The Ben Shapiro Show - When Everyone Is Hitler | Ep. 851

00:00:00.000 A Washington Post columnist decides that Hitler had a dog.

00:00:03.000 You have a dog. 0.71

00:00:04.000 Therefore, you are Hitler. 0.97

00:00:06.000 James Comey gets slapped by the inspector general and we'll check the mailbag.

00:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:10.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:11.000 All right, so we've got a lot to get to today.

00:00:19.000 But before we get to any of it, let me remind you that this month is indeed National Life Insurance Awareness Month.

00:00:24.000 I know you had set the month aside to celebrate that.

00:00:26.000 I know that you had big plans for National Life Insurance Awareness Month.

00:00:29.000 But since I've mentioned it now twice, I'm now in your head.

00:00:32.000 So now's a good time for you to get life insurance because here is the reality.

00:00:35.000 Are you an adult?

00:00:36.000 Are you a responsible human being?

00:00:37.000 Make sure that your family is taken care of in case you get hit by a bus in the next 10 minutes.

00:00:41.000 Like, go right now and buy life insurance over at PolicyGenius.com.

00:00:45.000 Right now is a great time to buy life insurance, it turns out, because prices are the lowest they have been in 20 years.

00:00:50.000 And PolicyGenius has made it easier than ever for you to get covered.

00:00:53.000 PolicyGenius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online.

00:00:56.000 In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find your best price.

00:00:59.000 Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape, And Policy Genius doesn't just make life insurance easy, they can also help you find the right home insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance.

00:01:09.000 Policy Genius makes it supremely easy to do all this.

00:01:11.000 You don't want to think about your impending doom for the rest of the entire month, or next month, or the month after that.

00:01:17.000 Instead, what you should be doing is getting it done right now, then you never have to think about this again until you plot, at which point it won't help you to think about it because you'll be dead, but at least your family will have the money that they got from the life insurance policy you were responsible enough to buy through.

00:01:30.000 Policygenius.com.

00:01:31.000 So head on over to Policygenius.com, get quotes, apply in minutes.

00:01:34.000 You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.

00:01:36.000 Policygenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.

00:01:39.000 Alrighty, so we begin today with a quick recap of the rise and fall of James Comey.

00:01:45.000 We didn't have a chance to do this on the podcast yesterday because this news broke after the podcast was over.

00:01:50.000 But here is the story.

00:01:52.000 So James Comey, former FBI director, hero of the republic for a brief moment in time, brief shining moment in time.

00:01:59.000 Well, a report came out yesterday from the Office of the Inspector General over at the DOJ, and basically what it found is that he leaked classified information to the press through a friend.

00:02:09.000 Now, it wasn't heavily classified.

00:02:11.000 It wasn't super-duper top-secret classified.

00:02:13.000 It wasn't like he set up a private server like Hillary Clinton or something.

00:02:16.000 Instead, what happened is something fairly simple.

00:02:19.000 He created a series of memos.

00:02:20.000 He then leaked those memos to one of his friends who was outside the government.

00:02:24.000 That person then proceeded to hand those over to the New York Times.

00:02:26.000 And that was, in fact, a violation of law, but not bad enough that he was actually going to get prosecuted.

00:02:32.000 Now, James Comey then declared himself exonerated.

00:02:34.000 There are so many ironies in this story.

00:02:36.000 It's like layer, it's an onion of irony.

00:02:38.000 You take off that top layer, another layer of irony, and then another layer of irony, all the way down to that core of granite iron irony.

00:02:45.000 It's just, it's fantastic.

00:02:46.000 So, James Comey was, he started off, you'll recall, as an enemy to the Democrats, right?

00:02:51.000 Because in 2016, James Comey Made the grave error of going out in public and spilling on how Hillary Clinton violated the law six ways from Sunday.

00:03:01.000 And then he said, but we're not prosecuting her because I've changed the law conveniently for her. 0.98

00:03:05.000 I've changed the law now.

00:03:06.000 I'm rewriting it.

00:03:07.000 She's not going to be prosecuted, but she did some bad stuff, guys, some bad stuff. 0.93

00:03:11.000 And the Hillary Clinton campaign rightly said, well, if you're not prosecuting me, then why are you spilling all this crap out in public?

00:03:17.000 Right now, irony layer number one, the entire Democratic Party was super happy that Robert Mueller then did the exact same thing to Donald Trump on the Trump-Russia and obstruction of justice stuff.

00:03:27.000 Because that's what the Mueller report was.

00:03:28.000 It was all the reasons why Trump is bad.

00:03:30.000 Also, we're not prosecuting him.

00:03:31.000 But here you are and just vomit all this material right out there in public.

00:03:35.000 Okay, so James Comey did that in 2016.

00:03:37.000 It was very bad.

00:03:38.000 Then the Democrats flipped, and by 2019, it was really good.

00:03:41.000 Okay, so that's irony number one.

00:03:42.000 Then, James Comey, right before the election, reopens the investigation into Hillary Clinton, and has to notify the entire world about it, like five days before the election, and then a couple days later, he says, oh yeah, by the way, we didn't really find anything, and this really hurts Hillary Clinton.

00:03:56.000 So, he is the enemy, right?

00:03:57.000 He's the person who cost Hillary Clinton the election, supposedly.

00:04:01.000 Then it turns out that he's a hero of the Republic.

00:04:03.000 Well, because he started keeping tabs on President Trump.

00:04:03.000 Why?

00:04:06.000 He was suspicious of President Trump.

00:04:08.000 And because he was suspicious of President Trump, he started keeping memos.

00:04:11.000 And he refused to just say out loud what he'd already told Trump, which is that Trump wasn't under investigation.

00:04:16.000 It turns out the reason he wasn't saying that is because Trump was kind of under investigation by Comey and the FBI.

00:04:22.000 The reason Comey was keeping memos was presumably in order to provide the basis for an obstruction of justice charge.

00:04:29.000 Or in order to gather information on Trump-Russia kind of stuff.

00:04:32.000 So Comey was either fibbing to Trump, or he was unwilling to say something that was eminently true to the American public.

00:04:38.000 One of these two things was obvious.

00:04:40.000 Okay, so he ends up getting fired, and now he's a hero of the republic again.

00:04:44.000 So he went from being democratic enemy to democratic hero, which in and of itself is a certain level of irony, especially because he probably cost Hillary Clinton the election in the view of Democrats.

00:04:53.000 Okay, so for two years, He's hero of the republic because he was fired by Trump and this was obviously Trump trying to stop the Russia investigation.

00:05:01.000 Then a couple things happened.

00:05:02.000 One, the Russia investigation comes to nothing.

00:05:04.000 And two, it turns out that James Comey is in fact a leaker.

00:05:08.000 And that he lied about leaking.

00:05:09.000 And that James Comey is in fact a self-aggrandizing tool who is not very good at his job.

00:05:13.000 Which is unfortunate for James Comey.

00:05:16.000 Not great for James Comey.

00:05:18.000 So the OIG analysis comes out yesterday and James Comey, in another layer of irony, then declares himself exonerated.

00:05:25.000 This is the same guy.

00:05:26.000 This is the same guy who declared that President Trump was supremely wrong for declaring himself exonerated by the Mueller report.

00:05:34.000 So which is it?

00:05:36.000 Well, he wasn't exonerated here.

00:05:38.000 Not only was he not exonerated, the report's pretty damning.

00:05:41.000 Basically, the OIG found, and this is a direct quote, that, consistent with the Inspector General Act and department regulations, this matter was referred to the OIG in July 2017 by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe following the FBI's determination that Comey may have shared memos that contained classified information with his personal attorneys.

00:06:00.000 And they say, yes, the memos were number one FBI records, so he called them personal records.

00:06:04.000 They were not.

00:06:05.000 They were FBI records.

00:06:06.000 Second, Comey violated department and FBI policies pertaining to the retention, handling and dissemination of FBI records and information.

00:06:14.000 They say Comey's actions with respect to the memos violated department and FBI policies.

00:06:19.000 And then they say that he failed to return memos after being removed as FBI director.

00:06:23.000 He improperly disclosed FBI documents and information through a third party to a reporter.

00:06:29.000 They say that he improperly disclosed the presence of this information to his attorneys.

00:06:34.000 In other words, there are a bevy of violations here.

00:06:36.000 They didn't rise to the level of the criminally prosecutable, but he definitely violated a bunch of internal FBI regulations, his employment agreement, and all the rest.

00:06:46.000 And the OIG concluded that Comey's behavior really damaged the FBI.

00:06:52.000 They said, quote, the responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties.

00:07:00.000 On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges or higher ranking FBI and department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters.

00:07:11.000 They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions.

00:07:17.000 But even when these employees believe that their most strongly held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

00:07:27.000 Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility.

00:07:30.000 By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees and the many thousands more former FBI employees who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.

00:07:48.000 Comey said he was compelled to take these actions.

00:07:52.000 But it doesn't matter, because they have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with department policy.

00:07:59.000 Comey's unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.

00:08:05.000 In a country built on the rule of law... I mean, this is the OIG just slapping Comey across the grill.

00:08:09.000 In a country built on the rule of law, it is of the utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions.

00:08:22.000 Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure.

00:08:29.000 What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information obtained during the course of FBI employment in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

00:08:38.000 The DOJ declined to prosecute, but that is bad news for James Comey.

00:08:43.000 And it also does speak to real questions that folks have about the honesty and objectivity of the FBI.

00:08:49.000 And this is just another black mark for the FBI.

00:08:52.000 On the left, the suggestion was that the FBI went after Hillary Clinton too hard.

00:08:56.000 On the right, the suggestion is that the FBI basically concocted the Trump-Russia investigation to go after the Trump campaign under the Obama administration.

00:09:04.000 And we still are awaiting an OIG report about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

00:09:08.000 There are two plausible theories about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

00:09:12.000 Plausible theory number one is that it was initiated in good faith based on information received by the FBI that there were several low-level aides to the Trump campaign who were meeting with Russian sources, and so they initiated the investigation, and then it spun out of control.

00:09:27.000 That confirmation bias, people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page at the FBI who hated President Trump and who were deeply suspicious of him, they started to find information where they were seeing it.

00:09:37.000 They were just looking for data and they found the data they were looking for.

00:09:40.000 It didn't matter that they were missing the entire forest.

00:09:42.000 They spotted the trees that they wanted and they honed in on those trees.

00:09:44.000 Right?

00:09:44.000 That is theory number one.

00:09:46.000 Initiated in good faith, but pursued wrongly.

00:09:49.000 Theory number two was initiated always in bad faith.

00:09:51.000 That basically the FBI received information via the Hillary Clinton campaign.

00:09:55.000 And then they initiated the investigation based on a desire to harm the Trump campaign.

00:09:59.000 And they were planning to spring that on the Trump campaign late in the campaign if they thought that he was going to They thought that he was going to win or post campaign if he actually did win.

00:10:09.000 That is theory number two.

00:10:09.000 Right.

00:10:10.000 And we'll find out which one of these is true.

00:10:12.000 What is certainly true is that faith in the FBI, in the competence, core competence of the people at the highest level in the FBI has to have been shaken by all of this.

00:10:19.000 I mean, James Comey was the head of the FBI, and it turns out that not only was he incompetent, he was happy to violate departmental policy in order to in order to pursue his own personal agenda, which is exactly the accusation that critics of the FBI on behalf of Trump are making.

00:10:34.000 Which is that the FBI is sometimes politically driven.

00:10:37.000 By the way, the left has had similar criticisms of the FBI going all the way back to the FBI targeting Martin Luther King Jr., right?

00:10:42.000 So this is a bad time for the FBI.

00:10:45.000 Andrew McCabe, who is the acting FBI director, ends up getting fired for doing the same thing.

00:10:49.000 He had leaked information to the media that he thought would help him and help his bosses in his job.

00:10:53.000 He said that he did so at the behest of James Comey.

00:10:55.000 Comey denied it.

00:10:56.000 So the leadership of the FBI has a real problem.

00:10:59.000 And this is not good.

00:11:00.000 I mean, if we've been talking this whole week about the undermining of faith in institutions, if people in power at institutions do a crap job, it turns out that does a fairly solid job of undermining faith in those institutions overall.

00:11:13.000 So that report, very bad for James.

00:11:15.000 James Comey naturally came out and said, well, now I want an apology.

00:11:18.000 Dude, you're not getting an apology from anyone.

00:11:21.000 Just go take some more pictures of yourself standing over vistas of grain.

00:11:25.000 He's such a weird dude.

00:11:26.000 Like now, James Comey's entire job consists of taking Instagram photos in front of nature.

00:11:31.000 If you watch his Twitter feed, his entire Twitter feed is like him staring up at a giant redwood.

00:11:35.000 Or him standing on a road.

00:11:37.000 Well, I guess he can go be a nature photographer or something because he's never going to get a job anywhere near the intelligence community ever again, given his malfeasance here.

00:11:46.000 Okay, meanwhile...

00:11:48.000 I have to comment on a couple of pieces in the Washington Post yesterday.

00:11:52.000 So apparently it was my birthday because the Washington Post decided to run not one but two editorials targeting me yesterday, which is just a party.

00:11:58.000 There's nothing I love better than just sitting here doing my job and suddenly there are a couple of op-eds in the Washington Post.

00:12:04.000 But thank you guys for really Making sure that my exposure continues to grow.

00:12:10.000 So I appreciate that from the Washington Post.

00:12:13.000 We'll get to that in just one second because not only are there two op-eds that were directed against me, they are both awful.

00:12:19.000 I mean, just objectively, I'm going to be trying, I know, look, I'm invested in this.

00:12:24.000 They are attacking me, but I'm pretty sure these are bad op-eds.

00:12:28.000 I will explain why in just a moment.

00:12:30.000 First, let's talk about how you sleep better.

00:12:33.000 And so, as I've told you many times, I am not good at sleeping.

00:12:36.000 I'm good at some things.

00:12:37.000 I'm not good at others.

00:12:38.000 Can't, I don't have a good jump shot.

00:12:40.000 I'm good at talking.

00:12:41.000 Not good at sleeping.

00:12:42.000 Okay, so how can I make my sleep quality better?

00:12:44.000 Well, I did this by going and getting a Helix Sleep mattress.

00:12:47.000 The beautiful thing about a Helix Sleep mattress is that it is personalized to you, right?

00:12:51.000 That's quite wonderful.

00:12:52.000 That means that you take a two-minute sleep quiz, and they will match your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.

00:12:58.000 No matter how you sleep, on the side, on your back, hot sleep, or whatever, Helix can make what your body needs.

00:13:03.000 Just go to helixsleep.com slash Ben, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will match you to a customized mattress That will give you the best sleep of your life.

00:13:10.000 When I'm on the road, I have a really tough time sleeping because I'm away from my beloved Helix sleep mattress.

00:13:15.000 It's so good that I got one for my sister and her husband upon the occasion of their wedding.

00:13:19.000 For couples, Helix can even split that mattress down the middle, and that'll give you the individual support needs and feel preferences that you want for each side. 0.59

00:13:25.000 They've got a 10-year warranty.

00:13:27.000 You try it out for 100 nights risk-free.

00:13:28.000 They'll pick it up for you if you don't love it.

00:13:30.000 But you will.

00:13:31.000 Helix is offering, right now, up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.

00:13:36.000 Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com slash ben.

00:13:40.000 Again, helixsleep.com slash ben for up to $125 off your mattress order.

00:13:44.000 So, solid deal, risk-free, go check it out.

00:13:47.000 I promise, it's gonna make your life a whole hell of a lot better.

00:13:49.000 Okay, so, let's jump into these insane editorials from the Washington Post.

00:13:54.000 So, this, herein lies the Washington Post's argument.

00:13:59.000 Everyone on the right is Hitler. 0.84

00:14:01.000 Everyone is Hitler. 0.93

00:14:02.000 And they will make this argument till their face turns blue. 0.79

00:14:06.000 It's one of the reasons why President Trump is president is because everybody who happens to be even slightly right of center is tired, sick of tired, of being labeled a white supremacist.

00:14:15.000 They're tired of being labeled racist.

00:14:17.000 They're tired of being labeled all the bad words in the universe simply because they disagree with Nancy Pelosi on tax policy and abortion.

00:14:24.000 And as we'll see, the left doesn't understand this.

00:14:27.000 So when people like me say, you know what?

00:14:29.000 Why don't you have a conversation with us? 0.94

00:14:31.000 Because we actually agree on white supremacy being evil. 1.00

00:14:35.000 We all agree that Nazis suck. 1.00

00:14:37.000 We're all on the same page here. 1.00

00:14:39.000 The first response of the left is, ah, but aren't you a Nazi?

00:14:41.000 And it's like, God bless it.

00:14:43.000 You're making my argument for me.

00:14:45.000 My whole argument is that we are having a tough time conversing with one another and people are getting angry and they are responding in dramatically Reactionary fashion.

00:14:55.000 Because you keep calling them something they are not.

00:14:58.000 If you keep calling people Nazis, eventually they just throw up a giant middle finger, and the middle finger has a giant T on it.

00:15:04.000 That's the Trump middle finger.

00:15:04.000 Right?

00:15:05.000 That's what it was. 1.00

00:15:07.000 You went at the right long enough, you kept calling us white supremacists, you kept calling us Nazis, and then Trump was out there basically saying you're all schmucks, and we're like, okay, fine, that guy. 1.00

00:15:07.000 Right? 1.00

00:15:15.000 Do it.

00:15:16.000 So the left's response to this is, but aren't you Nazis though?

00:15:20.000 Aren't you Nazis?

00:15:21.000 Now, here is the greatest example of this I have ever seen.

00:15:24.000 So, yesterday, in the Washington Post, there's a piece by a woman named Eve Fairbanks.

00:15:30.000 The piece is titled, The Reasonable Rebels.

00:15:32.000 Conservatives say we've abandoned reason and civility.

00:15:35.000 The Old South used the same language to defend slavery. 0.68

00:15:40.000 Okay.

00:15:41.000 This is literally the Hitler dog argument. 0.83

00:15:44.000 This is Hitler had a dog. 0.54

00:15:46.000 You have a dog.

00:15:47.000 Thus, by logical deduction, you are Hitler. 0.87

00:15:52.000 What the actual eff- It turns out, you know who has called for reason and civility?

00:15:56.000 Like, a lot of people over the course of all of human history have called for reason and civility.

00:16:00.000 And by the way, I would note that the Old South did not make its bones on calling for reason and civility.

00:16:08.000 They made their bones on firing on Fort Sumter, for God's sake.

00:16:11.000 They initiated the largest war in the history of the United States, ending with the deaths of 600,000 people.

00:16:17.000 That was not reason and civility.

00:16:18.000 Also, You know how I know that conservatives today are not like the Old South when they call for reason and civility? 1.00

00:16:24.000 Because I'm not whipping black folks while I'm calling for reason and civility, you moron! 1.00

00:16:29.000 Because I don't own slaves, you dumbass! 1.00

00:16:32.000 Like, what are you even talking about? 1.00

00:16:34.000 This is... It is exactly the Hitler dog argument. 0.92

00:16:39.000 It is exactly the Hitler dog argument. 0.94

00:16:41.000 Hitler used to eat vegetables.

00:16:41.000 Right?

00:16:43.000 Do you eat vegetables?

00:16:45.000 Do you?

00:16:46.000 DO YOU?! !

00:16:48.000 Hitler liked art. 0.85

00:16:49.000 Do you like art?

00:16:50.000 Hitler listened to classical music. 0.52

00:16:52.000 You listen to classical music.

00:16:54.000 You keep saying reason and civility.

00:16:56.000 You know who else used to say reason and civility?

00:16:58.000 Hmm?

00:17:00.000 Only difference between you and the slaveholders is that they held slaves.

00:17:05.000 Yes, that is a big difference.

00:17:07.000 That is a very, very large difference.

00:17:09.000 And so I'm not exaggerating.

00:17:10.000 This is a very, very long piece making exactly this argument.

00:17:13.000 You ready?

00:17:14.000 Here it is.

00:17:15.000 After the El Paso shooting, Ben Shapiro, a popular conservative podcaster, thank you very much, asked Americans to draw a line between the few conservatives who are white supremacists and those who, like him, aren't.

00:17:25.000 First of all, no, I didn't ask Americans to draw a line between the few conservatives who are white supremacists and those like me.

00:17:31.000 I said that it is non-conservative by definition to be a white supremacist, because conservatism is about values.

00:17:37.000 Conservatism is about the sacrosanct nature of the individual.

00:17:42.000 Conservatism is about judging individuals as human beings.

00:17:45.000 It is not about group identity.

00:17:46.000 That cuts directly against conservatism.

00:17:49.000 So no, you get it wrong in the first sentence, and then it gets worse.

00:17:52.000 Almost all Americans are on the same side, he said, and we should be mourning together.

00:17:56.000 In his telling, we aren't for one simple reason.

00:17:58.000 Too many on the political left are castigating the character of those who disagree, lumping conservatives and political nonconformists together with racists and xenophobes.

00:18:06.000 And then we get to the good part.

00:18:07.000 Yves Fairbank says, I grew up in a conservative family.

00:18:10.000 The people I talk to most frequently, the people I call when I need help, are conservatives.

00:18:14.000 I'm not inclined to paint conservatives as thoughtless bigots.

00:18:17.000 Wait, but- BUT! 0.60

00:18:19.000 Yeah.

00:18:20.000 But, a few years ago, listening to the voices and arguments of commentators like Shapiro, I began to feel a very specific déjà vu I couldn't initially identify.

00:18:29.000 It felt as if the arguments I was reading were eerily familiar.

00:18:32.000 I found myself googling lines from articles, especially when I read the rhetoric of a group of people we could call the reasonable right.

00:18:38.000 These are figures who typically dislike President Trump, but often say they're being pushed rightward, sometimes away from what they claim is their natural leftward bent, by intolerance and extremism on the left.

00:18:47.000 The reasonable right includes people like Shapiro and radio commentator Dave Rubin, legal scholar Amy Wax and Jordan Peterson, a Canadian academic who warns about identity politics, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the New York Times columnist Barry Weiss, and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Summers, self-described feminists who decry excesses in the feminist movement, the novelist Bret Easton Ellis, and the podcaster Sam Harris, who believe that important subjects have needlessly been excluded from political discussions.

00:19:13.000 They present their concerns as principally freedom of speech and diversity of thought.

00:19:17.000 Ooh, I see why they gave her this space in the Washington Post. 0.86

00:19:20.000 Because she was reminded of a thing.

00:19:21.000 What was the thing she was reminded of?

00:19:22.000 HITLER!

00:19:22.000 outrage and derision directed their way by haughty social gatekeepers.

00:19:25.000 So it felt frustrating.

00:19:26.000 When I read Weiss, when I listened to Shapiro, when I watched Peterson or read the supposedly heterodox online magazine Quillette, what was I reminded of?

00:19:34.000 Ooh, I see why they gave her this space in the Washington Post, because she was reminded of a thing.

00:19:39.000 What was the thing she was reminded of?

00:19:41.000 Hitler! 0.88

00:19:42.000 That's what she... 1.00

00:19:44.000 What?

00:19:46.000 She was reminded of slaveholders.

00:19:47.000 That's what she was reminded of.

00:19:48.000 Oh my god.

00:19:50.000 My childhood home is just a half hour drive from the Manassas battlefield in Virginia, and I grew up intensely fascinated by the Civil War.

00:19:56.000 I loved perusing soldiers' diaries.

00:19:58.000 During my senior year in college, I studied almost nothing but Abraham Lincoln speeches.

00:20:02.000 While I wrote my thesis on a key Lincoln address, Civil War rhetoric was almost all I read.

00:20:06.000 Not just that of the 16th president, but also that of his adversaries.

00:20:09.000 Thinking back on those debates, I finally figured out the reasonable rights rhetoric is exactly the same as the antebellum rhetoric I'd read so much of.

00:20:17.000 The same exact words, the same exact arguments.

00:20:20.000 Rhetoric, to be precise, in support of the slave-owning South. 0.98

00:20:24.000 So, I say that we're on the same side, because Nazis suck, and she reads, from that, I'm a neoconfederate. 0.94

00:20:32.000 And so is Barry Weiss, and so is Jordan Peterson, and so is Jonathan Haidt. 0.95

00:20:36.000 All of us saying, why don't we have like a conversation and talk about stuff?

00:20:40.000 We're just like the people who decided to fight a civil war to secede from the United States while enslaving millions of black people. 0.98

00:20:46.000 Exactly the same.

00:20:48.000 The same, guys. 1.00

00:20:49.000 Because you're crazy. 0.99

00:20:51.000 And you're proving my point. 0.99

00:20:53.000 My whole point is that you are separating America by calling me a slaveholder.

00:20:58.000 By likening me to a neo-confederate.

00:21:00.000 You are separating America. 0.53

00:21:02.000 That was my entire argument.

00:21:03.000 And your response is, but aren't you though?

00:21:05.000 But aren't you a neo-confederate?

00:21:06.000 Okay, seriously.

00:21:10.000 Seriously.

00:21:12.000 She says, if it sounds absurd Shapiro and his compatriots aren't defending slavery after all, it may actually be because many Americans are unfamiliar with the South's actual rhetoric.

00:21:21.000 When I was a kid in public school, I learned the arguments of Senator John Calhoun, who called slavery a positive good, and Alexander Stevens, the Confederacy's vice president, who declared that the South's ideological cornerstone rested upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man.

00:21:35.000 But such clear statements were not the norm.

00:21:37.000 Pro-slavery rhetoricians talked little of slavery itself.

00:21:40.000 Instead, they anointed themselves the defenders of reason, free speech, and civility.

00:21:45.000 This is such unbelievable horse bleep.

00:21:47.000 Hey, you know who else called themselves defenders of reason, free speech and civility?

00:21:52.000 Abolitionists. 0.95

00:21:53.000 Hey, everyone was.

00:21:56.000 Many people talk this way.

00:21:58.000 Why?

00:21:58.000 Because sometimes conversation is a good thing.

00:22:01.000 Like if she studied the period of the Lincoln The Antebellum South and the Antebellum North.

00:22:07.000 If she's talking about that period, you know what was one of the things that happened?

00:22:10.000 There was this thing, I hate to remind her, called the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where they had a conversation about slavery.

00:22:16.000 And you know when things went wrong?

00:22:18.000 When people started beating the crap out of each other with canes on the floor of the Senate.

00:22:22.000 When people started firing on each other.

00:22:24.000 When a whole group of people were enslaving a whole other group of people.

00:22:27.000 That was the big problem, not the conversation, guys.

00:22:30.000 Not the conversation.

00:22:32.000 That was the problem.

00:22:34.000 The war had to be fought because some people were holding other people in bondage.

00:22:38.000 And they weren't going to give up those people who were in bondage without using violence.

00:22:44.000 That is not reason and civility on the part of the South.

00:22:47.000 That's holding people in bondage. 1.00

00:22:48.000 Do you not know what slavery is, you stupid ass? 1.00

00:22:52.000 She says, it might sound strange that America's pro-slavery faction styled itself the guardians of freedom and minority rights, and yet it did. 1.00

00:22:59.000 In a deep study of antebellum Southern rhetoric, Patricia Roberts Miller, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Texas at Austin, characterizes the story that pro-slavery writers wanted to tell between 1830s and 1860s as not one of demanding more power, but of David resisting Goliath.

00:23:14.000 They stress the importance of logic, facts, truth, science, and nature much more than Northern rhetoricians did.

00:23:20.000 Um, does she have any, like, anything to back this up?

00:23:24.000 At all?

00:23:25.000 She says they chided their adversaries.

00:23:27.000 And also, does that make it inherently bad to talk about logic, facts, truth, science, and nature?

00:23:33.000 Again, this is the problem.

00:23:34.000 She's saying some people use these arguments in bad ways.

00:23:38.000 They use these words in bad ways.

00:23:39.000 Therefore, the very use of the word is bad.

00:23:42.000 What a... I mean, I can see why she doesn't like logic. 0.69

00:23:47.000 I can see why she doesn't like facts or truth, because they cut really strongly against her argument.

00:23:53.000 She says, they loved hyperbole.

00:23:54.000 Events were the most extraordinary spectacles that had ever challenged the notice of the civilized world, too alarming and threatened to destroy all that is valuable and beautiful in the institutions of our country.

00:24:03.000 All over, they saw slippery slopes.

00:24:06.000 This argument is literally A is is a hyperbolic slippery slope argument.

00:24:13.000 Her entire argument is that if you have a conversation with me, you end up a neoconfederate.

00:24:17.000 Her argument is that I and Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt are all neoconfederates, which is about as hyperbolic as it gets.

00:24:23.000 This is all insane and self defeating, of course.

00:24:27.000 She says all of this is there in the reasonable right.

00:24:31.000 The claim that they are the little people struggling against prevailing winds.

00:24:34.000 The argument they're the ones championing reason and common sense.

00:24:37.000 The allegation that their interlocutors aren't so much wrong as excessive.

00:24:41.000 They're just trying to think freely and are being tormented.

00:24:43.000 The reliance on hyperbole and slippery slopes to warn about their adversaries intentions and powers.

00:24:48.000 The depiction of their opponents as an orthodoxy, an epithet the antebellum South loved.

00:24:54.000 She is literally making the exact opposite argument of the argument she thinks she is making.

00:24:54.000 Okay.

00:24:58.000 So she is saying that all of this sort of rhetoric is unique to the South and also to the reasonable right.

00:25:06.000 She is literally making that argument about the right in this article.

00:25:10.000 It's like everything that she says was the rhetoric of the antebellum South is exactly the sort of rhetoric she is using in the article itself about her own enemies.

00:25:18.000 She says, in Ben Shapiro, who ascribes right-wing anger to unwise left-wing provocation, I hear a letter printed in the Charleston Mercury, which warned that if the mad career of the hot-headed abolitionists should lead to acts of violence on the part of those whom they so vindictively assail, who shall be accountable?

00:25:33.000 Not the South.

00:25:34.000 Oh, really?

00:25:35.000 Is that what you hear?

00:25:36.000 Really?

00:25:36.000 That's where you get that?

00:25:39.000 Good for you, lady. 0.96

00:25:42.000 And then she goes on to talk about How we're not victims, right?

00:25:46.000 I'm not a victim.

00:25:47.000 The right is... I've never claimed that the right is a victim.

00:25:50.000 I have said that the left-wing argument that everyone on the right lacks character is a nasty crap argument and that this article is garbage. 0.98

00:25:57.000 That her entire perspective on the character of her opponents is malign. 0.99

00:26:01.000 That it is terrible for the country.

00:26:03.000 That it prevents exactly the sort of political debate we need to function as a republic.

00:26:08.000 She says, is it true that it's career-ending to be of the reasonable right?

00:26:12.000 Shapiro's recent The Right Side of History was a New York Times number one bestseller.

00:26:17.000 Yes, you know why? 0.94

00:26:18.000 Not because of CNN, not because of the New York Times, not because of the Washington Post, but because you have excised more than half the country by calling them racist, sexist, bigots, and homophobes.

00:26:28.000 So when I write a book that explicitly derides Sectionalism and tribalism and factionalism that explicitly rips on white supremacy multiple times.

00:26:38.000 There's a big audience for it.

00:26:41.000 This article is insane, but don't worry, there's another insane article.

00:26:44.000 If you don't like that one, I have another insane article for you.

00:26:46.000 We'll get to it.

00:26:47.000 In just one second.

00:26:49.000 First, let's talk about finding good people on your staff.

00:26:52.000 So I'll be honest with you.

00:26:53.000 I have one good producer and one good producer only.

00:26:54.000 Her name is Rebecca.

00:26:55.000 She's the only serious person who's ever in the room for our shows.

00:26:58.000 All of my other producers, they're good at what they job, at their job like half the time.

00:27:02.000 And then on Friday, they insist on wearing Hawaiian shirts.

00:27:04.000 It's very bizarre.

00:27:05.000 Well, if you're looking to upgrade your staff, what you actually need is ZipRecruiter.com.

00:27:10.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire, in fact.

00:27:13.000 ZipRecruiter sends your job postings to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.

00:27:18.000 As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.

00:27:24.000 ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.

00:27:31.000 Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:27:37.000 That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.

00:27:44.000 ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire. 0.73

00:27:46.000 Honestly, everybody here is fairly good.

00:27:48.000 And we're constantly adding new producers.

00:27:50.000 We're constantly hiring.

00:27:50.000 And that's why we do use ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.

00:27:54.000 But I want everybody except Rebecca to know their job is not safe.

00:27:57.000 So ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.

00:27:59.000 Once again, ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.

00:28:04.000 Rebecca drew the short straw on that ad today.

00:28:06.000 So Rebecca's wearing a Hawaiian shirt today. 1.00

00:28:10.000 Ooh, that totally undercuts the premise of that ad read.

00:28:13.000 In any case, back to this article from the Washington Post.

00:28:18.000 I love this.

00:28:18.000 They say, many reasonable right figures find themselves defending the liberties of people to the right of them.

00:28:23.000 Not because they agree with those people, they say, but on principle.

00:28:25.000 Ooh, they have principles.

00:28:27.000 You know who else had principles?

00:28:29.000 Hmm?

00:28:29.000 Do you?

00:28:31.000 It was Hitler. 0.92

00:28:32.000 Hitler had principles! 0.96

00:28:34.000 Like, what the?

00:28:34.000 Sam Harris, a popular podcast host, has released three lengthy shows about Charles Murray, a political scientist who is often booed at campus speeches and whose 2017 talk at Middlebury College ended when students injured his host.

00:28:46.000 Murray argues that white people test higher than black people on every known test of cognitive ability and that these differences in capacity predict white people's predominance.

00:28:54.000 Well, actually, that's not exactly what Charles Murray argues, and if you read his books, what you would recognize is that he explicitly says that IQ differentials among races are At least largely not due to genetics.

00:29:04.000 He says we don't actually know what IQ differentials based on race are based on.

00:29:08.000 There is malleability in IQ.

00:29:10.000 Not total malleability, but some malleability in IQ.

00:29:12.000 It could be environment.

00:29:13.000 It could be nutrition.

00:29:13.000 It could be a variety of factors.

00:29:15.000 Could be environmental.

00:29:16.000 Could be genetic.

00:29:17.000 He doesn't know.

00:29:17.000 Okay, that's what Charles Murray says.

00:29:19.000 But Sam Harris's point is we actually have to investigate science and then use the best data available when we make arguments.

00:29:25.000 And she's saying that Sam Harris defending Charles Murray on the basis of we need to investigate science means that Sam Harris is a neoconfederate.

00:29:33.000 She says Harris's claim is implausible.

00:29:35.000 Hundreds of scientists produce controversial work in the fields of race, demographics, and inequality.

00:29:39.000 Only one, though, is the social scientist nationally notorious for suggesting that white people are innately smarter than people of color.

00:29:46.000 Well, because he wrote a best-selling book on IQ.

00:29:50.000 That would be the why right there.

00:29:51.000 But apparently, she says, because Harris chooses to invite this one on his show, suggests he is not merely motivated by freedom of speech.

00:29:58.000 It suggests he is interested in what Murray has to say.

00:30:00.000 Ooh, he's interested in a social scientist examining data. 0.88

00:30:04.000 Wow, that means that he's a neoconfederate racist, obviously. 0.82

00:30:07.000 So much neo-confederate racism. 0.98

00:30:09.000 Racism, racism everywhere.

00:30:10.000 So again, this piece started by pointing out that I had suggested that we're all on the same side against white supremacy and that it is bad for the left to declare everyone a white supremacist because that separates us artificially.

00:30:22.000 And her response is, you know who would say that?

00:30:24.000 White supremacists. 1.00

00:30:26.000 Well done, Washington Post, you stupid... Man, I want to curse like Dave Chappelle here. 1.00

00:30:31.000 You stupid MFers. 1.00

00:30:32.000 I mean, you guys are just terrible at your jobs, but We're not done. 1.00

00:30:37.000 So that was, I told you there were two editorials in the Washington Post.

00:30:40.000 That was only one of them.

00:30:41.000 I got another one for you.

00:30:43.000 Are you ready?

00:30:43.000 This one is just as good.

00:30:45.000 It turns out, aside from reasonable conversation being bad, also debate is bad.

00:30:51.000 Debate is also bad.

00:30:52.000 So this article is by Donna Zuckerberg, a Silicon Valley-based classics scholar and the author of Not All Dead White Men.

00:31:00.000 Oh great.

00:31:01.000 She says the problems with online debate me culture.

00:31:04.000 She says anyone who regularly expresses ideas on the internet, especially women who express ideas critical of men, has encountered that bane of online discourse.

00:31:12.000 The man who appears seemingly out of nowhere to insist on a debate.

00:31:19.000 Scary men wanting to bait.

00:31:21.000 Cat calling, as AOC would put it.

00:31:23.000 Because, as we all know, the most vicious form of sexual abuse and harassment is to say, let's have a serious talk about marginal tax rates.

00:31:34.000 That's how I hit on my wife, by the way. 1.00

00:31:35.000 That's how it first got started.

00:31:37.000 She was walking by, I was like, wanna talk about some top marginal tax rates?

00:31:41.000 I'd cut your capital gains taxes, let me tell you that.

00:31:45.000 Wanted to bait the death penalty?

00:31:47.000 That actually did happen on our second date. 1.00

00:31:49.000 In any case, this idiotic Washington Post column, the second one, again, on the same day, they're so good at their jobs. 0.98

00:31:57.000 They say, a classic example came a few weeks ago after Barstool Sports founder and president Dave Portnoy threatened on Twitter to fire his workers if they tried to unionize. 0.98

00:32:04.000 After representative AOC joined the chorus of critics suggesting that such threats violated labor law, Portnoy fired back, hey AOC, welcome to Thunderdome, debate me.

00:32:13.000 She ignored the request and in a follow-up tweet, he naturally suggested that she had run from the challenge like a terrified child.

00:32:19.000 Apparently he's the bad guy.

00:32:20.000 So she attacks his business, suggested he's a criminal.

00:32:22.000 He says, fine, let's have a debate over it. 0.93

00:32:24.000 He's very evil.

00:32:26.000 He initiated this.

00:32:27.000 You see, she yelled at him that he was going to go to jail.

00:32:30.000 And then he was like, OK, let's debate about this.

00:32:32.000 And what a bad man he is. 0.90

00:32:34.000 Very bad.

00:32:36.000 But he's not the only bad man, and this is where I come in.

00:32:38.000 Ocasio-Cortez is a popular target of debate-me dudes who can be high-profile media figures or not entities.

00:32:45.000 In August 2018, the radio host and Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro offered her $10,000 to argue with him in a public forum.

00:32:51.000 Well, actually, I offered her $10,000 to appear on the Sunday special, which, as anyone who has ever watched the Sunday special recognizes, is not actually a debate forum.

00:32:57.000 It's actually a discussion forum.

00:32:59.000 I know the left doesn't know the difference.

00:33:01.000 She refused, likening the challenge to a catcall.

00:33:03.000 Unworthy of a response.

00:33:05.000 Because, that's me.

00:33:06.000 I am famous for my catcalls. 0.78

00:33:08.000 The Orthodox Jew who slept with one woman in his life after he was married.

00:33:11.000 That's my thing. 0.97

00:33:12.000 I catcall women all the time. 1.00

00:33:14.000 Ask around the office, man.

00:33:15.000 It is me.

00:33:16.000 I am just... That's all... In fact, I just hire women so I can catcall them. 1.00

00:33:21.000 Like Mitt Romney, I have a binder full of them.

00:33:24.000 Shapiro has long made to bait me part of his public persona.

00:33:27.000 Nonsense!

00:33:28.000 Nonsense!

00:33:30.000 I've debated a multiplicity of left-wing figures, ranging from Piers Morgan on guns on CNN to Cenk Igor over at Politicon.

00:33:37.000 I've challenged, I believe, precisely two people to debate ever.

00:33:41.000 One was AOC when it became clear that she was the fresh face, so fresh, so face of the Democratic Party.

00:33:45.000 The other was Bernie Sanders, who is a man, as it turns out.

00:33:48.000 So it's not sexual harassment because, number one, I was not sexually harassing AOC, and number two, I certainly would never sexually harass Bernie Sanders.

00:33:57.000 That seems weird in a variety of ways.

00:33:59.000 It says targeting both men and women, although he himself has ignored debate requests.

00:34:04.000 Yes, that's true.

00:34:05.000 I have ignored many debate requests.

00:34:07.000 Because, again, you know what happens in a free country?

00:34:10.000 People challenge each other to debates.

00:34:11.000 Some people say no.

00:34:13.000 Some people say yes.

00:34:14.000 This is not a bad thing.

00:34:15.000 But according to this article in the Washington Post, it's a very, very bad thing.

00:34:19.000 A very evil and very bad thing.

00:34:22.000 And you know who is the worst?

00:34:23.000 Here's where the article gets spectacularly great.

00:34:26.000 You know who was the worst when it came to debate me culture and wanting to debate people?

00:34:30.000 Socrates.

00:34:31.000 Socrates is cancelled.

00:34:33.000 I'm not kidding.

00:34:34.000 That's where this classic scholar goes. 1.00

00:34:36.000 Apparently they were right to hemlock that old bastard. 1.00

00:34:41.000 Washington Post, man. 0.99

00:34:42.000 They are great at their jobs over at the editorial page. 1.00

00:34:45.000 We'll get to more of this stupidity in just one second. 1.00

00:34:48.000 First, let's talk about going to the post office. 0.99

00:34:50.000 So the truth is I kind of like the post office, but it takes a lot of time to get there, to get back.

00:34:54.000 I have to spend money on gas.

00:34:56.000 I have to wait in line.

00:34:57.000 Why would I do any of that stuff?

00:34:58.000 I'll be frank with you.

00:34:59.000 I am lazy and I like to do stuff from my computer.

00:35:01.000 If you are like me and you are also lazy and like to save money and do stuff from your computer, you should be using stamps.com.

00:35:07.000 Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.

00:35:10.000 Postal Service direct to your computer.

00:35:11.000 Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.

00:35:19.000 Simply use your computer to print official U.S.

00:35:21.000 postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.

00:35:26.000 Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or you drop it in a mailbox.

00:35:29.000 It is indeed that simple.

00:35:31.000 Stamps.com is a no-brainer.

00:35:32.000 It saves you time, it saves you money.

00:35:34.000 It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.

00:35:38.000 Stamps.com, again, you're gonna save yourself a lot of time and a lot of money.

00:35:41.000 I don't like going to the post office anymore because it's so much easier to do it right here.

00:35:44.000 And right now, my listeners get a special offer.

00:35:46.000 That includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale.

00:35:49.000 No long-term commitment.

00:35:51.000 Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in Shapiro.

00:35:55.000 That is stamps.com.

00:35:56.000 Enter Shapiro as your code.

00:35:58.000 Alrighty, so we're gonna get to more from the illustrious Washington Post editorial page in just one second.

00:36:03.000 Socrates, guys, is canceled.

00:36:05.000 Socrates is... I'm sorry to inform you that several thousand years after his death, He has now been canceled.

00:36:11.000 And it turns out that they were right to demand his suicide, according to this columnist for the Washington Post, because I once said that AOC should discuss politics with me.

00:36:19.000 And so did Dave Portnoy, which is bad.

00:36:21.000 Very, very bad.

00:36:23.000 Can't do that.

00:36:24.000 We'll get to more of that in just one second.

00:36:25.000 First, you need to go over and subscribe over at dailywire.com.

00:36:28.000 Why should you do this thing?

00:36:29.000 You should do this thing because cancel culture is coming for everyone, including for this show, but you help protect us by becoming subscribers.

00:36:35.000 We are growing by leaps and bounds, our team, and you should join up.

00:36:38.000 Also, because you get all sorts of goodies.

00:36:40.000 For example, you get our Sunday special on Saturdays, which is pretty spectacular.

00:36:45.000 So, you should go check it out.

00:36:47.000 Do we have a clip from this week's Sunday special?

00:36:49.000 Okay, so let's play that thing.

00:36:52.000 Everything that the left is trying to do is a threat to who we are as the nation.

00:36:57.000 Everything that we are built on, all the principles that we're built on, is on the line when it comes to the policies that the radical left is putting forward.

00:37:05.000 And if we don't stop those, the next generation, our children and our grandchildren, aren't going to know the same America that we know.

00:37:10.000 If you didn't recognize that voice, that is indeed Liz Wheeler.

00:37:12.000 It's a good, far-ranging conversation on politics.

00:37:15.000 We disagree about Trump and his tweets.

00:37:17.000 She's a big fan.

00:37:18.000 As you know, I am a little more divided on that question, but the discussion is really good.

00:37:22.000 You get that early when you become a subscriber.

00:37:24.000 You also get all sorts of great stuff behind the paywall, and it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout-out to a new Daily Wire subscriber.

00:37:31.000 Today, it is Hunter Knox on Instagram, who clearly respects our show enough to dress up for viewings.

00:37:36.000 In the picture, Hunter, a handsome German shepherd, sits at the coffee table donning a fantastic American flag bowtie, an elite beverage vessel, at the ready, right next to a laptop emblazoned with Ted Cruz for Senate, and taxation is theft stickers.

00:37:49.000 That is one smart dog.

00:37:51.000 Good doggie.

00:37:52.000 The caption reads, Hunter wakes me up in the morning to get, to one, get fed, two, get let out, three, watch the Ben Shapiro show.

00:37:59.000 We can't wait for Daily Wire to move to the best country in the United States.

00:38:04.000 But if you have a pet, as we have already discussed, this means you're like Hitler. 0.91

00:38:08.000 fantastic place.

00:38:08.000 Hitler also had a dog.

00:38:09.000 And that is a spectacular dog.

00:38:11.000 Great picture.

00:38:11.000 And thank you for sharing.

00:38:12.000 You too can be featured or your pet can be featured over.

00:38:15.000 But if you have a pet, as we have already discussed, this means you're like Hitler. 0.91

00:38:18.000 Hitler also had a dog.

00:38:19.000 So if you have a pet, if you have a pet and you want to take a picture of your pet next to the Tumblr, You have a great... Our people who select these, they really like the pets.

00:38:27.000 So go check that out right now at Leftist Tears Tumblr.

00:38:31.000 Also, more good news for you.

00:38:32.000 The Daily Wire has turned four years old.

00:38:34.000 As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses the code BIRTHDAY for all of August as we celebrate this milestone.

00:38:43.000 We've been giving away that free first month for our new premium monthly subscribers.

00:38:46.000 Bad news, August is over, like, right now.

00:38:48.000 So go do it right now.

00:38:49.000 Again, just use the code BIRTHDAY.

00:38:51.000 Time is quickly running out.

00:38:52.000 Yep.

00:38:53.000 There's only one day left.

00:38:55.000 One day more to get this deal.

00:38:57.000 So subscribe today and come join the fun.

00:38:59.000 We're having such a good time.

00:39:00.000 Everybody's wearing Hawaiian shirts.

00:39:02.000 That could be you.

00:39:03.000 Go check us out at dailywire.com.

00:39:04.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:39:08.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast.

00:39:25.000 And you know who was the best exemplar of a person who was constantly trying to debate people?

00:39:25.000 That's real bad.

00:39:29.000 That old bastard Socrates. 1.00

00:39:32.000 That jerk. 1.00

00:39:33.000 You know, the guy from Plato's Republic, who was one of the foundational figures of Western civilization? 1.00

00:39:38.000 That guy?

00:39:39.000 Really bad, it turns out.

00:39:41.000 Really messed up.

00:39:43.000 According to this brilliant classic scholar, Donna Zuckerberg in the Washington Post.

00:39:47.000 Quote, as the editor of an online publication that runs articles about the intersections of classical antiquity and the modern world, often from a feminist and progressive perspective, I've gotten my fair share of debate me challenges.

00:39:58.000 Many of these have come after I began writing about far-right interest in ancient Greece and Rome in 2016.

00:40:03.000 Blocking some of my would-be adversaries on Twitter seemed to just energize them and convince them I was afraid to engage.

00:40:09.000 Oh, poor you.

00:40:09.000 Poor you.

00:40:10.000 Poor baby.

00:40:11.000 A call to debate may seem intellectual, even civilized.

00:40:13.000 In theory, well-structured and respectful debates are an ideal opportunity to reach an audience that isn't fixed in its views.

00:40:19.000 In reality, however, most debate me types seem to view them mainly as a chance to attack their opponent's credibility.

00:40:24.000 Their model is not Lincoln and Douglas, but rather Socrates.

00:40:28.000 Wow, terrible.

00:40:29.000 Using Socrates as a model.

00:40:31.000 Also, just to get this straight, apparently, according to that, you guys should coordinate.

00:40:36.000 Walk down the hall to that other op-ed columnist, because the other column was saying that Lincoln-Douglas debates were bad because a lot of slaveholders wanted reasonable civil discussion.

00:40:44.000 Now this one is saying that Lincoln-Douglas debates were good.

00:40:46.000 Those were over slavery, by the way.

00:40:48.000 That Lincoln-Douglas debates were good, but Socrates was bad.

00:40:50.000 So can you make up your minds which discussions and debates are allowed from classical literature?

00:40:55.000 Can you make up your minds?

00:40:56.000 She says Socrates was bad.

00:40:59.000 He's cancelled. 1.00

00:40:59.000 By needling their interloculars with rapid fire questions, they aim to reveal, as they see it, their opponent's ignorance and stupidity, and their own superior intelligence and logic. 1.00

00:41:09.000 And then she talks about how at one time a white nationalist YouTube personality decided to appear in her Twitter mentions and insisted that she called the classics inherently fascist. 0.96

00:41:18.000 She said, My actual nuanced argument is that the long enmeshment of the classics and white supremacy both in Nazi Germany and in the pre-Civil War American South continues to inform how we understand the ancient Mediterranean and that progressive classical scholars should discuss that legacy and confront it.

00:41:34.000 It is no surprise that someone like this whom I ignored would draw on stoicism, which has emerged as the favorite philosophy both of corporate executives and the far right.

00:41:41.000 Ah, the Stoics are cancelled.

00:41:42.000 Marcus Aurelius is cancelled, guys.

00:41:44.000 This feminist scholar says it? 1.00

00:41:46.000 I guess we're done.

00:41:47.000 She says these modest men also identify with Socrates, the original debate-me troll.

00:41:52.000 The Platonic texts show Socrates pulling any number of Athenians into debate, and although some are eager to argue with him, others can hardly wait to escape him by the end of the dialogue.

00:42:01.000 Plato's Eurypthro concludes with Eurypthro insisting he has to leave, while Socrates calls after him, complaining they haven't yet figured out the nature of piety.

00:42:09.000 Many of the dialogues end when the interlocutor has been bludgeoned into submission and seems to find it easier to agree with Socrates than continue further.

00:42:16.000 Every debate me man's dream.

00:42:18.000 Socrates is cancelled, guys.

00:42:20.000 Socrates is cancelled.

00:42:23.000 It's just, this is so insane.

00:42:27.000 But there is a deeper agenda, okay?

00:42:28.000 The deeper agenda is we can't have discussions, right?

00:42:30.000 That really is the deeper agenda. 0.88

00:42:31.000 If you call for a reasonable discussion, it's because you're a Nazi. 0.70

00:42:34.000 Also, if you say, let's discuss or debate, it's because you're like Socrates, and Socrates was a pre-Nazi, so you're a Nazi. 0.73

00:42:41.000 In other words, there is no argument to be had with you, because the very fact that you are asking for a reasonable conversation shows how unreasonable you are, you see.

00:42:50.000 And the very fact that I refuse to engage with you shows how reasonable I am on the left.

00:42:54.000 Because, premise reinforced, you're a bad person, guys.

00:42:57.000 And then when all of us out here, we're like, okay, well, I guess we can't have a conversation.

00:43:01.000 And they're like, well, now you don't want to have a conversation with me? 0.69

00:43:04.000 You bad people, you.

00:43:06.000 Obviously, this is not good for the country.

00:43:09.000 It's actually kind of dangerous to suggest that every one of your political opponents actually is a white supremacist for wanting a reasonable conversation, or that if somebody says, you know what, you have a different idea than I do, let's get together and discuss it or debate it publicly, that that is inherently an act of violent male oppression.

00:43:26.000 How the hell do you think republicanism works?

00:43:29.000 Discussions are inherently, but this is unfortunately becoming a thing on the left.

00:43:33.000 And I'll provide you a perfect example.

00:43:35.000 Okay, so there was a really fascinating study that came out yesterday.

00:43:38.000 Okay, I knew about the study a few weeks in advance, because I had actually talked with one of the people who helped conduct the study, who is not on the political right.

00:43:45.000 Okay, well, this study was all about the genetics of same-sex sexuality.

00:43:50.000 Now, my perspective has always been that homosexuality, homosexual activity, and orientation, that this was, like most human activity, a combination of genetics and environment.

00:43:59.000 I was never a believer because the evidence did not support it that you are quote-unquote born this way in a binary way meaning that genetics determines 100% of your sexual orientation.

00:44:09.000 I think for some people that may be true.

00:44:10.000 I think for the broad majority of people, that is not true.

00:44:13.000 That genetics interacts with environments, interacts with epigenetics, and that you come out sort of how you come out, right?

00:44:19.000 I mean, that seems like a perfectly reasonable position given the fact that there are already twin studies that showed that among genetically identical twins, only half of those genetically identical twins ended up either both straight or both gay, right? 0.85

00:44:31.000 That when you had one gay twin, half the time the other twin was straight, which suggests obviously that this is not genetically encoded the same way that, for example, race would be, right? 0.53

00:44:40.000 If you are genetically identical, one of you is black, you're genetically identical, the other one of you will be black, right? 1.00

00:44:45.000 I mean, that's just the way that genetics works. 0.76

00:44:46.000 Okay, so...

00:44:48.000 This new study comes out and the new study basically suggests that this stuff is kind of nuanced, just like most things in life.

00:44:55.000 And this should not be particularly controversial, frankly.

00:44:58.000 This should not be like a big deal, because what exactly does it undermine?

00:45:02.000 I mean, is it the suggestion now that we should now prosecute people again for homosexual activity like that? 1.00

00:45:08.000 That doesn't undermine the libertarian argument that if you're doing something consensual, that doesn't harm anybody else.

00:45:12.000 You should be able to do what you want.

00:45:14.000 But the left is very unhappy about this study.

00:45:16.000 Very, very unhappy.

00:45:17.000 So, what does the study say?

00:45:18.000 Well, there's an op-ed about it by Stephen Phelps and Robert Wedow.

00:45:23.000 Phelps is a biologist, Wiedau is a sociologist and geneticist, in the New York Times.

00:45:27.000 And here is what the study found.

00:45:28.000 It says, A study published Thursday in Science looked at DNA and sexual behavior of nearly 500,000 people.

00:45:34.000 It found that the sex of your sexual partners is, in fact, influenced by your genes.

00:45:37.000 But it also found it was not possible to predict your sexual behavior from your DNA alone.

00:45:42.000 The study suggested, in other words, that biology shapes our most intimate selves, but it does so in tandem with our personal histories, with the idiosyncratic selves that unfold in the larger cultural and social context.

00:45:53.000 The researchers, who included one of us, Dr. Wiedow, analyzed the genetic markers of people who responded to the question, have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex?

00:46:01.000 From these data, the researchers estimated that genetic differences account for roughly one-third of the variation in same-sex behavior.

00:46:08.000 Okay, so, not an extraordinarily high percentage.

00:46:10.000 Not like 80%, it's not 90%, it's like a third.

00:46:13.000 And as the study actually says, somewhere between 8% and 25%.

00:46:17.000 The study also identified several DNA sequence variants associated with having had a same-sex experience.

00:46:22.000 In other words, there's not a gene that turns on and says, okay, now you're gay, or now you're straight.

00:46:26.000 Instead, there are genes that range from associations with more risky sexual behavior to Sort of a certain level of fluidity in terms of sexual desire.

00:46:36.000 Again, all of this is nuanced, which is fine.

00:46:39.000 Science can be nuanced, right?

00:46:41.000 So yes, your sex life is influenced by your genes.

00:46:43.000 Now, again, I'm not sure who is arguing your sex life is not influenced by your genes.

00:46:47.000 I mean, I think that, again, as biological entities, it would be bizarre if your sex life was not influenced by your genes at all. 0.99

00:46:54.000 The entire binary argument that either you are born 100% this way or you are born 100% not this way and you just choose to be gay or something, I always thought that was a dumb argument and a waste of time. 0.92

00:47:03.000 This conclusion fits with our personal experiences and intuitions. 0.94

00:47:06.000 Sexual desire is typically stable, something we often are aware of from our first longings.

00:47:11.000 Furthermore, one of the several DNA variants identified in Thursday's study is involved in gonad development, which accords with previous research that links sexual orientation to hormone exposure.

00:47:20.000 But the study's findings also complicate the relationship between genetics and sexuality.

00:47:24.000 For one thing, the results make clear there is no single biology of sexual behavior.

00:47:28.000 It turns out, for example, that the genes influencing same-sex behavior in females are often different from those that shape behaviors in males.

00:47:35.000 Okay.

00:47:35.000 It also turns out that the genes associated with having occasional same-sex experiences are unlinked to having exclusively same-sex experiences.

00:47:43.000 So, in other words, people who are bisexual have a different genetic profile than people who are exclusively homosexual. 0.59

00:47:49.000 Or people who consider themselves straight, but have strayed into same-sex territory briefly, have a different genetic profile than people who exclusively are interested in same-sex experiences.

00:48:00.000 In addition, people who only occasionally have same-sex partners tend to have genetic variants associated with having more sexual partners overall, and with personality traits like openness to new experience, which Makes perfect sense.

00:48:11.000 Again, if you are a person who is experimenting, you would imagine that your genetic profile would probably be more risk-seeking, right?

00:48:17.000 In contrast, the study found that exclusively same-sex behavior had little correlation with the biology of personality.

00:48:23.000 For some people, same-sex behavior may be a form of exploration.

00:48:26.000 For many others, it is not.

00:48:28.000 Okay, so this seems like a study that is interesting.

00:48:33.000 It does give the lie to the Lady Gaga, baby, I'm born this way, therefore I have no influence over my human behavior kind of stuff.

00:48:41.000 But it doesn't undercut any of the arguments for same-sex civil rights, for example.

00:48:44.000 It doesn't undercut the libertarian argument, again, the non-harm J.S.

00:48:47.000 Mill principle, John Stuart Mill principle, that you should be able to do what you want so long as you're not hitting me in the nose, right?

00:48:52.000 What it does do is it undercuts one of the key arguments that the left has been holding for 40 years and that is not true by evidence.

00:48:59.000 And that argument is again that sexual orientation is just as genetically encoded as race.

00:49:05.000 In just as binary a way.

00:49:07.000 And the sexual orientation is just as immutable as race.

00:49:10.000 Which again, was fairly obviously not true.

00:49:12.000 Because what we have seen generationally is vast changes in sexual behavior.

00:49:17.000 And I'm not even talking homosexual or bisexual versus straight.

00:49:20.000 I'm talking even within straight communities you've seen vastly more sexual partners over the last 40 years.

00:49:25.000 Okay, was that genetically encoded or environmental?

00:49:28.000 Probably had something to do with the environment.

00:49:29.000 We're seeing dramatic escalation in same-sex experimentation in recent years.

00:49:33.000 Is that a great shock, considering how the media has portrayed this sort of exploration?

00:49:38.000 No, not really.

00:49:39.000 I mean, the only people who are undercut by this argument are the folks who suggest, on the one hand, that sexuality is entirely a choice, which is not true.

00:49:49.000 I mean, your drive is not entirely a choice.

00:49:52.000 And the people who suggest that sexual behavior is not at all a choice for anyone.

00:49:57.000 That it is entirely ingrained and genetically based, entirely no environmental, no choice aspect of it at all.

00:50:03.000 It turns out, again, like most things in life, This is a nuanced topic.

00:50:07.000 Now, why is this important?

00:50:08.000 Well, it's important, number one, because it does have some public policy ramifications.

00:50:12.000 So, for example, you are a young person who's experiencing same-sex desire, and you don't want to experience same-sex desire, and so you go see a psychologist to talk about that.

00:50:21.000 The entire left says, waste of time, you can't do that, it'll damage you, it's really bad.

00:50:24.000 Okay, well, the evidence is not necessarily there for that. 0.99

00:50:28.000 That's why the left likes to, when it talks about, for example, gay conversion therapy, they like to go to electrocuting people, which is insane and ridiculous and horrible. 0.93

00:50:35.000 They're not talking about the 17-year-old who's conflicted about sexual desire and may have desires in multiple directions and wants to talk to somebody about it, right? 0.91

00:50:42.000 But, more than that, the reason that this is relevant is because there is a push by the left to shut down this study.

00:50:51.000 And so, the New York Times has a piece today called, Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single Gay Gene.

00:50:59.000 The piece is by Pam Bellick.

00:51:01.000 And Benjamin Neal, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, one of the lead researchers, he said, I hope the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behavior is.

00:51:11.000 Now again, natural and normal does not mean moral in the traditional religious sense, because lots of people have lots of desires.

00:51:18.000 That does not necessarily mean that fulfilling those desires in action.

00:51:22.000 Is not sinful, but sure.

00:51:23.000 I mean, if you want to say genetically normal, that at least it is genetically based to a certain extent, of course, that's true.

00:51:30.000 Homosexual activity exists in the animal kingdom as well. 0.58

00:51:33.000 Benjamin Neal says it's written into our genes and it's part of our environment.

00:51:35.000 This is part of our species.

00:51:36.000 It's part of who we are.

00:51:37.000 OK, that's fine.

00:51:38.000 And again, I don't really see the problem with that.

00:51:42.000 But there is a problem with the study, and it's the left objecting.

00:51:45.000 Even before its publication Thursday in the journal Science, the study has generated debate and concern, including within the renowned Broad Institute itself.

00:51:52.000 Several scientists who are part of the LGBTQ community said they were worried the findings could give ammunition to people who seek to use science to bolster biases and discrimination against gay people.

00:52:02.000 In other words, shut down the science because it might not achieve the result we want.

00:52:06.000 If the results had been that there is one gay gene, And that sexual orientation is immutable, unchanging, and entirely genetically based, not entirely environmental, then you release the findings.

00:52:16.000 But if it cuts against that, then you can't release the findings because it undercuts our argument.

00:52:20.000 Here's an idea.

00:52:21.000 Have a better argument.

00:52:22.000 There are plenty of good arguments for same-sex civil rights.

00:52:25.000 I've made a bunch of libertarian arguments on that basis.

00:52:28.000 I think that those are perfectly valid arguments.

00:52:31.000 They're worthy of debate and disagreement.

00:52:33.000 But if you're basing your bad arguments on bad science, maybe you should change your argument instead of trying to shut down the science.

00:52:40.000 But unfortunately, this is the tendency of a lot of people on the left.

00:52:43.000 No debate, no discussion.

00:52:44.000 Whenever things get dicey for your argument, you just try and shut it down.

00:52:48.000 Shut that stuff down.

00:52:49.000 Cancel it.

00:52:50.000 Steven Reilly, geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who's on the steering committee of the Institute's LGBTQ affinity group said, quote, I deeply disagree about publishing this.

00:52:59.000 It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued.

00:53:02.000 In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don't live in that world.

00:53:07.000 In other words, the narrative should trump science.

00:53:08.000 This is not a scientist.

00:53:10.000 This is a political activist.

00:53:12.000 The whole goal of science is to achieve objective, verifiable facts about the world so that we can operate within those facts.

00:53:19.000 And you can still pursue exactly the same agenda that you are pursuing, Stephen Reilly.

00:53:23.000 But maybe your arguments have to suck less.

00:53:25.000 Maybe your arguments should be based on, I don't know, the science, since you are in fact a geneticist. 0.91

00:53:31.000 Discussions between Dr. Neal's team and colleagues who questioned the research continued for months.

00:53:35.000 Dr. Neal said the team, which included psychologists and sociologists, used suggestions from those colleagues in outside LGBTQ groups to clarify wording and highlight caveats.

00:53:44.000 That's amazing.

00:53:45.000 So they were pre-screening the results with activist groups.

00:53:48.000 Can you imagine this happening on the right?

00:53:50.000 Can you imagine it?

00:53:51.000 Truly.

00:53:52.000 Pre-screening scientific results with advocacy groups for a particular political narrative?

00:53:58.000 This is insanity.

00:54:00.000 It truly is.

00:54:01.000 And we're seeing this happen more and more broadly.

00:54:04.000 If they're doing it in science, they will certainly do it in politics.

00:54:05.000 They'll do it anywhere. 0.99

00:54:07.000 Dr. Neal is gay. 0.99

00:54:08.000 Okay, Dr. Neal, who's one of the leads on the study, is gay. 0.76

00:54:12.000 He said, I definitely heard from people who are kind of, why do this at all?

00:54:16.000 And so there was some resistance there.

00:54:18.000 Personally, I'm still concerned it's going to be deliberately misused to advance agendas of hate, but I do believe that the sort of proactive way we've approached this, and a lot of the community engagement aspects that we've tried, were important.

00:54:28.000 The moment the study was published online Thursday afternoon, the Broad Institute took the unusual step of posting essays by Dr. Riley and others who raised questions about the ethics, science, and social implications of the project.

00:54:40.000 Joe Vitti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, said, quote, as a queer person and a geneticist, I struggle to understand the motivations behind a genome wide association study for non heterosexual behavior.

00:54:50.000 I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms.

00:54:55.000 Since when is the study of science about the potential benefits versus the potential harms?

00:55:00.000 I mean, really.

00:55:02.000 There was a solid case to be made in the 1850s by every religious person across the world that the potential benefits of discovering evolutionary biology outweighed, that the harms outweighed the benefits.

00:55:12.000 Should that have shut down the study of evolutionary biology?

00:55:15.000 In no way should that have happened.

00:55:17.000 But this is the left.

00:55:18.000 Censorious, nasty, attempting to shut down debate in dramatic ways.

00:55:24.000 Pretty incredible.

00:55:25.000 Again, that study does not undermine any of the case for same-sex rights at all on a libertarian basis.

00:55:34.000 But you can't make the argument the same way you were making it before.

00:55:36.000 So change your argument, guys.

00:55:38.000 Don't shut down the science.

00:55:39.000 And now it becomes, if you even discuss this stuff publicly, then you will be talked about as a neoconfederate.

00:55:45.000 Because after all, discussing things publicly, as we have learned, makes you a Nazi. 0.58

00:55:48.000 Unbelievable stuff.

00:55:48.000 Okay, time for some things I like and then a quick thing that I hate.

00:55:51.000 So things that I like.

00:55:53.000 My wife and I have been going through all the old Alfred Hitchcock movies.

00:55:56.000 And so the other night we watched Vertigo.

00:55:59.000 Vertigo has become sort of a... It's become a fascinating piece because so many people I think overrate this film.

00:56:07.000 Some people rate this the best film ever made.

00:56:09.000 I don't see that at all.

00:56:11.000 It certainly got some creativity to the direction of it.

00:56:14.000 Jimmy Stewart is great in it.

00:56:15.000 Jimmy Stewart is a really underrated actor just as an actor.

00:56:18.000 But the film...

00:56:20.000 Vertigo.

00:56:20.000 A feeling of dizziness.

00:56:22.000 A swimming in the head.

00:56:23.000 Figuratively, a state in which all things seem to be engulfed in a whirlpool of terror.

00:56:27.000 of the trailer for Vertigo, which still is enjoyable.

00:56:29.000 Vertigo, a feeling of dizziness, a swimming in the head.

00:56:34.000 Figuratively, a state in which all things seem to be engulfed in a whirlpool of terror, as created by Alfred Hitchcock in the story that gives new meaning to the word suspense.

00:56:44.000 I don't want to talk.

00:56:56.000 All of the old previews are so cheesy and wonderful.

00:56:58.000 So you should go check out Vertigo if you have time.

00:57:01.000 Also, I'll give you a preview of next week's Things I Like.

00:57:04.000 If you have time over the weekend, go watch Dave Chappelle's special, because whoa.

00:57:07.000 Cannot believe that dude got away with saying that stuff.

00:57:09.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.

00:57:14.000 So I'll tell you the thing that drives me absolutely up a wall and that is corporate virtue signaling.

00:57:18.000 So one of the new things is that corporations, first of all, capitalism always wins, right?

00:57:21.000 Capitalism always wins because the capitalists are going to find a way to profit off of your own desire to virtue signal.

00:57:28.000 So do you really think that Cadbury chocolate is involved in the anti-racism fight?

00:57:33.000 Like who thought, who looked at the chocolate bar and they're like, this chocolate bar seems like it doesn't care about racism enough.

00:57:40.000 Who does that, exactly?

00:57:41.000 Okay, so Cadbury has now pushed what they call the Unity Bar.

00:57:45.000 The Unity Bar.

00:57:46.000 Which, like, what?

00:57:48.000 Are we gonna have... I'm waiting for rockauto.com to engage in racial statements about, like, mufflers.

00:57:56.000 Why would you expect your corporations to engage in political statements about... I think we can all fairly assume that Cadbury opposes racism, since pretty much everybody does, who is of good heart.

00:58:06.000 And I have no reason to suggest that the Cadbury...

00:58:09.000 Like the old kind of eggs, the chocolate eggs, that those suggest some deep, dark plot against black people. 1.00

00:58:15.000 In any case, Cadbury pushes the Unity bar in India, and we have a little bit of their ad for this.

00:58:23.000 It says, India's first chocolate, dark, blended, milk, white.

00:58:32.000 It's a bar that has united in one bar.

00:58:36.000 United in one bar.

00:58:37.000 Amazing.

00:58:38.000 The Unity Bar, guys.

00:58:39.000 The Unity Bar.

00:58:40.000 There are a couple problems with this bar.

00:58:42.000 Made to celebrate India and her people because sweet things happen when we unite.

00:58:45.000 A couple problems with this.

00:58:46.000 The bar is segregated.

00:58:46.000 So if you actually look at the bar... All of the squares are in their proper place.

00:58:53.000 They didn't mix it all and swirl it all into one melting pot of chocolate.

00:58:56.000 Nope.

00:58:56.000 You got the dark chocolate on the opposite end of the white chocolate.

00:58:59.000 They can't come anywhere near each other.

00:59:00.000 They are separated dramatically by race.

00:59:03.000 So their Unity Bar was kind of a fail. 1.00

00:59:06.000 Also, it is amazing to me, if you are buying your products based on the virtue signaling of the corporations that push this sort of stuff, you're an idiot. 1.00

00:59:14.000 If you really believe that Nike cares about Colin Kaepernick kneeling, you're a moron. 1.00

00:59:18.000 Hey, Nike doesn't care about it. 1.00

00:59:18.000 Nike wants to sell you shoes. 1.00

00:59:20.000 If you really think that Cadbury is like sitting in the back office going, how do we fight racism today?

00:59:24.000 I know the unity bar!

00:59:26.000 As opposed to, a lot of people out there keep talking about this racism thing.

00:59:29.000 You know, it'd be a viral marketing campaign if we did something about racism.

00:59:32.000 Which do you think is more accurate? 0.63

00:59:35.000 But hell, you want to buy a chocolate bar because it makes you feel good about yourself by getting all fat?

00:59:39.000 Enjoy yourself.

00:59:40.000 All right.

00:59:40.000 We'll be back here a little bit later today for two additional hours of content.

00:59:43.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here on Monday.

00:59:45.000 Well, we won't, actually.

00:59:46.000 Forget it.

00:59:46.000 I'm not seeing you here on Monday.

00:59:47.000 We'll see you here on Tuesday.

00:59:48.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:59:49.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:59:50.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

00:59:58.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:59:59.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:00:02.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.

01:00:03.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.

01:00:06.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.

01:00:08.000 Edited by Adam Sievitz.

01:00:10.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:00:12.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

01:00:14.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.

01:00:15.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:00:18.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

01:00:20.000 On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.

01:00:24.000 We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

The Ben Shapiro Show - August 30, 2019

When Everyone Is Hitler | Ep. 851

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript