The Ben Shapiro Show - The Making Of A New York Times Smear Job | Ep. 798

00:00:00.000 The New York Times slams everyone on the right as a gateway to the alt-right, Pinterest allegedly cracks down on pro-lifers, and Trump's tariffs may be turning up roses.

00:00:07.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:08.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:09.000 The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:21.000 I don't know what it is about Jewish holidays and the New York Times.

00:00:23.000 I mean, I have an indicator, but nonetheless, we'll get to that in just one second.

00:00:27.000 First, some things in life are just uncomfortable to talk about.

00:00:30.000 Sex.

00:00:30.000 is one of those things, but sex is also one of the more important things in life, especially within the context of a healthy marriage.

00:00:35.000 Studies show that 70% of dudes who experience erectile dysfunction don't actually get treated for it for just that reason.

00:00:41.000 It's pretty awkward to discuss, but sometimes things just don't work the way they are supposed to.

00:00:45.000 That's not something to be ashamed about, just like other health problems aren't anything to be ashamed about.

00:00:48.000 That's where our friends at Roman come in.

00:00:50.000 Thankfully, Roman created an easy way to get checked out by a doctor and get treated for ED online.

00:00:55.000 With Roman, you can get medical care for ED, if appropriate, From the comfort and privacy of your own home, you can handle everything online in a convenient, discreet manner.

00:01:02.000 Getting started is simple.

00:01:03.000 Just go to GetRoman.com slash Ben and complete an online visit.

00:01:06.000 If the doctor decides the treatment would be appropriate, they can then prescribe genuine medication that can be delivered in discreet packaging direct to your door with free two-day shipping.

00:01:14.000 Dudes, go talk to the doctor. 1.00

00:01:15.000 ED can be tough to tackle, but it's really important to get it checked out.

00:01:18.000 Just like any other health problem, just go get it checked out right now.

00:01:21.000 Go to GetRoman.com slash Ben.

00:01:22.000 Get a free online visit and free two-day shipping.

00:01:25.000 That is GetRoman.com slash Ben.

00:01:27.000 For a free visit to get started, that's GetRoman.com slash Ben.

00:01:31.000 Okay, so as I say, I leave for a Jewish holiday, and every time I do, all hell breaks loose. 0.83

00:01:36.000 I remember a couple of years ago, there was a Jewish holiday, and I come back from the Jewish holiday, and there's been an entire op-ed in the New York Times about how I'm a terrible person.

00:01:45.000 And then, I left, I think, just last year for a Jewish holiday, and I come back, and there's a New York Times article about how we here at Daily Wire are bad.

00:01:54.000 It's pretty much like every Jewish holiday. 0.97

00:01:56.000 They schedule it out that way so that I have a really, really wonderful time coming back from the Jewish holiday, opening my computer, And seeing what stupidity has taken place. 1.00

00:02:05.000 Well, this week's stupidity comes courtesy of the New York Times yet again. 1.00

00:02:09.000 Apparently, there was an article. 1.00

00:02:11.000 And the article, I guess, was on the cover of the New York Times Sunday edition.

00:02:15.000 So I guess it was a Saturday article of mine.

00:02:18.000 It was a Sunday edition front page article.

00:02:21.000 On Sunday.

00:02:22.000 And the article was titled, The Making of a YouTube Radical.

00:02:24.000 And it was basically a story about a rando.

00:02:26.000 The rando's name is Caleb Kane.

00:02:29.000 And it's all about his supposed radicalization.

00:02:31.000 Now, what's hilarious about the article is that the article talks about him being quote-unquote radicalized.

00:02:36.000 He was never a member of the alt-right.

00:02:37.000 He wasn't a white supremacist.

00:02:38.000 He considered himself a tradcon, meaning a traditional conservative, until he moved over to the left.

00:02:44.000 So in other words, he became a conservative by listening to YouTube videos, and they called him a YouTube radical.

00:02:49.000 The graphic that they put up was a bunch of different kind of images of different YouTube videos.

00:02:56.000 But they lumped together a bunch of YouTube videos that are completely dissimilar.

00:03:00.000 So there is a picture of me there.

00:03:02.000 I'm not mentioned one time in the entire article, by the way.

00:03:04.000 There's a picture of me, and then there's pictures of people like Stefan Molyneux, who has some borderline white supremacist race theories at the very mildest that's the mildest way to discover to describe it you have people like alex jones you have people like paul joseph watson you have folks like milo giannopoulos and then you have like milton friedman was in this mashup like milton free so milton friedman and i are in the same category as milo giannopoulos and like richard spencer 0.89

00:03:31.000 according to this particular this particular graphic on the cover of the new york times and And the article itself is incredibly stupid. 0.80

00:03:38.000 The article itself is basically about how he watched some videos and it led him to other videos, which led him to other videos, which led him to become a tradcon.

00:03:46.000 And then people were upset at him becoming a tradcon, so then he became not a tradcon anymore.

00:03:51.000 That's the entire article.

00:03:52.000 It's thousands of words long.

00:03:54.000 So, a couple of things to note.

00:03:54.000 Thousands of words.

00:03:56.000 Number one, there's a full-on campaign by the left media at this point, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, from NBC to Media Matters.

00:04:05.000 And I count Media Matters as part of the left media infrastructure.

00:04:08.000 Any publication that calls Media Matters a watchdog group, you can tell, is on the side of Media Matters.

00:04:13.000 There is this overt effort now on the part of all of these publications to suggest that the tech companies are basically leading people down the rabbit hole of alt-right white supremacist content by even allowing mainstream conservative content.

00:04:26.000 That's the goal here, is to lump in everybody who's a mainstream conservative with people who are alt-right and then suggest that if you watch mainstream conservative content then inevitably you will be led down this rabbit hole.

00:04:36.000 Now, this is absurd and bizarre.

00:04:38.000 There are legitimately hundreds of thousands of people who listen to this show every day who are not even on the political right.

00:04:44.000 There are hundreds of thousands of people who are on the political right and believe that the alt-right is evil, just as I do.

00:04:50.000 But according to the New York Times and the Washington Post and all of these other outlets, basically, if you're on the right, you're going to slide gradually into white supremacism so long as you engage on YouTube.

00:04:59.000 Now, the reason they are directing this at YouTube is because they are hoping to use YouTube in order to quash conservative viewpoints.

00:05:06.000 They understand that there are certain shared fora where people post their views.

00:05:10.000 Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, all the rest of those.

00:05:12.000 Pinterest.

00:05:14.000 And then what they're hoping to do, they understand conservatives aren't going to stop talking.

00:05:17.000 So what they hope to do is make conservative speech so ridiculously outside the Overton window that all of these shared platforms have to shut it down.

00:05:26.000 And they're hoping to do this in advance of the 2020 election.

00:05:28.000 The timing is not a mistake here.

00:05:30.000 It is not a coincidence here.

00:05:31.000 Ever since the left decided that Hillary Clinton had illegitimately lost the 2016 election, And that you really want.

00:05:37.000 Ever since that, they've been looking for a scapegoat.

00:05:39.000 And the scapegoat that is the most convenient for them are the tech companies.

00:05:42.000 And by attacking the tech companies, what the left hopes to do...

00:05:45.000 is cause the tech companies to curb the content they allow on their platforms in advance of 2020.

00:05:51.000 So the argument they are making is that the tech platforms didn't do enough to shut down the nefarious Ruskies, and therefore, they have to shut down everybody on the right in advance of 2020, or at least curb their reach, or at least elevate, quote-unquote, authoritative voices. 0.96

00:06:04.000 So here's what this New York Times idiotic piece says. 0.96

00:06:06.000 They say, Caleb Cain pulled a Glock pistol from his waistband, took out the magazine, and casually tossed both onto the kitchen counter. 1.00

00:06:12.000 I bought it the day after I got death threats, he said.

00:06:14.000 The threats, Mr. Kane explained, came from right-wing trolls in response to a video he had posted on YouTube a few days earlier.

00:06:20.000 In the video, he told the story of how, as a liberal college dropout struggling to find his place in the world, he had gotten sucked into a vortex of far-right politics on YouTube.

00:06:28.000 I fell down the alt-right rabbit hole, he said in the video.

00:06:30.000 So, a couple of things, right off the bat.

00:06:32.000 Number one, he didn't actually, he was so crazily right-wing, he didn't even own a gun.

00:06:37.000 Until he became a leftist again and then talked about it on YouTube.

00:06:41.000 Well, welcome, sir.

00:06:42.000 Enjoy the party.

00:06:42.000 Welcome.

00:06:43.000 Now, I love how he lumps all of those things together.

00:07:09.000 So, if you say that third-wave feminism is a dangerous ideology, which it is, Apparently, that is in the same box as believing that innate IQ differences are entirely to blame for racial disparities. 0.94

00:07:20.000 Apparently, they're all the same.

00:07:21.000 So, you see, even here, what the New York Times is doing.

00:07:23.000 They're taking mainstream conservative ideas, like third-wave feminism is a bad idea and dangerous for a civilization, and they're lumping that together with the racist idea that all disparities are attributable to innate biological difference between people in different racial groups.

00:07:39.000 They're just lumping those two together, like that's not a problem.

00:07:42.000 I just kept falling deeper and deeper into this, and it appealed to me because it made me feel a sense of belonging, he said.

00:07:46.000 I was brainwashed.

00:07:47.000 Now, why in the world is this guy, Mr. Cain, Caleb Cain, why is he the center of a New York Times front page story?

00:07:53.000 Because it supports the narrative.

00:07:54.000 It's a piece of anecdotal data that supports the left-wing narrative that everybody who's in the alt-right originally started.

00:08:01.000 As a member of the mainstream conservative movement, and then was radicalized by YouTube, and this is why we have to pressure YouTube into shutting down Steven Crowder, or shutting down Ben Shapiro, or shutting down Glenn Beck, or shutting down Mark Levin, or shutting down anybody who is on the right.

00:08:14.000 Over years of reporting on internet culture, says this New York Times reporter, I've heard countless versions of Mr. Kane's story.

00:08:20.000 An aimless young man, usually white, frequently interested in video games, visits YouTube looking for direction or distraction, and is seduced by a community of far-right creators.

00:08:28.000 Some young men discover far-right videos by accident, while others seek them out.

00:08:31.000 Some travel all the way to neo-Nazism, while others stop at milder forms of bigotry.

00:08:35.000 The common thread in many of these stories is YouTube and its recommendation algorithm.

00:08:40.000 Well, there's another common thread, which is that when dispossessed young men go looking for content that appeals to them, they might be able to find the content that appeals to them because they are dispossessed young men.

00:08:51.000 In other words, these are human beings who are created with the capacity for free will.

00:08:55.000 And this means they get to choose which videos they access and which videos they believe.

00:09:00.000 But according to YouTube, if you watch a video of me ripping the alt-right, which is like every other video of me online, if you watch a video of me ripping the alt-right, this inevitably leads you to the alt-right. 0.97

00:09:10.000 This is how you end up at the idiotic media coverage of a couple weeks ago, where the media tried to blame me for an attack on a synagogue, which is the most asinine contention I could possibly imagine.

00:09:20.000 But the New York Times continues, But, and it's the but that matters here, Critics and independent researchers say YouTube has inadvertently created a dangerous on-ramp to extremism by combining two things, a business model that rewards provocative videos with exposure and advertising dollars, and an algorithm that guides users down personalized paths meant to keep them glued to their screens. 0.94

00:09:47.000 Ah, it's YouTube's fault.

00:09:48.000 It's YouTube's fault.

00:09:49.000 Tristan Harris, former design ethicist at Google.

00:09:52.000 By the way, if you are a design ethicist, this should answer the question as to whether these big tech companies are designing the algorithms with certain values in mind.

00:10:01.000 They've been saying all along, no, no, no, they're just following the traffic.

00:10:03.000 They actually had a position called a design ethicist at Google.

00:10:08.000 Tristan Harris says, if I'm YouTube and I want you to watch more, I'm always going to steer you toward crazy town.

00:10:13.000 Weird that no one on the left has ever suggested that YouTube should maybe disassociate from, say, the Young Turks on the left.

00:10:18.000 No one has ever suggested that YouTube disassociate from far-left views.

00:10:23.000 Weird.

00:10:24.000 Because it turns out that some people have been radicalized by those sorts of videos as well.

00:10:24.000 Odd.

00:10:28.000 In recent years, social media platforms have grappled with the growth of extremism on their services, says the New York Times.

00:10:33.000 Many platforms have barred a handful of far-right influencers and conspiracy theorists, including Alex Jones of InfoWars, and tech companies have taken steps to limit the spread of political misinformation.

00:10:44.000 YouTube, whose rules prohibit hate speech and harassment, took a more laissez-faire approach to enforcement for years.

00:10:49.000 And this is where the New York Times is trying to push.

00:10:52.000 The New York Times is trying to push by saying that this laissez-faire approach has been a complete failure and is causing people to be radicalized.

00:10:58.000 Because radicalization never happened before the YouTube algorithm and because YouTube has the temerity to leave conservative views on their platform.

00:11:07.000 What's funny about this is they're really not blaming YouTube's algorithm.

00:11:10.000 In the end, this article, as you will see, does not blame YouTube's algorithm and suggests that the algorithm needs to be changed so that it doesn't benefit some of the fringe views.

00:11:17.000 Instead, they basically argue that YouTube should crack down on mainstream conservative views because there's no difference between mainstream conservatism and far-right alt-right views.

00:11:26.000 We'll get to more of that in just one second.

00:11:27.000 First, we need to talk about your freedoms.

00:11:29.000 They are, in fact, in danger.

00:11:31.000 You hear me talk all the time on the show about the growing attacks on religious freedom and freedom of speech.

00:11:36.000 You can see today's show is all about the attack on the principled nature of freedom of speech.

00:11:40.000 And we've talked Repeatedly on the show about the attacks on religious freedom that come as a consequence of the radical growth of government.

00:11:47.000 Well, now's a great time to tell people like Baronelle Stutzman, a small business owner, floral artist, and grandmother who was sued by her state's government and the ACLU for simply declining to create custom floral art celebrating an event that conflicted with her Christian beliefs.

00:12:00.000 We had Baronelle on our radio show last week.

00:12:02.000 She could lose her business, her home, and her life savings if she loses.

00:12:05.000 This is why Alliance Defending Freedom exists.

00:12:07.000 ADF provides free legal services to Barronelle and others whose freedoms are under assault.

00:12:12.000 ADF will ask the U.S.

00:12:13.000 Supreme Court to hear her case, but ADF cannot do that without your help because ADF relies on donations to fight for your freedom.

00:12:19.000 If this attack can happen to someone like Barronelle, it can happen to somebody like you as well.

00:12:23.000 The left does not care about basic free speech standards.

00:12:25.000 Not liberals, the left.

00:12:26.000 Will you fight for Barronelle and protect your freedom?

00:12:28.000 Please give generously.

00:12:29.000 All donations are, in fact, tax deductible.

00:12:31.000 And if you donate $75 and above, you'll receive an exclusive free speech shirt.

00:12:35.000 Go to ADFlegal.org slash Ben to donate right now.

00:12:38.000 I love ADF, they do amazing work.

00:12:39.000 They really are a great organization.

00:12:41.000 Go check them out right now.

00:12:42.000 ADFlegal.org slash Ben.

00:12:44.000 That's ADFlegal.org slash Ben.

00:12:46.000 When you give 75 bucks or above, you get an exclusive free speech shirt.

00:12:49.000 That's ADFlegal.org slash Ben.

00:12:51.000 Okay, so this New York Times piece, which again, lumps in everybody on the right, continues.

00:12:56.000 With 2 billion monthly active users uploading more than 500 hours of video every minute, YouTube's traffic is estimated to be the second highest of any website behind only Google.com.

00:13:05.000 According to Pew Research Center, 94% of Americans aged 18 to 24 use YouTube, a higher percentage than for any other online service.

00:13:13.000 Like many other Silicon Valley companies, YouTube is outwardly liberal in its corporate policies.

00:13:17.000 It sponsors floats at LGBT pride parades, its chief executive endorsed Hillary Clinton, In reality, YouTube has been a godsend for hyper-partisans on all sides.

00:13:26.000 Weird.

00:13:27.000 Weird that you say this and then the entire article's about the right.

00:13:29.000 Odd.

00:13:30.000 Very odd.

00:13:31.000 I can't imagine why the New York Times would do that.

00:13:34.000 And then they say, I love this, it has also been a useful recruiting tool for far-right extremist groups.

00:13:38.000 Bellingcat, an investigative news site, analyzed messages from far-right chat rooms and found that YouTube was cited as the most frequent cause of members red-pilling, an internet slang term for converting to far-right beliefs.

00:13:49.000 Well, since you just said that 94% of people aged 18 to 24 watch YouTube, I can imagine that's true.

00:13:56.000 This is like saying, guess what helps people change their viewpoint?

00:13:59.000 Television.

00:14:01.000 Ooh, television!

00:14:02.000 It's the television's fault!

00:14:04.000 A European research group, VoxPol, conducted a separate analysis of 30,000 Twitter accounts affiliated with the alt-right and found the accounts linked to YouTube more often than to any other site.

00:14:13.000 Because it's the most linked site on the internet.

00:14:15.000 That would probably be it. 0.95

00:14:17.000 Becca Lewis, who runs a garbage study for data and society, a study that was so dumb that they basically had to retract their own findings. 0.92

00:14:26.000 OK, this study basically suggested a seven degrees of separation. 0.96

00:14:30.000 It was six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but with politics.

00:14:32.000 It was basically like, OK, so Dave Rubin interviewed me and I have interviewed Steven Crowder and Steven Crowder has interviewed Stefan Molyneux.

00:14:40.000 Therefore, Dave Rubin And Dave Rubin also once interviewed, like, Mike Gatto, the Democratic Assemblyman.

00:14:46.000 Therefore, Mike Gatto is linked to Stefan Molyneux.

00:14:48.000 They're all the same. 0.96

00:14:49.000 It's just, it's ridiculous. 1.00

00:14:50.000 That was her idiotic study. 1.00

00:14:52.000 She says YouTube has been able to fly under the radar because until recently, no one thought of it as a place where radicalization is happening. 0.99

00:14:57.000 But it's where young people are getting their information and entertainment.

00:15:00.000 It's a space where creators are broadcasting political content that, at times, is overtly white supremacist.

00:15:06.000 Okay, then the article gets back to this Mr. Cain, this Caleb Cain, who's a very, very important human.

00:15:11.000 I visited Mr. Cain in West Virginia after seeing his YouTube video, denouncing the far right.

00:15:11.000 human.

00:15:15.000 We spent hours discussing his radicalization to back up his recollections.

00:15:19.000 He downloaded and sent me his entire YouTube history, a log of more than 12,000 videos and more than 2,500 search queries dating to 2015.

00:15:26.000 Okay.

00:15:27.000 Right there, they should have ended the article.

00:15:29.000 If you've watched more than 12,000 videos and more than 2,500 search queries on YouTube dating back to 2015, you're spending a lot of time on YouTube.

00:15:29.000 Okay.

00:15:37.000 There may be some other issues with you.

00:15:39.000 And also, is every single one of those videos to blame?

00:15:41.000 Because you know what one of the videos he watched was?

00:15:43.000 Jimmy Kimmel.

00:15:44.000 Probably Jimmy Kimmel is to blame.

00:15:47.000 These interviews and data points form a picture of a disillusioned young man, an internet-savvy group of right-wing reactionaries, and a powerful algorithm that learns to connect the two.

00:15:56.000 It suggests that YouTube may have played a role in steering Mr. Kane and other young men like him toward the far-right fringes.

00:16:01.000 It also suggested that in time, YouTube is capable of steering them in very different directions.

00:16:05.000 Okay, well now you really don't have a point of your article, right?

00:16:07.000 So you're saying that YouTube could direct you to the far-right.

00:16:09.000 Also, it could direct you to the left.

00:16:11.000 Which means you're an independent human with the capacity to click on things.

00:16:15.000 Congratulations.

00:16:17.000 And then they have a chart.

00:16:18.000 It shows the number of political videos that this guy watched each month.

00:16:22.000 It says the right-wing content Mr. Kane viewed in 2015 and 2016 often consisted of videos by Stefan Molyneux with titles like Social Justice Warriors Always Lie and The Global Warming Hoax.

00:16:32.000 And then it says Mr. Kane also watched many videos by members of the so-called intellectual dark web.

00:16:37.000 That would be a group in which I'm involved.

00:16:39.000 Like the popular comedian Joe Rogan and the political commentator Dave Rubin.

00:16:42.000 It's Joe Rogan's fault.

00:16:43.000 It's Joe's fault.

00:16:45.000 Amazing.

00:16:46.000 It's amazing.

00:16:46.000 So he watches a video by Stefan Molyneux and a video by Joe Rogan.

00:16:49.000 It's Joe Rogan's fault.

00:16:50.000 Clearly.

00:16:52.000 Oh! 0.60

00:16:54.000 Amazing!

00:16:56.000 So, um, then why is this a story?

00:16:59.000 I'm confused.

00:17:00.000 Why is this a front page story with a graphic of me?

00:17:03.000 I'm just a little confused.

00:17:05.000 Also, I'm confused why this guy Caleb Kane is an important human because he made a video.

00:17:09.000 Like, welcome to the world where everybody makes videos.

00:17:11.000 From an early age, Mr. Kane was fascinated by internet culture, says the New York Times.

00:17:15.000 As a teenager, he browsed 4chan, the lawless message board.

00:17:17.000 Okay, well that would be a pretty good indicator that the guy was ripe for radicalization already by the time he was a teenager.

00:17:24.000 4chan is a lot more radical than YouTube in terms of general content.

00:17:28.000 He played online games with his friends, devoured videos of intellectuals debating charged topics like the existence of God.

00:17:33.000 Well, clearly that's a problem.

00:17:35.000 The internet was an escape.

00:17:36.000 Mr. King grew up in post-industrial Appalachia, was raised by his conservative Christian grandparents.

00:17:40.000 He was smart, but shy and socially awkward.

00:17:42.000 He went to community college, but dropped out after three semesters.

00:17:45.000 Broke into press, he resolved to get his act together.

00:17:47.000 He began looking for help in the same place he looked for everything.

00:17:50.000 YouTube.

00:17:51.000 One day in late 2014, YouTube recommended a self-help video by Stéphane Molyneux, a Canadian talk show host and self-styled philosopher.

00:17:59.000 Mr. Molyneux, who describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist, had a political agenda.

00:18:02.000 He was a men's right advocate who said that feminism was a form of socialism and that progressive gender politics were holding young men back.

00:18:08.000 He offered a conservative commentary on pop culture and current events, explaining why Disney's Frozen was an allegory about female vanity or why the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer was proof of the dangers of rap culture.

00:18:19.000 Mr. Kane was a liberal who cared about social justice, worried about wealth inequality, and believed in climate change.

00:18:24.000 But he found Mr. Molyneux's diatribes fascinating, even when they disagreed.

00:18:28.000 And then apparently, he started watching a lot of Molyneux videos, he watched some Paul Joseph Watson, and then he watched a lot of videos on feminism, and then he watched some racist videos, but he never actually became racist.

00:18:40.000 Okay, this is the part that's hilarious.

00:18:42.000 So, he says that he never became an actual racist.

00:18:45.000 He says, these people weren't all shouty demagogues.

00:18:48.000 They were entertainers, building their audience with satirical skits, debates, and interviews with like-minded creators.

00:18:54.000 These creators were active on Facebook and Twitter too, but YouTube was their headquarters, the place where they could earn a living by hawking merchandise and getting a cut of the money spent on advertisements that accompanied their videos.

00:19:05.000 And then he says that he felt alienated and he started being programmed by the algorithm to watch particular other ads.

00:19:16.000 Here's the best part, okay?

00:19:17.000 So finally, you get to the point of all of this.

00:19:19.000 He is asked whether, in fact, he ever turned into a racist after watching all this stuff.

00:19:25.000 Quote, Mr. K never bought into the right's most extreme views, the far-right's most extreme views, like Holocaust denial or the need for a white ethnostate.

00:19:32.000 Still, far-right ideology bled into his daily life.

00:19:35.000 He began referring to himself as a trad con, a traditional conservative committed to old-fashioned gender norms.

00:19:39.000 He dated an evangelical Christian woman, and he fought with his liberal friends.

00:19:43.000 It was kind of sad, said Zelda Waite, a friend of Mr. Kane's from high school.

00:19:46.000 I was just like, wow, what happened?

00:19:47.000 How did you get this way?

00:19:49.000 I love that for the New York Times, people ask questions like, what happened?

00:19:53.000 How did you get this way?

00:19:53.000 Because you date an evangelical Christian woman and because you fight with your liberal friends.

00:19:58.000 So if you're not a liberal and you date a conservative, obviously there is something wrong with you.

00:20:05.000 And then they focus in on Molyneux a lot.

00:20:07.000 I mean, this article is largely about Stefan Molyneux.

00:20:10.000 But again, I'm confused as to why it is, why it is that this particular person is being profiled when he was never sucked into Stefan Molyneux's kind of alt-right worldview.

00:20:25.000 And then, I love this, in 2018, nearly four years after Mr. Cain had begun watching right-wing YouTube videos, a new kind of video began appearing in his recommendations.

00:20:32.000 These videos were made by left-wing creators, but they mimicked the aesthetics of right-wing YouTube.

00:20:36.000 One video was a debate about immigration between Ms. 1.00

00:20:38.000 Southern, Lauren Southern, and Stephen Bunnell, a liberal YouTuber known as Destiny.

00:20:42.000 Cain watched the video to cheer on Southern, but Mr. Bunnell was a better debater, and Mr. Cain reluctantly declared him the winner.

00:20:48.000 Mr. Kane also found videos by Natalie Wynn, a former academic philosopher who goes by the name ContraPoints.

00:20:53.000 Ms.

00:20:53.000 Wynn wore elaborate costumes and did drag-style performances in which she explained why Western culture wasn't under attack from immigrants or why race was a social construct.

00:21:02.000 And then it talks about how wonderfully funny and engaging all of these people are on the right.

00:21:08.000 And then he says, well, he became left-wing.

00:21:10.000 Oh, well, so it's a happy story.

00:21:12.000 So this is a happy story in the end.

00:21:15.000 And then he came out and he said that he didn't like all of the stuff that he had watched before and then people were mean to him.

00:21:19.000 The New York Times spends, I kid you not, several thousand words on this story.

00:21:24.000 And they have pictures, again, of Milton Friedman and me alongside pictures of actual alt-right racists who I've spent many years ripping.

00:21:33.000 Hey, the goal of the New York Times story is obvious.

00:21:35.000 Kane's story is not all that interesting.

00:21:36.000 There's nothing there.

00:21:38.000 So the question is, why did the New York Times dedicate this much space to it?

00:21:41.000 The reason the New York Times dedicated this much space to it is because this is part of a hard push by the left in advance of the 2020 election to silence right-wing views.

00:21:48.000 That's what this is.

00:21:50.000 That is why they are lumping in everybody on the right.

00:21:52.000 That's why they are suggesting that YouTube's algorithm, not that people watch my videos and that YouTube's algorithm wrongly directs them to alt-right videos, a proposition with which I would generally agree, but the idea is that my videos should not be promoted.

00:22:06.000 And Crowder's videos should not be promoted.

00:22:08.000 And anybody else who's on the right, their videos should not be promoted.

00:22:10.000 Like mainstream right-wing figures, their videos should not be promoted.

00:22:14.000 Jordan Peterson shouldn't be promoted.

00:22:16.000 Joe Rogan shouldn't be promoted.

00:22:17.000 That's the goal of the New York Times.

00:22:19.000 Shut down debate.

00:22:20.000 This is from your free press.

00:22:22.000 Delightful, folks.

00:22:23.000 I have some more evidence of this in just a second.

00:22:24.000 First, this Father's Day, give dad a gift packed with the Omaha steaks he craves.

00:22:28.000 Listen, there's nothing better for Father's Day than the meats.

00:22:31.000 Go to OmahaSteaks.com, enter code Shapiro in the search bar, and you get 74% off the Father's Day Steak Fix gift package.

00:22:38.000 It's something that he'll truly enjoy.

00:22:39.000 Don't get him another pair of socks.

00:22:41.000 Instead, get him a bucket full of meat.

00:22:44.000 Okay, listen to this deal.

00:22:46.000 A $235 value, now for only $59.99.

00:22:48.000 Order now, you get two filet mignons, two top sirloins, two pork chops, four Omaha Steaks burgers, four gourmet jumbo franks, four chicken fried steaks, all beef meatballs, four chicken breasts, four caramel apple tartlets, a package of Omaha Steaks signature seasoning, and you get four extra Omaha Steaks burgers for free.

00:23:04.000 You get all of that for like $59.99.

00:23:06.000 Give that amazing package as a gift for dad or stock up for the incredible summer grilling, all at 74% off.

00:23:11.000 Again, order now and get that exclusive Omaha Steaks Father's Day Steak Fix package valued at $235 for just $59.99.

00:23:20.000 Just go to omahasteaks.com, type code SHAPIRO into the search bar.

00:23:23.000 Don't wait, the offer ends soon.

00:23:24.000 Go to omahasteaks.com, type SHAPIRO into the search bar to get the Father's Day Steak Fix package today.

00:23:29.000 I mean, that is one hell of a deal.

00:23:30.000 Go check them out right now.

00:23:31.000 I have lots of friends who have Okay, so, it's not just this New York Times piece.

00:23:39.000 This asinine New York Times piece about a guy who was a liberal, who then watched a lot of YouTube videos and considered himself a traditional conservative, until he went back to being a mild-mannered, good liberal.

00:23:53.000 That's not what the New York Times piece is about.

00:23:55.000 What the New York Times piece is about is the evils of the right.

00:23:57.000 And how the right will suck you in with their nefarious videos on the YouTubes.

00:24:01.000 And really how YouTube should shut this thing down.

00:24:04.000 And YouTube is already eager to please.

00:24:07.000 This is true for all of the tech companies.

00:24:09.000 YouTube is eager to please.

00:24:12.000 They are looking to avoid scrutiny by left-wingers who continue to blame them for all of the ills in the world.

00:24:18.000 And it's not just YouTube, it's also Pinterest.

00:24:20.000 So Pinterest is apparently owned by Google.

00:24:23.000 James O'Keefe just got a whistleblower from Pinterest to talk about how they are silencing particular voices on Pinterest.

00:24:29.000 One of the voices that they are silencing on Pinterest is live action and Lila Rose.

00:24:34.000 According to a new project by Project Veritas, this is Daily Wire reporting, it presents a series of accusations of political and ideological bias against conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers behind the scenes at Pinterest, a social media platform with some 300 million active monthly users.

00:24:49.000 Since the report was first released, Pinterest reportedly has taken action concerning one of the allegations.

00:24:53.000 In a video that includes testimony from a whistleblower who works for Pinterest and whose identity is concealed in the video, O'Keefe presents internal documents provided by the whistleblower showing what appear to be various means of censoring content, including a porn site block list that includes liveaction.org, which is a pro-life site run by Lila Rose.

00:25:10.000 So in other words, if you are against abortion, they listed you on the porn site block list so that your content could not appear.

00:25:17.000 Some of the other content that was censored by the site was content from yours truly.

00:25:21.000 Here is James O'Keefe talking about it in a video from Project Veritas.

00:25:25.000 The Pinterest insider also saw how, quote, white supremacist, unquote, content, like Ben Shapiro's commentary, for instance, goes from identified to censored.

00:25:37.000 This is if Ifeoma or Ife-Ozoma calling Ben Shapiro a white supremacist.

00:25:44.000 Some would say that, well, that's just her giving her opinion on a private Slack board. 1.00

00:25:49.000 What do you say to that?

00:25:50.000 So this was actually in a war room where policy makers were making decisions about content and there was follow-up action made to these posts.

00:26:02.000 What sort of actions do they take on Shapiro content that you've seen?

00:26:06.000 So they made an advisory document about this type of content, and then this advisory content ended up in our sensitive terms list, which is content that has to be manually entered that then affects all the content that comes into home feed, search, people's recommendations, etc.

00:26:25.000 Okay, so they are limiting what you can get in a search.

00:26:28.000 This is what the New York Times wants from YouTube, too.

00:26:31.000 This is what the New York Times wants from Google.

00:26:32.000 This is what the New York Times wants from Pinterest.

00:26:34.000 This is what the Democrats want.

00:26:35.000 What Democrats would like is for all of these various outlets to feel the pressure from the media so strongly that they simply start censoring conservative content.

00:26:44.000 It's not just me, by the way.

00:26:45.000 According to the Daily Wire, reporting on this Project Veritas report, among the claims presented by the whistleblower is that my content was censored in a zero-tolerance movement, terms related to Christianity are blocked from autocomplete, a video series exposing Planned Parenthood was included in a censor list as a harmful conspiracy, and liveaction.org was included on a list of porn sites blocked by the platform, meaning no links to its content could be produced by users.

00:27:08.000 And then you've got the CEO of Google, who's openly coming out and saying, listen, we are trying to determine what exactly hate speech is.

00:27:14.000 What's amazing here, truly, is to watch, as members of the media, this is Axios, on HBO, right?

00:27:19.000 Both supposed free speech content.

00:27:21.000 HBO used to be the place that was totally free speech.

00:27:24.000 HBO was not cable, so you could curse.

00:27:27.000 HBO was the place where you could see full frontal nudity, because no censorship.

00:27:30.000 We hate censorship.

00:27:31.000 Well now Axios on HBO is interviewing the head of Google and trying to get the guy to basically establish hate speech standards that will be used by Google to shut down particular content.

00:27:41.000 There is no good definition of hate speech.

00:27:44.000 That definition simply does not exist.

00:27:46.000 And the danger in trying to define hate speech in any real way is that folks on the left are likely to label anything from the right hate speech as that New York Times piece exposed you to, showed you.

00:27:57.000 Here is the CEO of Google, though, trying to suggest that he's going to somehow implement a standard for hate speech that does not exist under American law, nor should it exist under American law.

00:28:07.000 More recently we have introduced, just like today we do this in search, we rank content based on quality.

00:28:14.000 And so we're bringing that same notion and approach to YouTube so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content.

00:28:25.000 Content which doesn't exactly violate policies which need to be removed.

00:28:29.000 But which can still cause harm.

00:28:31.000 And so we are working hard.

00:28:33.000 It's a hard computer science problem.

00:28:35.000 It's also a hard societal problem because we need better frameworks around what is hate speech, what's not, and how do we as a company make those decisions at scale and get it right without making mistakes.

00:28:45.000 Okay, well, you're not getting it right and you will make mistakes.

00:28:48.000 I mean, this was shown last week with YouTube banning actual historical coverage of the Nazis because YouTube's algorithm couldn't determine what was historical coverage of Nazis and what was neo-Nazi content.

00:28:59.000 Some of the most disturbing stuff there is when they say, well, you know, we're going to get rid of borderline content, or we're going to limit borderline content.

00:29:04.000 So explain to me how The Daily Wire, for example, should be treated as borderline content, while Huffington Post should be treated as non-borderline content.

00:29:11.000 You're going to have to explain that one to me.

00:29:13.000 And if you believe that Google and YouTube and Facebook aren't going to elevate left-wing sources above right-wing sources, you're out of your mind.

00:29:20.000 Of course they are.

00:29:21.000 When they talk about the authoritative sources that they like, those authoritative sources are in fact the mainstream media outlets that are currently pushing for the limitations.

00:29:28.000 What they're looking for, in effect, is a crony capitalism that is effectively a business type of collusion.

00:29:35.000 It's actually much closer to monopolistic interference than it is to free markets or free minds.

00:29:42.000 Because what's happening here is that the New York Times, CNN, a lot of left-wing outlets are looking at the future of the internet and they're concerned.

00:29:49.000 They're concerned that the market is dissipating their influence.

00:29:49.000 And rightly so.

00:29:53.000 And so what they are doing is they're going to the tech companies and they're saying, listen, we are going to attack you incessantly.

00:29:57.000 We're going to attack you incessantly as creating violence.

00:30:00.000 We're going to attack you incessantly as radicalizing people. 0.98

00:30:03.000 We're going to attack you repeatedly, continuously.

00:30:06.000 We're going to do this all the time until you elevate our content and de-platform and de-elevate content that we don't like.

00:30:12.000 Now, even if I agree with a lot of the content being banned, meaning that I agree that some of that content is gross, I don't think that it should be banned.

00:30:20.000 The reason is because I don't trust these companies to make those sorts of decisions.

00:30:25.000 I trust the American people to make these decisions.

00:30:27.000 And it is astonishing to watch media outlets that purportedly worry about Donald Trump cracking down on freedom of the press spending front page space and time on HBO trying to condemn tech platforms for being open fora.

00:30:41.000 It really is an amazing thing.

00:30:43.000 And there are only a couple reasons to do it.

00:30:45.000 One is ideological and one is market based.

00:30:46.000 The ideological reason is because they don't like that there are views that they don't like that are gaining credence.

00:30:52.000 And the market-based reason is that there are all of these other outlets that are gaining all sorts of credibility and credence and money and making lots of money, and they are afraid that their influence is dissipating.

00:31:01.000 So they are creating a false monopoly again with the help of the tech companies.

00:31:04.000 They're going to restore the media monopoly that existed back in the 1980s and the 1970s by using the tech bros to shut down everybody else.

00:31:12.000 That's what's going on here.

00:31:13.000 OK, in just a second, I want to get to the Trump tariff plan.

00:31:17.000 How has that actually created immigration policy?

00:31:20.000 Was it a win or a lose for President Trump?

00:31:22.000 What actually happened there?

00:31:23.000 Because it seems like there's a lot of confusion still.

00:31:25.000 First, no one really has time to go to the post office.

00:31:28.000 I'm busy.

00:31:28.000 You're busy.

00:31:29.000 You know, I like the post office.

00:31:30.000 But the fact is, last time I went there, I got a massive parking ticket because you just don't have time.

00:31:35.000 You park anywhere near the red zone, they give you a ticket, and meanwhile you're inside lugging all your mail and your packages and you're spending an hour there.

00:31:42.000 It's a hassle.

00:31:42.000 That's why you need Stamps.com.

00:31:43.000 It's one of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses.

00:31:46.000 Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office and saves you money with discounts you can't even get at the post office.

00:31:51.000 Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.

00:31:54.000 Post Office direct to your computer.

00:31:55.000 Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.

00:32:03.000 Simply use your computer to print official U.S.

00:32:05.000 postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.

00:32:10.000 Once that mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.

00:32:13.000 It is that simple.

00:32:13.000 With Stamps.com, you get 5 cents off every first class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.

00:32:19.000 Not to mention, it's a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.

00:32:22.000 Stamps.com is a no-brainer.

00:32:23.000 It saves you time and it saves you money.

00:32:24.000 It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.

00:32:29.000 Right now, my listeners get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and digital scale with no long-term commitment.

00:32:34.000 Just go to stamps.com.

00:32:36.000 Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage.

00:32:37.000 Type in promo code Shapiro.

00:32:39.000 That is stamps.com.

00:32:40.000 Enter Shapiro.

00:32:40.000 There's a reason we use it here at the Daily Wire office.

00:32:42.000 It saves me time.

00:32:43.000 It saves me money in my own life.

00:32:45.000 It saves our company time and money as well.

00:32:46.000 Now it can save you time and money.

00:32:47.000 Stamps.com.

00:32:48.000 Click that mic at the top of the homepage.

00:32:50.000 Type in Shapiro.

00:32:51.000 OK, so we're going to get to President Trump and his tariffs and Mexico trying to crack down on immigration in just one second.

00:32:58.000 First, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.

00:33:00.000 For $9.99 a month, you can subscribe.

00:33:02.000 Now, as I've been discussing for weeks, this is not just an appeal because we have great content that you can only get if you're a subscriber.

00:33:10.000 You know, the additional two hours of my show, the Andrew Klavan show, and the Matt Walsh show, and if you want it, the Michael Molls show.

00:33:15.000 Not only do you get all of those things, and not only, if you subscribe annually, do you get the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr, which is indeed magnificent, not only do you get all of those wondrous things, you actually get to support The principle of free speech in America.

00:33:27.000 Now listen, YouTube's a private company.

00:33:28.000 They can do what they want.

00:33:29.000 Google is a private company.

00:33:30.000 They can do what they want.

00:33:31.000 But what they are moving toward is the censorship and curbing of your ability to access the programs that you love.

00:33:37.000 And the best way for you to support us and ensure that our message is still going to reach people is to subscribe to help support our show.

00:33:43.000 The fact is, the left is hell-bent on destroying the market for any conservative show.

00:33:47.000 Not only by depriving us of access on their platforms, as you see from this Pinterest story, not only by doing that sort of stuff, but also by going after our advertisers.

00:33:56.000 We have wonderful advertisers on the program.

00:33:58.000 What the left does is targets those advertisers and then tries to drive them off the program, trying to drive down our ability to make a profit and to pay our workers so that we can't produce our show anymore.

00:34:07.000 They've tried to do this with Laura Ingram and Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.

00:34:10.000 They do it all the time.

00:34:11.000 The best way to avoid that, please go subscribe over at dailywire.com.

00:34:14.000 Become part of the team.

00:34:15.000 And it really is being part of the team.

00:34:17.000 You are helping out the team.

00:34:18.000 If you want conservative messages to be promulgated, if you want young people to hear those messages, you should go and subscribe right now.

00:34:25.000 If you want to be able to get that content, you should subscribe right now.

00:34:28.000 Go check us out.

00:34:28.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:34:32.000 All righty, so now the latest on President Trump and his tariff push on Mexico.

00:34:44.000 So late last week, I gave credit on the show to President Trump because there were a bunch of reports that President Trump was going to be able to leverage a significant concession from the Mexican government.

00:34:55.000 That significant concession was a safe third country provision.

00:34:58.000 So the United States has what's called a safe third country deal with the Canadian government.

00:35:02.000 What that safe third country deal does, it says that if somebody is trying to escape a human rights abusing country, And they want to get out and they go to Canada.

00:35:12.000 They have to apply for asylum in Canada.

00:35:14.000 The first country that they reach is the country where they have to apply for asylum.

00:35:19.000 So you can't go to Canada and then apply to asylum in the United States because then it really is more just you want to come to the United States.

00:35:25.000 It really isn't about you applying for asylum.

00:35:28.000 We have a safe third country provision with Canada.

00:35:31.000 Well, we'd like one of those with Mexico. 0.99

00:35:33.000 And there was talk last week, late last week, like Thursday night, The Mexican government was going to give us one.

00:35:38.000 That finally, we were going to get a deal with Mexico, where if people entered Mexico from Guatemala or El Salvador, that people would first have to apply for asylum in Mexico before they could apply to enter the United States.

00:35:49.000 And President Trump's tariffs were given credit for that.

00:35:51.000 And President Trump came online on Friday and he said that the tariffs would not go into effect because he'd made some sort of deal with Mexico.

00:35:57.000 So we have a bunch of conflicting reports on this.

00:35:59.000 What exactly the Mexican government gave up?

00:36:01.000 Did they give up anything?

00:36:03.000 Did they make concessions six months ago?

00:36:05.000 And then basically Trump's people sold that to him as new concessions to avoid the tariffs?

00:36:09.000 All of this is eminently unclear.

00:36:11.000 So the Washington Post has a piece today called How Mexico Talked Trump Out of Tariff Threat With Immigration Crackdown Pact.

00:36:18.000 Says Mexican negotiators persuaded President Trump to back down from his tariff threat by agreeing to an unprecedented crackdown on Central American migrants and accepting more expansive measures in Mexico if the initial efforts don't deliver quick results, according to officials from both governments and documents reviewed by the Washington Post.

00:36:34.000 The enforcement measures Mexico has promised include the deployment of a militarized National Guard at the Guatemalan border, thousands of additional migrant arrests per week, and the acceptance of busloads of asylum seekers turned away from the United States border daily, all geared toward cutting the migrant flow sharply in coming weeks.

00:36:49.000 The measures described by officials from both sides and included in Mexican negotiating documents reviewed by The Post appear to be more substantial than what the Mexican government has attempted thus far during the precipitous rise in migration to the United States border.

00:37:02.000 Since heralding the pact in a Friday night tweet, Trump has fumed at criticism that he capitulated to Mexico and that his accord amounts to a series of previously agreed to measures.

00:37:10.000 Trump officials on Monday described the accord as a breakthrough.

00:37:13.000 The president considered Mexico's plan aggressive enough to suspend his tariff threat, even though he liked the idea of imposing the duties over the howls from members of his own party.

00:37:21.000 U.S.

00:37:21.000 officials say they were particularly impressed with Mexico's pledge to deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its border region with Guatemala.

00:37:27.000 Mexico described its plan to U.S.

00:37:28.000 officials as the first time in recent history that Mexico has decided to take operational control of its southern border as a priority, according to Mexican government documents.

00:37:37.000 Such language amounted to the kind of rhetorical shift Trump officials were looking for from the leftist government of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who last year dismissed migrant enforcement in Mexico as dirty work at the behest of the United States.

00:37:50.000 Trump said Monday his deal with Mexico was fully signed and documented and has provisions that have not yet been fully disclosed.

00:37:57.000 On Monday afternoon at the White House, Trump said that the agreement has been locked in and will be announced very soon.

00:38:03.000 Most asylum seekers who reach the U.S.

00:38:04.000 are now processed and released into the United States interior.

00:38:08.000 Mexico has repeatedly said it will not agree to a safe third country accord that would require it to take in U.S.

00:38:13.000 bound asylum seekers transiting its territory.

00:38:17.000 But Mexican officials have been willing to negotiate something that would function similarly if responsibility for asylum seekers were shared among others in the region.

00:38:25.000 They say asylum changes would require approval from the Mexican lawmakers.

00:38:28.000 Trump said in a tweet Monday he will impose tariffs if the regional asylum overhaul does not pass.

00:38:33.000 So, it is not clear at this point what exactly is in place and what exactly is not in place.

00:38:40.000 However, if a safe third country provision ends up being enforced and it was done so because President Trump threatened tariffs, then good for President Trump.

00:38:48.000 My fear was that President Trump simply wanted to use tariffs on Mexico because he likes tariffs, not because he actually hoped to achieve an immigration breakthrough.

00:38:55.000 If he achieves the immigration breakthrough, well then he gets credit and I was 100% wrong and I am more than happy to admit it.

00:39:01.000 I like being wrong when it's good for the country.

00:39:04.000 However, there is a major controversy.

00:39:07.000 There are mixed messages being sent.

00:39:09.000 The New York Times reports the Mexican foreign minister said on Monday that no secret immigration deal existed between his country and the United States, directly contradicting President Trump's claim on Twitter that a fully signed and documented agreement would soon be revealed.

00:39:22.000 In a second, I'll explain how this controversy is continuing to unfold.

00:39:26.000 Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico's top diplomat, said at a news conference in Mexico City, there is an understanding that both sides would evaluate the flow of migrants in the coming months.

00:39:34.000 If the number of migrants crossing the U.S.

00:39:36.000 border is not significantly reduced, he said, both sides have agreed to renew discussions about more aggressive changes to regional asylum rules that could have a bigger impact.

00:39:44.000 Ebrard said, let's have a deadline to see if what we have works.

00:39:47.000 If not, we'll sit down, look at the measures you propose and that we propose.

00:39:51.000 The public statement served as an official response to several days of tweeting by Mr. Trump.

00:39:56.000 Now, as I say, I don't want these tariffs to go into effect.

00:40:06.000 They are very bad for the economy.

00:40:08.000 They're very bad for Trump, by the way.

00:40:09.000 If the economy tanks, he has no shot at re-election.

00:40:12.000 I think that the tariffs generally are a bad idea.

00:40:15.000 If, however, the tariffs were useful in leveraging a good immigration deal out of the Mexican government, good.

00:40:19.000 But now the Mexican government seems to be waffling.

00:40:21.000 So it is unclear, at this point, what, if anything, has been signed.

00:40:26.000 There's been no public documentation put forth at this point.

00:40:30.000 There was a US-Mexico joint declaration that Trump announced with fanfare on Friday.

00:40:35.000 It mentioned further public action.

00:40:38.000 It said that the countries agreed to continue their discussion on the terms of additional understandings to address irregular migrant flows and asylum issues to be completed and announced within 90 days.

00:40:47.000 American officials said on Monday Trump appeared to be referring to an agreement in principle to revisit the migration situation in 45 days and again in 90 days.

00:40:57.000 There was apparently significant disagreement on Monday between the Mexican government and American officials about what the negotiators actually agreed to regarding further action.

00:41:05.000 So, as I said, when President Trump achieves an actual victory here that is documentable, I will give him 100% credit.

00:41:12.000 As it stands, this looks a lot like when President Trump was in North Korea and President Trump was suggesting Over and over again that he had reached some sort of breakthrough with Kim Jong-un that turned out not to be true.

00:41:21.000 So I think that we can trust but verify.

00:41:23.000 So, sure, happy to give President Trump credit on a breakthrough.

00:41:27.000 Now we'll have to verify.

00:41:28.000 Do the migrations go down?

00:41:30.000 Is a safe third country provision in the works?

00:41:32.000 Will any of this stuff actually happen?

00:41:36.000 Trump didn't specifically mention the safe third country provision on Monday, but he said they would have an agreement they would announce very soon.

00:41:41.000 It's all done.

00:41:42.000 That is not what was described by the foreign minister for Mexico.

00:41:45.000 Ebrard said they will propose a safe third country.

00:41:48.000 We said it will have to be with the UN Human Rights Council and it will have to be regional.

00:41:52.000 He said Mexico preferred a regional asylum agreement that would review the flow of migrants across Mexico and Central America with a number of countries, including Panama and Brazil.

00:42:02.000 So I think this whole thing is still in flux is the bottom line.

00:42:06.000 Now, the good news is that President Trump can snap back those tariffs pretty much any time he wants.

00:42:11.000 So there's a pretty strong incentive for the Mexican government not exactly to screw around with President Trump.

00:42:15.000 But maybe if they apply a delay tactic, maybe if they delay this thing all the way until next year, they hope that a Democrat will be elected, at which point open immigration begins again.

00:42:26.000 I will say that President Trump's strategic use of tariffs with regard to China has not been exactly the serious problem that I think everyone thought that it was going to be.

00:42:36.000 Now, it has been a serious problem in terms of the economy.

00:42:38.000 The economy is more brittle.

00:42:40.000 Growth is slowing.

00:42:40.000 All of that is true.

00:42:42.000 But the amount of Chinese leverage that they are willing to apply at this point does not appear to be all that high.

00:42:47.000 China does have more to lose than the United States.

00:42:49.000 And as I've said before, there is a case to be made that the Chinese government ought to be pressured in a way the Mexican government is not pressured.

00:42:56.000 The Mexican government should be pressured to stop the migrant flow, but the Mexican government is not an open adversary of the United States.

00:43:02.000 China really is. 0.75

00:43:04.000 And the good news is that China's attempts at leveraging the United States are so far a giant fail. 0.73

00:43:09.000 There's an article in the Washington Post talking about how China's hints that it will choke off rare earths access in the United States is not in fact that easy.

00:43:18.000 David Lynch writing for the Washington Post.

00:43:20.000 He says, China dominates the global market for rare earths materials and has been threatening to take them hostage in the deepening trade conflict.

00:43:26.000 Just the suggestion that Beijing could starve American factories of essential materials has sent rare earth prices soaring over the past month with dysprosium oxide used in lasers and nuclear reactor control rods up by one third.

00:43:38.000 But the alarm overlooks the rise over the past decade of alternative sources of rare earths and ignores the difficulties China would face in implementing a ban, including the prospect of widespread smuggling and the likelihood of hurting countries that Chinese authorities may prefer not to alienate.

00:43:53.000 So President Trump has been applying leverage to China, and he is right to do so. 0.98

00:43:58.000 We'll see how the Mexican negotiation, which I'm more skeptical of, plays out.

00:44:03.000 Again, I'm hoping that the president's strategy there pays off and that we see some real gains.

00:44:08.000 I will say that the media, obviously, they're jumping to the conclusion that Trump has got nothing in exchange for backing down from his tariff threats.

00:44:15.000 You have Anderson Cooper, the very objective journalist on CNN, not waiting to see, but instead jumping in and saying that this was all about nothing.

00:44:22.000 Their story says, and I'm quoting now the lead, the deal to avert tariffs that President Trump announced with great fanfare on Friday night consists largely of actions that Mexico had already promised to take in prior discussions with the U.S.

00:44:35.000 over the past several months, according to officials from both countries who are familiar with the negotiations.

00:44:40.000 In other words, whatever might be coming down the pike when it comes to what has already transpired, all the drama, all the talks, all the threats of what amounts to waging economic warfare on a major trading partner and ally, We're all about nothing.

00:44:53.000 OK, well, maybe they were, and maybe they weren't.

00:44:55.000 We don't know yet, is sort of the issue.

00:44:57.000 So I think that Trump's adversaries are going to declare that this is a big loss for Trump.

00:45:02.000 But honestly, where is the big loss for Trump, exactly?

00:45:05.000 The tariffs didn't go into place.

00:45:05.000 So he threatened tariffs.

00:45:06.000 That seems like a win for US citizens.

00:45:08.000 I mean, tariffs are a tax on us.

00:45:10.000 And maybe he gets something out of this.

00:45:12.000 Maybe he doesn't.

00:45:13.000 We will find out soon enough.

00:45:15.000 But everybody's sort of jumping to a conclusion, I think, is doing just that, jumping to a conclusion.

00:45:20.000 Well, meanwhile, the Democrats hosted John Dean on Capitol Hill yesterday.

00:45:25.000 This is an absurdity.

00:45:26.000 It's an absurdity.

00:45:27.000 So Democrats decided they would host John Dean, who is a partisan hack, on Capitol Hill.

00:45:33.000 And it didn't go great for him.

00:45:35.000 Basically, he has suggested that every Republican president since Richard Nixon is, in fact, Richard Dixon.

00:45:40.000 He was the former White House counsel to President Nixon.

00:45:42.000 He was involved in Watergate.

00:45:43.000 And he suggested that President Trump is not mentally well and mentally fit to serve.

00:45:48.000 Here is him suggesting that Trump can't be president.

00:45:51.000 The last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon.

00:46:00.000 Clearly, I'm not here today as a fact witness.

00:46:04.000 I accepted the invitation to come here today because I hope I can give a little historical perspective on the Mueller report.

00:46:12.000 In many ways, the Mueller report is to President Trump Okay, really?

00:46:16.000 You can tell the Democrats are desperate when they're calling in John Dean.

00:46:21.000 State a little differently.

00:46:23.000 Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee with a roadmap.

00:46:27.000 OK, really?

00:46:28.000 You can tell the Democrats are desperate when they're calling in John Dean.

00:46:31.000 If you call in John Dean, the guy from 1974 who called President Bush a Watergate style president, if you're inviting that guy and that's the best you can do, I would recommend that you guys get some better candidates.

00:46:42.000 Because if you're relying on John Dean to take down the president, you may be in serious trouble.

00:46:46.000 OK, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.

00:46:49.000 So, things that I like.

00:46:50.000 Over the weekend, I read a terrific book by Alan Greenspan called Capitalism in America, a history along with Adrian Woolridge.

00:46:55.000 It is a really readable, easy history of the economics of the United States.

00:47:00.000 It talks about the US's free market economy.

00:47:02.000 It talks about how FDR changed that free market economy.

00:47:05.000 It talks about the relative growth rates in the U.S.

00:47:07.000 economy over time.

00:47:08.000 It talks about everything from free trade to monetary policy, and it is very readable, okay?

00:47:12.000 It is not a hard book to read, so go check it out.

00:47:14.000 Capitalism in America.

00:47:16.000 By Alan Greenspan, who's a devotee of Milton Friedman, among others.

00:47:21.000 So apparently, apparently, I've been told by the New York Times Milton Friedman was basically an alt-righter.

00:47:25.000 But Alan Greenspan was one of his acolytes, and of course ran the Fed.

00:47:30.000 Check it out, Capitalism in America by Alan Greenspan and Adrian Woolrich.

00:47:34.000 Definitely worth the watch.

00:47:36.000 Okay, other things that I like today.

00:47:40.000 So, let's see.

00:47:42.000 Okay, well, you know what?

00:47:43.000 Let's get to a bunch of things that I hate, because there's a lot to hate today.

00:47:46.000 So let's do it.

00:47:51.000 Well, I will say that I sort of like and hate this.

00:47:53.000 Feminist Sophie Lewis is now admitting that abortion is a killing.

00:47:56.000 She just said it's the sort of killing that we like, which at least is deathly honest. 1.00

00:48:00.000 I mean, that's good.

00:48:01.000 I wonder if she will be censored on Pinterest the same way that Lila Rose and Live Action have been.

00:48:04.000 Here she is explaining that abortion is a form of killing, but it's a good form of killing. 1.00

00:48:08.000 You know, like the kind of killing of people that we don't like. 0.68

00:48:11.000 That kind of killing. 0.81

00:48:14.000 Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognise how controversial this is, a form of killing.

00:48:22.000 It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.

00:48:31.000 I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.

00:48:38.000 I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as sort of continuous processes.

00:48:47.000 Um, okay.

00:48:48.000 I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as a continuous process.

00:48:51.000 That seems like that's a, that's pretty much what Jack the Ripper had to say about prostitutes right there.

00:48:55.000 The forms of making and unmaking each other.

00:48:57.000 It's a continuous process. 0.98

00:48:59.000 You know, when I gut this prostitute over here, that's pretty much, I'm just unmaking her, right? 1.00

00:49:02.000 I mean, we're all making and unmaking each other all the time, aren't we? 0.98

00:49:05.000 I mean, really, is that such a big deal?

00:49:07.000 I just unmade her intestines. 1.00

00:49:08.000 I mean, that's like, but they're making themselves and you're making them and I make, I mean, like, okay.

00:49:13.000 Well, at least she's honest.

00:49:14.000 Points for honesty to abortion lady. 1.00

00:49:16.000 It's a form of killing she likes. 0.99

00:49:18.000 That is a case that I can at least understand.

00:49:22.000 So, well done there.

00:49:23.000 That's good stuff.

00:49:24.000 Okay.

00:49:24.000 Other things that I hate today.

00:49:26.000 So, there are two pieces.

00:49:27.000 One from the New York Times and one from the Washington Post.

00:49:30.000 One is from a kind of conservative, Henry Olsen, and one is from a person named Aaron Bastani.

00:49:36.000 This one I particularly like from Aaron Bastani, the title of the piece from the New York Times.

00:49:40.000 The world is a mess.

00:49:41.000 We need fully automated luxury communism.

00:49:45.000 Hmm.

00:49:46.000 Now, I'm puzzled by the title.

00:49:48.000 I will I will fully acknowledge I find this puzzling because those words do not make sense.

00:49:55.000 That is that is like saying what we truly need is a red, blue, green, blue grass.

00:50:00.000 Don't know what it means.

00:50:01.000 That's a sentence, technically a sentence.

00:50:04.000 Not words that make sense in order.

00:50:06.000 We need a fully automated luxury communism.

00:50:08.000 We need a... communism.

00:50:11.000 Thank you, Aaron Bassani. 1.00

00:50:13.000 So, what exactly does this stupid article say? 1.00

00:50:15.000 It says, it starts with a burger. 0.99

00:50:17.000 In 2008, a Dutch professor named Mark Post presented the proof of concept for what he called cultured meat.

00:50:23.000 Five years later, in a London TV studio, Mr. Post and his colleagues ate a burger they had grown from animal cells in a laboratory.

00:50:28.000 Secretly funded by Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, the journey from Petri dish to plate had cost $325,000, making theirs the most expensive meal in history.

00:50:37.000 Fortunately, the results were promising.

00:50:38.000 Hany Rützler, a nutrition scientist, concluded the patty was close to meat, but not as juicy.

00:50:43.000 The next question was whether this breakthrough could be made cheaper.

00:50:46.000 Much cheaper.

00:50:47.000 The first cultured beef burgers are likely to enter the market next year, at approximately 50 bucks each.

00:50:52.000 But that won't last long.

00:50:53.000 Within a decade, they will probably be more affordable than even the cheapest barbecue staples of today, all for a product that uses fewer resources, produces negligible greenhouse gases, and remarkably, requires no animals to die.

00:51:04.000 So far, this is a pretty stirring representation of how awesome capitalism is, isn't it?

00:51:09.000 And they're talking about how private funding created a burger that will be cheaper than regular burgers and also avoid many of the side effects of burgers.

00:51:19.000 So, it's a pretty good case for capitalism.

00:51:21.000 But remember, this is an article about communism.

00:51:23.000 Wait, it's not just barbecues and burgers.

00:51:25.000 Last year, Just, a leader in cellular agriculture, cut a deal to start producing one of the world's tastiest steaks, Wagyu.

00:51:32.000 A company called Endless West, which also makes grapeless wine, has started to produce Glyph, the world's first molecular whiskey.

00:51:37.000 Luxury could be coming to all.

00:51:39.000 The case of cultured food and drink, far from a curiosity, is a template for a better, freer, and more affluent world, a world where we provide for the needs of everyone in style.

00:51:47.000 But how do we get there?

00:51:48.000 To say that, well, I mean, I think that we just explained how we got there, didn't we?

00:51:52.000 I mean, weren't the first few paragraphs all about how all these private companies are creating awesome new stuff that will become insanely cheap because of the free market?

00:51:58.000 So I think you sort of answered it.

00:51:59.000 We could just stop the article there, but no, we still got 600 words to fill.

00:52:03.000 So according to this genius columnist, Aaron Bastani, so he says, How do we get there?

00:52:09.000 there to say the present era is one of crisis borders on cliche it differs from the dystopias of george orwell or aldous huxley or hell in the paintings of hieronymus bosch it is unlike europe during the black death or central asia as it faced the galloping golden horde and yet it is true ours is an age of crisis i swear this was written by a high school junior getting a c and like to say it differs from other dystopias And then, let me show you how many books I've read.

00:52:34.000 All from my high school English class.

00:52:36.000 George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.

00:52:39.000 Also, I've heard of the Black Death guys. 0.95

00:52:40.000 He says, we inhabit a world of low growth, low productivity, and low wages.

00:52:46.000 Well, not low wages.

00:52:48.000 That is not true.

00:52:49.000 Low productivity, historically speaking, not even close to true.

00:52:53.000 Low growth is kind of true, and that's mostly because of government interventionism.

00:52:57.000 This is a world where billions, mostly in the global south, live in poverty, a world defined by inequality.

00:53:01.000 Actually, the world is defined by a massive reduction in the amount of inequality between the poorest and everybody else, considering that 80% of the global extreme poor have been lifted out of global extreme poverty since 1980 by capitalism.

00:53:13.000 But remember, this is an article about communism.

00:53:15.000 The most pressing crisis of all, arguably, is an absence of collective imagination.

00:53:19.000 Yes, that is arguable.

00:53:20.000 That is an arguable contention.

00:53:22.000 That the biggest crisis is an absence of collective imagination.

00:53:25.000 If I were going to go with, like, biggest crisis, I would say, let's see, collapse of traditional morality might be up there.

00:53:33.000 Probably the crisis in Syria, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

00:53:37.000 I'd say maybe disease and poverty in Africa.

00:53:41.000 There are a few.

00:53:42.000 Failure of collective imagination.

00:53:43.000 Whenever people talk about collective imagination, understand what they really mean by collective imagination is one person at the head of a massive government who imposes their ideas on everybody else.

00:53:53.000 Because you know what is the collective imagination in the free market?

00:53:56.000 That is the collective imagination.

00:53:57.000 It's all of our individual imaginations, but in a market.

00:54:01.000 Collective imagination is where there's somebody at the top bossing people around.

00:54:06.000 The term collective imagination, in fact, is somewhat self-defeating because imagination is by nature individual.

00:54:12.000 Now, we can work in groups and toss ideas back and forth to each other, but the idea of a collective imagination, a hive mind, so to speak, the reason that a hive mind doesn't really work that way is because a hive is subservient to the queen bee.

00:54:25.000 But this columnist says, it is as if humanity has been afflicted by a psychological complex in which we believe the present world is stronger than our capacity to remake it.

00:54:33.000 As if the very essence of humanity, if there is such a thing, is not to constantly build new worlds.

00:54:38.000 This is such bad writing.

00:54:43.000 My goodness.

00:54:44.000 If we can move beyond such a failure, we will be able to see something wonderful.

00:54:47.000 The plummeting cost of information and advances in technology are providing the ground for a collective future of freedom and luxury for all.

00:54:54.000 Automation, robotics, and machine learning will, as many august bodies from the Bank of England to the White House have predicted, substantially shrink the workforce, creating widespread technological unemployment.

00:55:02.000 But that's only a problem if you think work is something to be cherished.

00:55:05.000 For many, work is drudgery, and automation could set us free from it.

00:55:09.000 Okay, well, for many it's not, so that's a problem.

00:55:12.000 But also, you're gonna have to give people something to do.

00:55:15.000 And it turns out that communism doesn't give anything for people to do.

00:55:17.000 They sit there and they take things.

00:55:19.000 Gene editing, this is one of the funny things about people who promote socialism and communism.

00:55:23.000 There's this weird idea that if you promote socialism, you promote communism.

00:55:27.000 That what will spring free is a bunch of itinerant poets.

00:55:30.000 Who sit around writing about the beautiful flowers and creating a world of art.

00:55:35.000 I remember that Nancy Pelosi said this about so-called job lock, right?

00:55:38.000 She said that people were locked into their jobs for healthcare and that was a bad thing. 0.93

00:55:42.000 We needed to disconnect healthcare from your job by presumably nationalizing it so that you could write poetry. 0.95

00:55:49.000 Now, I know a lot of people without jobs, very few of them, except for producer Nick here, actually sit around writing poetry or going and learning to mine for gold.

00:55:57.000 Very few of them.

00:55:59.000 Most people who are unemployed are pretty depressed and pretty unhappy because they don't have a lot of stuff to do.

00:56:03.000 But this article continues by talking about how as we make things more and more prosperous, well now we can try communism.

00:56:10.000 He says, I love this, he says the consequences are far-reaching and potentially transformative of the of the increasing technological Hey man, technological achievements, hey man.

00:56:20.000 For the crises that confront our world today, technological unemployment, global poverty, societal aging, climate change, resource scarcity, we can already glimpse the remedy.

00:56:27.000 But there's a catch.

00:56:28.000 It's called capitalism.

00:56:30.000 It has created the newly emerging abundance, but it is unable to share around the fruits of technological development.

00:56:35.000 Okay, if you really believe that capitalism has been unable to share around the fruits of technological development, I ask you, how many people in the United States have cell phones?

00:56:43.000 I ask you, how many people in the United States have microwaves and cars?

00:56:47.000 Everybody takes this stuff for granted because of capitalism.

00:56:50.000 Communism creates nothing.

00:56:52.000 Communism redistributes what is there until it kills off the goose that creates the golden eggs.

00:56:57.000 He says, a system where things are produced only for profit, capitalism seeks to ration resources to ensure returns.

00:57:04.000 No, that's not how capitalism works.

00:57:06.000 Capitalism works through competition.

00:57:08.000 Free markets work through competition.

00:57:10.000 Just like today's, companies of the future will form monopolies and seek rents.

00:57:14.000 The results will be imposed scarcity when there's not enough food, healthcare, or energy to go around.

00:57:18.000 This has not been the history of capitalism.

00:57:20.000 The only enforced monopolies are ones that are enforced by the government.

00:57:23.000 Government monopolies are monopolies too, and result in far more scarcity than free market economics.

00:57:30.000 But according to this columnist, we have to go beyond capitalism.

00:57:32.000 Many will find this suggestion unwholesome.

00:57:34.000 To them, the claim that capitalism will or should end is like saying a triangle doesn't have three sides or that the law of gravity no longer applies while an apple falls from a tree.

00:57:42.000 But for a better world, it is an imperative.

00:57:45.000 We can see the contours of something new.

00:57:47.000 A society as distinct from our own as that of the 20th century from feudalism or urban civilization from the life of the hunter-gatherer.

00:57:53.000 It builds on technologies whose development has been accelerating for decades.

00:57:57.000 To grasp it will require a new politics.

00:57:59.000 Fully automated luxury communism.

00:58:01.000 What the hell does that even mean?

00:58:03.000 So we've gone through the entire article, I still don't understand what fully automated luxury communism means.

00:58:08.000 It doesn't mean anything.

00:58:09.000 All it means is that capitalism is awesome, but you like communism, so you're gonna say communism over and over.

00:58:14.000 Well done, New York Times.

00:58:16.000 My goodness, if your case for communism is basically that technology is gonna solve all of our problems, you just made the unwitting case for capitalism, thank you very much.

00:58:24.000 Now, on the right, you're seeing some folks who are making an unwitting case against capitalism, or a witting case.

00:58:29.000 One of those people is Henry Olsen.

00:58:30.000 So, Henry Olsen is a really interesting commentator.

00:58:33.000 He comes from sort of the Tucker Carlson conservative school of thought that suggests that free markets are the problem.

00:58:39.000 He had a piece in the Washington Post called, Conservative Elites Love to Defend Market Orthodoxy, Don't Fall for It.

00:58:44.000 Well, I love that everybody who disagrees with Henry Olsen is now an elite.

00:58:50.000 I believe that just in terms of probably income and education, it's fair to say I'm an elite.

00:58:56.000 In terms of my opinion on politics, I am not an elitist.

00:58:59.000 I've always made this distinction.

00:59:00.000 I've never understood this sort of connection between quote-unquote elites and elitists.

00:59:05.000 And Ronald Reagan was an elite.

00:59:06.000 He was not an elitist.

00:59:07.000 Donald Trump is an elite.

00:59:09.000 He is not an elitist.

00:59:10.000 An elitist is somebody who believes they should run the world for everybody else.

00:59:13.000 That is the opposite of free market libertarianism, which suggests that you should make your own choices without the government cramming down choices and subsidies upon you.

00:59:20.000 Anyway, Henry Olson says...

00:59:22.000 There's been a debate brewing within the world of conservatism ever since Donald Trump won the GOP nomination.

00:59:27.000 Some on the right bitterly oppose his divergence from Republican economic orthodoxy and are fighting to defend the role of economic markets in society against what they perceive as attacks from other conservatives.

00:59:37.000 These elites may be right to be afraid, but that's because at heart, they are more libertarian than they are conservative.

00:59:43.000 I think you and I are defining conservative differently, then, because it turns out that conservative is about conserving the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

00:59:51.000 Many of those liberties are tied into the free market.

00:59:55.000 Such libertarian-minded opinion leaders have criticized Trump's call to rule out reform for Social Security and Medicare.

01:00:00.000 They ignored his calls to dramatically increase spending on infrastructure.

01:00:04.000 They savaged his views on trade.

01:00:06.000 Trump's overwhelming victory in the primaries should have shocked them out of their ideological slumber.

01:00:10.000 Instead, they're like the French Bourbon monarchs, who, upon being restored to the throne, remembered nothing and forgot nothing about the reasons they were overthrown in the first place.

01:00:17.000 Okay, Donald Trump, and then he name-checks me, right?

01:00:20.000 He suggests that Fox News television host Tucker Carlson's rather mundane point that today's global economy contributes in part to the economic and social decline in many parts of the United States was scorned by leading lights such as David French and Ben Shapiro.

01:00:32.000 Right, we talked about it on the show.

01:00:34.000 Because my point was that the moral failings of the United States are far more linked to the moral history of the United States in the 1960s than they are to the fact that you can get a cheaper product from China.

01:00:44.000 Like, I don't think people are failing to get married because we signed NAFTA.

01:00:49.000 I think people are failing to get married because our society has disdained marriage for generations.

01:00:52.000 The marriage rates started to decline far before the effect of so-called kind of trade imbalances began to be felt.

01:00:59.000 I mean, marriage rates in the United States started to decline in the 60s.

01:01:03.000 When the economy was still pretty good.

01:01:06.000 Now, what's hilarious, and by the way, the economy is still pretty good.

01:01:08.000 I mean, we have an all-time low unemployment rate right now.

01:01:11.000 But according to Henry Olson, here's where we get to the point.

01:01:14.000 When I say that the left is pushing for communism, but they're really in favor of capitalism, like that article from the New York Times, and then you have people on the right who are pushing for government involvement in the name of conservatism, that's Henry Olson.

01:01:25.000 This is fascinating.

01:01:26.000 He says this.

01:01:26.000 My libertarian-oriented friends will not want to hear this, but we live in the garden that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made.

01:01:33.000 Now, this should be anathema to conservatives.

01:01:36.000 If somebody comes to you and they say, you know, we just have to accept the new form of government that FDR brought about.

01:01:42.000 FDR was about as close to a socialist dictator in the United States as we had, except for maybe Woodrow Wilson, as we've had in the United States.

01:01:49.000 He wasn't able to get all of his plans through, but the National Recovery Act was a fascist piece of legislation in which the government overtly gave a stamp of approval to particular businesses that abided by the government's diktats.

01:02:04.000 FDR's muddling with the economy lengthened the Great Depression by eight years.

01:02:08.000 Minimum.

01:02:10.000 FDR led to the second great- There were two Great Depressions, basically. 0.84

01:02:12.000 There was one that was from 29 to 33, and then there was one that kicked in again from 37 to, basically, World War II.

01:02:19.000 FDR's economic policy was disastrous, and he created all of the economic unsustainability that we have seen.

01:02:26.000 He created the roots of the union system that destroyed America's car industry.

01:02:31.000 He created the roots of the social security system that is bankrupting us in the future, and Medicaid and Medicare, systems that comprise now 66% of the federal budget.

01:02:41.000 So when you hear a conservative say something like, I mean, that's an amazing, amazing statement.

01:02:55.000 If you're a conservative and you believe that your role is basically to conserve FDR, I don't think that's particularly conservative.

01:03:01.000 You can make the argument that that's what should be done on a practical policy level because you can't get through a more libertarian program.

01:03:08.000 That I understand.

01:03:08.000 But if your argument is that FDR's basic economic structure, in which he derided malefactors of great wealth, regulated the banking industry, debased the currency, and did all sorts of other things to undermine the fundamental free market nature of America's economy, that that was a good thing, and that we have to maintain that?

01:03:24.000 I don't know how that strikes a chord with anybody who believes in the Constitution of the United States, or the economic philosophy that created the great majority of America's wealth.

01:03:37.000 All righty.

01:03:37.000 Well, that was a lot, but we'll be back here tomorrow or later today.

01:03:40.000 If you want two more hours of content, you're listening to The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:03:47.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

01:03:50.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

01:03:51.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:03:53.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.

01:03:55.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.

01:03:57.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.

01:04:00.000 Edited by Adam Sievitz.

01:04:01.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:04:03.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

01:04:05.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.

01:04:07.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:04:09.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

01:04:12.000 President Trump wins big on his deal with Mexico.

01:04:15.000 Of course, the mainstream media don't give him credit for it.

01:04:17.000 We will examine what is really in the deal.

01:04:20.000 Then, another social media platform bans conservatives and Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips gets sued for a third time by radical leftists.

The Ben Shapiro Show - June 11, 2019

The Making Of A New York Times Smear Job | Ep. 798

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript