn't be a worse response from the left. Medias son brings, Medias son, who, you know, he's an educated guy. He's a well spoken guy. He's pretty radical, but he's, I don't know. He's mainstreamed by the standards of the left. I guess so. This is on Piker, but so he brings him on. He says, now come on. Come on. You just said, you, I know it's his old clip. There's no evidence you've changed your views, but it's an old clip where you say America deserve 9/11. Now come on. I mean, what'd you really mean by that? And what does this on Piker say? He says, I meant America deserve 9/11. That's what I meant. I mean, yeah, maybe I shouldn't have said it that way, but the only reason I shouldn't have said it that way is because it gave an opening for the right to attack me. He doesn't say I shouldn't have said it because it was wrong to say. I shouldn't have said it because America doesn't deserve 9/11. No, I shouldn't have said it because I was being too honest. I let the right attack me. And then his interlocutor, the much more moderate mainstream media son, says, yeah, yeah, you're right. Yeah, you probably shouldn't have said it. That did give an opening. Oh, wait, never mind. The party that we are running against in the midterms, the party of the mainstream nominees and the candidates and all that is happy that 3,000 American civilians were murdered by Muslim terrorists. They're happy about it. That's not an exaggeration. As long as a songpiker doesn't, doesn't recant his views. By the way, he doubled down on his views like a month ago. Remember this like a month ago, his son, Piker goes on his show and says he's just framed a newspaper cover of the day after 9/11. Also, you might have noticed something, some changes behind me. I finally framed the cutie Cinderella a newspaper from 9/11, morning of 9/12, the newspaper right there. The newspaper that covered 9/11, it's now officially sitting behind me. And I moved the North Korean poster up in place of the fan art. We're celebrating 9/11 on my show. That's what you're saying. You're saying, yeah, I'm so, you've got a lot of fan art here. I love North Korea. I got my North Korea poster and you know what else? You know what else I love? You know what else I think was awesome. 9/11. That was a month ago. And the Democrats keep campaigning with him. So the people were running against whatever your quibbles about. I don't like tariffs that much and I think they should only be implemented sometimes. And I don't, I don't know. I think we need to give more support overseas for foreign interventions or I need a little bit less or I need your domestic political opponents are happy about 9/11. Can you get it together? Can you focus? Can we, sorry, it's not you. I mean, I'm preaching the choir, but can we focus? Can we get it together? We want to murder, we want to murder Republican senators, we are going to cheer when your activists are murdered for having open exchanges on college campus and we're thrilled that thousands of Americans were killed by terrorists on 9/11. That's what they're openly saying. And their views, the views of those honest leftists are being accepted, kind of chuckled at by all the other ones. Okay. There's so much more I want to get to. Zora and Mamdani was just babbling in Chinese. The left is having another, another complete freak out over Trump's ballroom. They really hate the ballroom, but they don't even understand what the ballroom is. It's music Monday, though. Rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss a member use code. No, it's Candidate of ULES, a check out Presidents Free and All-Animal Plans.