All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:00
The Left Unleashes Its Crazy | Ep. 493
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The left embraces socialism, eugenics, and revolution.
President Trump attacks Chuck Todd and Maxine Waters.
And OJ's back, which is weird.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
So the left went crazy over the weekend.
So no Disneyland for them.
There was Disneyland for me, however.
But there will be no Disneyland for them because the weekend was a very weird time on the op-ed pages of our nation's leading newspapers.
I'll tell you all about all the crazy that was happening.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at ZipRecruiter.
So every business needs better people.
In fact, we need better people right now on the show.
I mean, just generally.
But that's why if we were to replace them, we would be using ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter learns what you're looking for.
It identifies people with the right experience and invites them to apply to a job that you need filled.
They built a platform that finds the right job candidates for you.
Eighty percent of employers who post a job on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site in just one day.
And ZipRecruiter does not stop there.
They even spotlight the strongest applicants you receive so you never miss a great match.
You receive, so you never miss a great match.
The right candidates are out there, and ZipRecruiter is how you find them.
The right candidates are out there and ZipRecruiter is how you find them.
And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free.
And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free.
That's right, for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
That's right.
For free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Again, when you use that slash DailyWire, you can now try ZipRecruiter for free.
Again, when you use that slash DailyWire, you can now try ZipRecruiter for free.
You can post a job, and your inbox will start filling with resumes right away, and you can cultivate those resumes right there in the ZipRecruiter app instead of having to download it to your email and deal with it there.
You can post a job and your inbox will start filling with resumes right away.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire if you want.
The best employees.
All you need to do is go to ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire, and they will take care of it for you.
And right now, as they say, you can post jobs for free.
80% of employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate in just one day.
So check it out.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
It is the smartest way to hire.
Okay, so over the weekend, the nation's op-ed pages decided to remind us all why President Trump is president.
Not because he's so great at everything.
Not because the president is playing MAGA, MAGA, MAGA chess.
But because the left has decided to go fully crazy.
There are several op-eds in a row that we're going to go through here talking about the outskirts of the left.
But these are printed in mainstream newspapers.
Again, this is not stuff from The Nation.
This is not stuff even from Salon or Slate.
This is stuff from The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Atlantic.
All of these are mainstream outlets on the left.
And none of them are particularly good.
I don't know what was in the water over the weekend, or whether they just feel so emboldened on the left that they feel like they can say anything and get away with it.
But whatever it is, it is not going to be good for their agenda.
Here's the first example.
Ruth Marcus, who's the deputy editorial page editor, she has a high position over at the Washington Post, wrote an opinion piece called, quote, I would have aborted a fetus with Down syndrome.
Women need that right.
OK, this is just a piece in favor of eugenics.
If the idea is that you get to abort a baby because the baby has Down syndrome, then what is the difference between aborting a baby with Down syndrome, not because you don't think it's a baby, but because it has Down syndrome, and doing that with somebody who is actually already born?
Here's what Ruth Marcus writes.
There's a new push in anti-abortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancy after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome.
These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable and wrong.
This is a difficult subject to discuss because there are so many parents who have and cherish a child with Down syndrome.
Many people with Down syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives.
The new Gerber baby with Down syndrome is awfully cute.
I've had two children.
I was old enough when I became pregnant that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome.
Back then it was amniocentesis performed after 15 weeks.
Now chorionic villus sampling can provide a conclusive determination as early as 9 weeks.
Well, good for you, Ruth, that you would have grieved the loss.
Well, good for you, Ruth, that you would have grieved the loss.
First of all, it's always a bizarre point in abortion fanatics lingo that they'll say things like, I would have grieved the loss.
The loss of what?
If it's not morally wrong, then what are you grieving?
If it's just a cluster of cells, then what exactly are you grieving?
Are you grieving the lost opportunity?
Presumably, you're grieving the human that you just killed, or had killed in the womb.
And just because that human in the womb had Down syndrome doesn't mean that it was okay for you to do that, and you should feel morally exculpated from what you just did.
Here's what she continues to say.
Well, no.
Not alone.
More than two thirds of American women choose abortion in such circumstances.
Isn't that the point or at least inherent in the point of prenatal testing in the first place?
Well, no.
The point of prenatal testing in the first place is generally to see if there is some sort of condition that can be fixed as the pregnancy continues.
So, for example, if there had been the capacity to actually look at my child's, my first child's heart and see that there was a hole in her heart when she was developing, they might have been able to do something prenatally.
I don't know how the surgery works, but there are all sorts of surgeries that they do on children before they are born.
It's an amazing thing.
They perform surgeries on children who are still in the womb, and they sew up the womb, and the pregnancy continues, and the kid is just fine.
This sort of thing happens all the time.
The point of prenatal testing is not kill the child if things come out wrong.
That's called eugenics, folks.
Okay?
It's a bad thing.
This is what they have in Iceland.
Down syndrome people are not there.
They just don't exist in Iceland because they're all killed in the womb.
That is not a good thing for the inherent value of human life.
When you say the inherent value of human life degrades if you are born with low IQ thanks to genetic conditions.
If you believe that abortion is equivalent to murder to the taking of a human life, then of course you would have made a different choice.
But that is not my belief, and the Supreme Court has affirmed my freedom to have that belief and act accordingly.
Well, you can always have that belief.
I mean, you have the freedom to have that belief.
The Supreme Court is not a moral arbiter.
This is one of the things that drives pro-life people absolutely insane.
When people look at pro-choice people, and pro-choice people point to the Supreme Court, they point to, like, Justice Blackmun.
They say, well, Justice Blackmun says it's OK.
My answer to that is, who the hell is Justice Blackmun?
Why would I care about that?
Like, Ruth Bader Ginsburg says something is OK?
Ooh, now you've spooked me.
Wow, you totally changed my opinion now.
I guess it wasn't a human life because Justice Roberts said something, or because Justice Kennedy said something.
It's so dumb.
I mean, it's an argument from authority.
The same people who say you can't cite the Bible in defense of human life will say you can cite Ruth Bader Ginsburg in defense of the right to kill a human life.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Again, the sentiments here are conflicting.
Why do you respect and admire those people?
Presumably you think those people made a horrible mistake.
Presumably you think that those people are idiots who think that this was a human life.
It wasn't a human life.
And now they've brought a child into the world and that child is presumably suffering because of the Down syndrome.
So presumably they're bad people for bringing the child into the world.
Like this is not a lot of, there's not a lot of gray area here.
She says, certainly to be a parent is to take the risks that accompany parenting.
You love your child for who she is, not what you want her to be.
But accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised.
Okay, let me read that sentence again.
Okay, very slowly for those who missed it.
That's an insane sentence.
Fully crazy.
That is a morally ignominious statement.
Accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired.
Every single person in the United States has an impaired intellectual capacity to one extent Everyone is not born Einstein.
There's a very small group of people who are born with genius level IQ.
Everybody else does not have as much of a chance in life.
Does that mean that abortion is okay?
I mean, this is pure eugenics right here.
Whose life choices will be limited.
Every single human has life choices that are limited.
Every single human.
What you're looking for when you're talking about morality is a limiting principle.
You're looking for something that distinguishes cases.
This is, as we say in law school, an argument that proves too much.
It suggests that every human being should be aborted based on certain circumstances, whose life choices will be limited.
Beethoven was born into a family where his dad used to beat him in the middle of the night if he didn't practice piano correctly.
Was that a limited life choice?
Sure.
He went deaf later in life.
Actually, not even that late.
When he was in his late 20s, he started to go deaf.
Was that a limited life choice?
Sure.
Whose health may be compromised?
Every single person will die.
Every person who's been born will die, and everyone will have a health problem before then.
It says most children with Down syndrome have mild to moderate cognitive impairment, meaning an IQ between 55 and 70, mild, or between 35 and 55, moderate.
This means limited capacity for independent living and financial security.
Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family.
Now, there's no question that that is true.
But that is also true when you have a parent who's slipping into senility.
Do we get to stab them in the chest?
Do we farm them off to the soil and green factory?
When people get Alzheimer's, what are we supposed to do with them?
Is the idea that the good thing for the family would be just to pull the plug?
There are tons of people whose capacity for independent living is limited and who live wonderful lives.
And not only that, sometimes it makes you a better person.
We're talking about the impact on the mother here.
Sometimes it makes us as human beings better that we have to make certain sacrifices in favor of others.
When I was growing up, my dad had a pretty debilitating back condition.
It meant that everybody in the family had to carry all heavy objects around the house, right?
Like, my dad just couldn't carry.
It wasn't a thing.
And we just grew up knowing that was something that we had to do.
Now, obviously, that's very mild compared to what we're talking about here.
But the point is this.
Love is about the sacrifices that you make for the people that you love.
And when it comes to people with Down syndrome, are they not deserving of love in the same way that anybody else would be?
Ruth Marcus, I'm going to be blunt here.
This was not the child I wanted.
That was not the choice I would have made.
You may call me selfish or worse, but I'm in good company.
Well, no, you're in bad company, actually, and you are selfish or worse.
She says the evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision again.
A horrifying argument.
Lots of people make horrible decisions throughout the course of human history.
In Nazi Germany, tons of people were making terrible decisions all the time, and they would say, the majority is with me.
Guess what?
The majority in the South was with segregation and slavery.
Did that mean segregation and slavery were okay?
Of course not.
That's not even an argument.
That's an emotional appeal.
Well, don't talk about me like I'm special.
I'm not special.
Everybody else is bad, too.
This crap doesn't work with my kindergartner.
My pre-kindergartner shouldn't work with a fully grown woman.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court.
North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, and Louisiana passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Utah's legislature is debating such a bill.
Well, not really.
She puts the focus on the phrase of the woman.
But the focus should be on some freedom.
reaffirmed in 1992 that, quote, it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.
Well, not really.
She puts the focus on the phrase of the woman, but the focus should be on some freedom.
Even if you are a believer in Roe v. Wade, there is some freedom, but that freedom does not extend to everything.
And he says, as U.S.
District Judge Tanya Walton-Pratt concluded in striking down the Indiana law, the state's high court determination leaves no room for the state to examine, let alone prohibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.
So for any reason, abortion on demand.
Just think about it.
Can it be that women have more constitutional freedom to choose to terminate their pregnancies on a whim than for the reason that the fetus has Down syndrome?
Now this is her only good argument.
And proves the reverse of what she wants it to prove.
She's saying, well, why would we limit the capacity of women to choose on Down syndrome, but we wouldn't limit their capacity to choose to abort a fetus just for fun?
I agree.
Agree.
The fact is that when you are talking about killing a baby in the womb, Your choice should be severely circumscribed, whether you're talking about Down syndrome or anything else.
And she says, to the question of enforceability, who's going to police the decision making?
Doctors are now supposed to turn in their patients for making a decision of which the state disapproves.
No, my guess is that all of these bills do not punish the woman.
They probably punish the doctor.
They say, in an argument worthy, this is Ruth Marcus, in an argument worthy of The Handmaid's Tale, The state of Indiana suggests precisely that scenario.
In other words, though they didn't put it in these exact words, the state can hijack your body.
It's not about hijacking the body of the woman.
This is about protecting the body of the baby inside the woman.
which child you must carry to term once you choose to become pregnant.
In other words, though they didn't put it in these exact words, the state can hijack your body.
It's not about hijacking the body of the woman.
This is about protecting the body of the baby inside the woman.
Duh.
So this is just example number one of the extremism of the left brought into full relief We'll get to another crazy example in just a second in the dumbest column in recent history.
That one doesn't even take the cake for the weekend.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Bull and Branch.
So, over the weekend, we all lost an hour of sleep.
Yeah, I know.
It was terrible.
If you are trying to regain that hour of sleep, if you are looking for the most comfortable sheets that you can sleep on, that is Boll and Brand.
So Boll and Brand sheets are fantastic.
They are so good that I threw out all of our old sheets and I got only Boll and Brand sheets because they are that good.
The reason they are that good is they are made from pure 100% organic cotton.
They start out very soft, and then they get even softer over time.
They're incredibly breathable, so you don't feel like you're sleeping in a tarp.
You can buy directly from Bull & Branch, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store.
Bull & Branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks, which may sound expensive, except for the fact that you're going to sleep on these every night of your life, and it makes a huge difference in how you sleep.
I promise you.
It does for me.
It does for my wife.
These sheets are so comfortable.
Everyone who tries Bull and Branch Sheets loves them, including me.
Three U.S.
Presidents and Bill Clinton's presumed lovers sleep on Bull and Branch Sheets.
Shipping is free.
You can try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
But you're not going to want to send them back, because they really are fantastic.
To get you started right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
That's B-O-L-L-N-B-R-A-N-C-H.com, promo code Ben.
To get $50 off your first set of sheets, bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
Check that out.
Use that promo code, Ben.
Let's them know that we sent you.
And of course, $50 off your first set of sheets.
They are the most comfortable sheets you have ever slept on, bar none.
It is not close.
Okay, so.
Now it's time for crazy editorial number two.
So again, you wonder why Trump wins?
You wonder why Republicans win even though they're really bad at everything?
And why is it that Republicans keep winning even though they're really bad at everything?
It's because the left has gone crazy.
Now there are a couple of charts out there that show the Democratic and Republican Party splits, meaning where the right has moved and where the left has moved.
And what the charts show is that basically since 2010, the Republican Party has been static.
But the Democratic Party has been moving wildly to the left.
They've been moving solely to the left.
So the greater partisan polar gap that's being created right now is being created by the left moving harder to the left, not by the right moving harder to the right.
Okay, so, with that in mind, here is crazy column number two.
So this one is courtesy of some weird guy named Tim Crider.
Over at the New York Times.
He's an essayist.
He's a professional essayist, which is to say he reads a bunch of stuff that the New York Times pays him for, but the only people who read him are people who sit there with their cat and their cup of coffee at brunch on Sunday morning on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
He penned an op-ed that is—I mean, this is a crazy op-ed.
It's called, Go Ahead Millennials, Destroy Us.
No, I am not kidding.
That is the name of the op-ed, and it is not a good op-ed.
Shockingly.
You may have thought that from that title it would be a great op-ed.
You would be wrong.
It is, in fact, a terrible op-ed.
So, let's go through how bad this op-ed is.
Okay, this op-ed.
Apparently it came out, I guess, March 2nd, 2018.
So it's a little bit old, but it's still worth commenting on.
So it's over the last week and a half.
He says, as with all the historic tipping points, it seems inevitable in retrospect.
Of course it was young people, the actual victims of the slaughter, who have finally begun to turn the tide against guns in this country.
Kids don't have money and can't vote.
And until now, burying a few dozen a year has apparently been a price that lots of Americans were willing to pay to hold on to the props of their pathetic role-playing fantasies.
But they forgot what the adults always forget.
That our children grow up and remember everything and forgive nothing.
And then you just get a weird eerie cue from Children of the Corn.
It's all weird.
Okay, so let's point something out.
This whole idea that children are going to lead us is incredibly stupid.
We don't listen to children on anything.
And people will say about me, well, you know, you were writing a syndicated column when you were 17, right?
And I was getting shellacked for the stuff that I was saying, sometimes deservedly so.
I don't believe everything that I wrote at 17, because no one does.
And if you do, it's because you've lost the capacity to change and the capacity to think.
As we get older, we have more life experience, and very often that means we get wiser.
The notion that a bunch of Americans are sitting around completely blasé about the murder of schoolchildren in Parkland, Florida, is just insane, and that a bunch of kids realize that their parents don't care about them, well, that seems really stupid to me.
Anyway, Kreider writes, those kids have suddenly understood how little their lives were ever worth to the people in power.
And they'll soon begin to realize how efficient and endless are the mechanisms of governance intended to deflect their appeals, exhaust their energy, deplete their passion and defeat them.
But anyone who has ever tried to argue with adolescents knows that in the end, they'll have a thousand times more energy for that fight than you and a bottomless reservoir of moral rage that you burned out long ago.
So Tim Kreider is basically the hippie homeless guy who hangs out outside the store and gives kids money to buy him beer.
And then all the kids think, oh, that guy's cool because he also gave me a beer.
And I got him a six pack inside.
And then he and then sorry, it's the reverse.
He's the creepy guy that he's the creepy homeless guy that kids give money to to buy beers.
And then he brings out the six pack and he gives a six pack to the kids.
Right.
That's who this guy is.
I smoke doobies with the kids, and then I'm the uncle at the barbecue, and I give the kids beer, and then I pat their back while they vomit into the bushes, and later their mom and dad say, stay away from Uncle Jim.
That's who this guy Tim Cretor is.
Because this is ridiculous.
That sentence again.
Have you ever tried to argue with adolescents?
They have a thousand times more energy for the fight than you and a bottomless reservoir of moral rage.
Yeah, usually they're arguing in favor of taking drugs and having random sex with people and playing Xbox instead of doing their homework.
That's usually what teenagers are arguing in favor of.
But we're supposed to care about their bottomless reservoir of moral rage?
Honest to God, if 16-year-olds ran the world, the world would be even worse than it is right now.
Okay, so I'm going to talk a little bit more about this column, because it gets even more insane than that in just a second.
Well, actually, you know, let's just keep going with that.
Okay, fine.
So here is, so he continues.
Like most people in middle age, I regard young people with suspicion.
The young, and the young in mind, tend to be uncompromising absolutists.
They haven't yet faced life's heartless compromises and forfeitures.
It's countless trials by boredom and ethical Kobayashi Maru's, or glumly watched themselves do everything they ever disapproved of.
I am creeped out by the increasing dogmatism and intolerance of millennials on the left.
I felt a generational divide open up under me last year when everyone under 40 seemed to agree that Dana Schutz's painting of Emmett Till in his coffin should be removed from the Whitney Biennial.
When I was young, it seemed the natural order of things that conservatives were the prudes and scolds who wanted books banned and exhibitions closed, while we liberals got to be the gadflies and iconoclasts.
I know that whenever you disapprove of young people, you're in the wrong, because you're going to die and they'll get to write history, but I just can't help noticing that the liberal side isn't much fun to be on anymore.
So he acknowledges that people on the left, a lot of folks on the left, are not particularly tolerant.
But then he continues, Okay, so the fact that kids are dumb and Manichaean, that they see things in black and white, that's its strength, you see.
Young people have only just learned that the world is an unfair hierarchy of cruelty and greed, and it still shocks and outrages them.
They don't understand how vast and intractable the forces that have shaped this world really are.
And still think they can change it.
Revolutions have always been driven by the young.
That's true.
And most revolutions end in chaos and bloody murder.
Most revolutions driven by young people end in absolute chaos, bloody murder, sometimes the murder of hundreds of millions of people in the case of communist revolutions.
In the case of the French Revolution, they end with the guillotine.
They always eat the old fogies who think that they're egging on the young.
And Robespierre ends up on the guillotine just the same as the anti-Jacobins who ended up on the guillotine because of Robespierre.
The revolutions that have done pretty well in human history tend not to be led by people who are 17.
There is a disproportionate support for the Nazi party among the young.
The revolutions that tend to do pretty well, I'm talking here particularly about the American Revolution, are led by middle-aged people.
The average age of the Declaration of Independence signees, or signers rather, was 44.
That was the average age of the people signing the Declaration of Independence.
There were about a dozen people who signed who were under the age of 35.
But life expectancy in those days was also a lot lower.
Which is why the presidential age of limitation is at 35, because the idea was that you were a mature human being by 35.
Even a 17-year-old in 1776 was probably the equivalent of a 25-year-old today in terms of maturity and responsibility.
But this guy, Tim Kreider of the New York Times, he says, Now, do you get the feeling that Tim Kreider has an agenda here?
Now, do you get the feeling do you get the feeling that Tim Kreider has an agenda here?
He might have an agenda, and he only likes young people who agree with that agenda.
So, as I mentioned, there are a bunch of young students who actually don't agree with that In fact, by polls, young people tend to be more in favor of gun rights than older people.
Young people, people who are below the age of 25, tend to be more in favor of concealed carry than older people.
But my favorite thing here is he gets to the end of this ridiculous essay.
And he starts basically, he starts basically lobbying for the young people to listen to him and then to build a statue of him, Tim Kreider of the New York Times.
He says, the students of Parkland are like veterans coming home from the bloody front of the NRA's de facto war on children.
Again, I'm getting very, very sick of the notion that everybody who is in favor of gun rights is responsible for Parkland.
It's like right after JFK's assassination, when the entire left decided that it was a bunch of Southern Republican rednecks who had shot JFK, even though he was a communist.
This is a complete misread.
And we now have news that the Parkland shooter was reporting to the authorities.
He was reporting to his teachers that he was having dreams of shooting his fellow students and walking around dipped in their blood.
And the schools knew about it, and they did nothing about it.
And there's a report from Real Clear Investigations last week showing that the Broward County schools had implemented new policies that were specifically designed to prevent the reporting of kids who are involved in misdemeanor crimes because they wanted to lower their crime stats.
And it's the NRA's fault?
But anyway, Tim Kreider finishes up.
He says, My message as an aging generation Xer to millennials and those coming after them is go get us.
Take us down.
All those cringing provincials who still think climate change is a hoax, that being transgender is a fad, or that socialism means purges and reeducation camps.
Rid the world of all of our outmoded opinions, vestigial prejudices, and rotten institutions.
Gender roles as disfiguring as foot binding.
The moribund and vampiric two-party system.
The savage theory of capitalism.
Rip it all to the ground.
I for one can't wait till we're gone.
I just wish I could live to see the world without us.
Oh my god.
Just go away, dude.
First of all, I like when he says, take us down, and then he says, I don't mean me.
I mean everyone else.
I mean, I don't mean me.
I mean all those crazy Republican conservatives who think things like socialism's bad, and like sex, there's such a thing as biological sex, and that maybe we shouldn't have the government run all of our industries because of climate change.
It's truly amazing, but this is the virtue signaling that's going on on the left.
I mean, those... My goodness.
Gender roles as disfiguring as foot-binding?
Okay, no one thinks that women are being foot-bound in Western society.
Okay, the savage theory of capitalism that allows Tim Crider to write his crappy columns rather than mopping up a stall with his discarded drafts, as he probably should be doing.
And that discarded theory of capitalism is the only thing that separates Tim Crider from absolute penury and poverty, considering the quality of his work.
Okay, we'll get to...
Even worse!
Okay, so the editorial pages get even worse over the weekend, and I will explain why in just a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at USCCA.
So, are you sick of listening to idiots like Tim Crider talk about why you, law-abiding citizen, would like a gun?
You know, he thinks you want a gun because you want to shoot schoolchildren, and it turns out you want to protect your schoolchildren from bad people, which is why you want a gun.
You want to protect your home, you want to protect your family, you want to protect your freedom.
Well, good news for you.
There's an organization called the U.S.
C.C.A., the U.S.
Concealed Carry Association, and right now they are giving you your absolute last chance to make your gun dreams come true.
The U.S.
C.C.A.
is giving 10 of you, my lucky listeners, $1,500 to buy an expensive new Kimber 1911.
One of you will take home $1,500 to buy one of the finest handguns in the world.
Obviously, you'll go through the legal background checks because you're a law-abiding citizen.
It is completely free.
Your chances to win end this week.
There will be no guns next week.
Simply go to defendmyfamilynow1.com.
Defendmyfamilynow1.com.
Instantly lock in your 10 free chances to win right now.
It is that simple.
Answer in seconds.
It is 100% free.
The USCCA is drawing 10 winners.
Get your name on the winners list right now.
Head over to DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
That's DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to enter before it's too late.
Don't miss the free gun that can keep your family safe.
And, by the way, put a thumb in the eye of people like Tim Creter at the same time.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Walk in those chances.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
And you have 10 chances as law-abiding American citizens to exercise your Second Amendment rights.
By winning an expensive new Kimber 1911.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Okay, so.
Meanwhile, so we've had the left advocating for full-scale revolution to rip down capitalism and gender roles.
We have had the left advocating in favor of eugenics, of killing Down Syndrome babies in the womb.
And now we have a leftist named Elizabeth Bruning.
Who is advocating for socialism.
So last week, as we talked about at length, she wrote an entire column advocating for socialism.
She talked about how capitalism was deeply flawed and terrible, and we have to ensure that socialism has another chance.
And I sort of took that column apart here on the program.
I also wrote a piece about it.
And she was very angry that I wrote a piece about it.
She got very mad that I wrote a piece in response to all of that.
And what she was particularly mad about is that I pointed out that Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Union, North Korea, China, these are not good countries to live.
These are terrible places.
And that socialism has a pretty long and bloody history.
And I also pointed out, you didn't like this particularly, that a lot of the Nordic countries, a lot of the Scandinavian countries, all the supposed socialist paradises are in fact largely either mercantilist, meaning state-sponsored capitalism, or fully capitalist systems with heavy redistributionism.
If you're a socialist society, that is basically two things.
That is full state ownership of the distribution of resources, which means full state ownership of the means of production.
Those are the two general principles of socialism, that the state owns the distribution of resources, and also that the state owns the means of production.
So the state decides how much people are paid, the state decides what resources you get, the state redistributes as it sees fit.
So a lot of Scandinavian countries have a lot of redistributionism, so they have one half of socialism, but most of them have also heavy structures of private ownership, which is true in Denmark, it is true in Sweden.
These are actually good places to do business.
If anything, they're more mercantilist than they are socialist, because these are not places where they are redistributing all resources inwardly.
They're not nationalizing every industry.
Instead, they are sponsoring and subsidizing particular private industries in large ways.
Okay, that's fairly typical of these Nordic systems.
So, she's back and she's mad.
So first, she starts off her column today talking about how I was mean to her, about how I straw-manned her.
She says that I was arguing in bad faith.
And then she gives a two-paragraph long description of what it means to argue in bad faith.
Which is idiotic, because I was not arguing in bad faith.
In fact, I think that her column was just bad.
It wasn't that I was faking it.
It wasn't that I was trying to create a strawman.
I just think her original column was bad.
She was particularly mad that I mentioned Cuba, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, because she says, "How dare you suggest that I want America "to become those places?" Well, I never suggested that you actually wanted America to become those places.
You didn't mention any countries in your column.
You just said capitalism is bad and socialism is good, which means that I should probably examine some of the socialist countries that are out there.
Here's what she writes.
She writes, Last week, I wrote a column arguing that liberals concerned about ongoing failures in the American experiment should consider socialist remedies.
That's not what you wrote.
What she actually wrote is that capitalism was bad.
What she actually wrote, the direct quote from her piece, is that capitalism itself was inherently flawed.
She wrote, quote, That's a direct quote.
That's not some aspects of capitalism.
That's not we should keep capitalism, but we should have a socialized health care system.
That's capitalism itself should be discarded in favor of socialism.
So she says, last week I wrote a column arguing that liberals concerned about ongoing failures in the American experiment should consider socialist remedies.
Again, not what she wrote.
She said, I knew there would be quite a bit of disagreement.
And I knew that most, though crucially not all of it, would unfold in bad faith.
In the case of my column, this meant many interlocutors taking socialism to mean something along the lines of Soviet communism or the Venezuelan system.
Genocides, calamities, disasters and all.
I don't think anybody actually believes I'm rooting for totalitarian forms of socialism, nor for its most devastatingly ill-mannered variants.
I said I wasn't, after all.
If one genuinely thought a person was campaigning for genocide, one surely wouldn't engage with someone so unreasonable.
Okay, now, she's arguing that I set up a straw man and reading her entire column on air, which I did last week?
No.
This is a straw man.
No one claimed that Elizabeth Brunning wants a bunch of communist genocides to occur all over the world.
But I am saying that if you are talking about socialism, some things have unintended side effects, and socialism is one of those things.
It would be kind of ridiculous to ignore the results of socialist experiments elsewhere just because you didn't like the results.
It's called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
You get to claim that it wasn't truly socialism because bad crap happened after it.
No, it was truly socialism, and bad crap happened after it.
She may not have intended for the citizens of—I doubt that she or anyone else intended for the starving citizens of Venezuela to be eating dog right now, but they are, even if they didn't intend it to be.
I doubt that Hugo Chavez wanted his citizens shooting dogs in the streets and eating them, but that's what they're doing.
Okay, because that's what socialism brings.
Okay, so then she gets mad because I mentioned that some of these supposedly socialist paradises in Nordic countries are not actually particularly socialist.
And he says, "I also suspect my critics knew I wasn't recommending the United States to go Khmer Rouge based on my particular theme they kept returning to, Scandinavia.
I hadn't named the Nordic countries in my piece, but my opponents were quick to discard them from the conversation." So, let me get this straight.
It's wrong for me to mention Venezuela and Cuba, and it's also wrong for me to mention the Nordic countries?
So which is it?
Am I allowed to mention, like, any countries that you claim are socialist?
Or no?
No country is socialist except in Elizabeth Bruning's mind.
She says, After all, these countries are inconvenient when arguing that socialism necessarily means mass murder and famine.
And then she quotes me, saying, No, Sweden and Denmark aren't socialist countries.
And she says, The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro noted it apropos of nothing in his piece on my alleged Stalinism.
Well, no, actually, I'm dismissing them as socialist countries, because if you're going to talk about true socialism, you should talk about true socialism, not capitalist countries with some redistributionist tendencies.
The United States is a capitalist country with redistributionist tendencies.
It's the kind of preemptive rebuttal one supplies when one knows what their opponent means, but would rather spend time attacking something else.
Well, no, I'm happy to discuss the socialism and the supposed socialism of these countries.
And then what's funny is that Brooding doesn't really discuss Sweden or Denmark, right?
She ignores Sweden and Denmark, the two examples that I picked, and which Bernie Sanders usually uses, right, when he talks about socialism.
Instead, she chooses Norway.
So, let's talk about Norway.
This is the only podcast today where you're going to hear lots of stuff about Norway.
But you're going to hear lots of stuff about Norway, not just because they're really good in Winter Olympic sports, but also because they're a favorite of the left when the left is arguing in favor of socialism.
So here's what she says about Norway.
Well, first she says this.
She says, first, I think it makes sense to think of socialism on a spectrum.
Sort of like gender, right?
It's like, yeah, it's a spectrum.
With countries and policies being more or less socialist rather than either or.
It's fair to say, for example, that single-payer health care is a more socialist policy than private market-based health care.
But that doesn't mean that single-payer is the most socialist health care policy one could dream up, nor that any country that uses such a system is de facto socialist.
Along these axes, we can determine whether policies are more or less socialist.
OK, this is a fair argument.
It's also not the argument she was making.
She was not making the argument that we ought to have a more socialist health care system.
And lots of people have made that argument.
And I've explained why I think that argument is wrong.
She was arguing that capitalism wholesale should be junked.
That's a very different argument.
But let's take her new argument.
Let's pretend that this was the original argument she made, and she's not lying.
And let's ignore the fact that she's surrounding herself, that she actually is pretending that she wrote something she didn't.
But we're going to get to her new favorite paradise, her socialist paradise, Norway.
But for you to get all of the scoop on Norway, plus we're going to talk about Oprah and a lot of other stuff, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
So for just $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
That means you get the rest of this show live, the rest of the Andrew Klavan show live, the rest of the Michael Knowles show live.
It means that you get all of those aforementioned glories.
Plus, you get to ask me questions personally.
And that means that Tuesday, March 13th, that is tomorrow, okay, we are having another episode of The Conversation.
Eastern, 230 p.m.
Pacific.
You get to ask me questions.
So here's how it works.
My conversation will stream live on the Ben Shapiro Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
It will be free for everyone to watch.
Only subscribers can ask the questions.
To ask questions as a subscriber, log into our website over at dailywire.com, head over to the Conversation page and watch the live stream.
After that, just start typing into the Daily Wire chat box and I will answer questions as they come in.
For an entire hour.
Once again, subscribe to have your questions answered by me, Ben Shapiro, Tuesday, March 13th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific, and join the conversation and ask questions if you are a subscriber.
So now, please go subscribe.
By the way, it also does help us bring you the show in live and living color.
When you subscribe, it helps us run the website.
It is only on your support that we can make our business work.
So please go over and subscribe.
Also, get the annual subscription rather than the monthly, because it's better.
And also, you get this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler, the greatest tumbler in all of human history.
So go check that out with your annual subscription.
You want to listen later for free?
iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube.
Please subscribe.
Please leave us a review.
It always helps us.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
All righty, so back to this column in the Washington Post in which someone is arguing, Elizabeth Bruning is arguing for socialisms.
So what kind of socialism does she want?
She says not Soviet Union, not Venezuela, not Cuba, not Sweden, not Denmark.
No, Norway.
Okay, so we finally found the country she likes.
And it is Norway.
Sure, it's really cold and the food stinks, but...
Norway.
Why Norway?
because, quote, as of 2015, Norway owned roughly 59% of the country's wealth.
By contrast, China, which is still considered at least a quasi-communist state by many, owned 32% of its national wealth.
In Norway, government owns about a third of the stock market, along with 70% of business, 70 businesses valued at almost 90% of the nation's GDP.
Taken together, this means the people So we'll take your argument now and pretend that you wrote it before.
Well, that actually isn't what you wrote, but now you're writing it.
So we'll take your argument now and pretend that you wrote it before.
Okay, let's talk about Norway.
So, a few things about Norway.
First, Norway has no people.
Hey, Norway is 5.6 million people.
The county of Los Angeles is 3.9 million people.
There are no people in Norway, so it's kind of easier to do redistribution when you have no people and also an enormous oil industry.
The oil industry, which was nationalized under Statoil in Norway in the 1960s, the oil industry is responsible for fully 22% of the GDP of Norway.
They have a trillion dollar state fund that is completely funded by oil wealth.
And 67% of all exports from Norway are in oil and natural gas.
So it's more like the United Arab Emirates than it is like the United States.
It's a giant oil plutocracy in which everyone is in plutocrat because you have five people and lots of oil.
It's a lot like the UAE.
And in fact, when you look at countries by GDP per capita, what you see is that this is not uncommon.
GDP per capita According to our friends over at Dr. Wikipedia, it's countries like Qatar.
Qatar is the number one country in GDP per capita because it's an oil emirate.
It's $125,000 per person.
Now, would you rather live there?
United Arab Emirates.
It's $68,000 per person.
The United States is $59,000 per person.
Where would you rather live?
The answer is the United States because we have this thing called freedom.
It turns out that when you give a lot of power to the government, then sometimes they can give you a lot of money based on the exports of oil, but it's hard to actually have freedom to rise in these societies.
The oil industry represents approximately 22% of Norway's GDP and two-thirds of their exports and pays for 36% of the national government's revenue.
So it is because of oil they're allowed to survive.
And that's not the extent of their government holdings.
The government also seized all German owned stocks after World War Two.
So after World War Two, Norway just seized all of the stocks and they nationalized them, which explains the state's high levels of ownership in the stock market.
But does this mean that the state runs the businesses for the benefit of the workers?
Do they run the benefits?
Do they run the businesses in full Marxist fashion where they're just deciding based on the women?
Do the workers vote?
No, the stockholders vote.
In fact, Norway insists that all of its business run according to the whims of stockholders and all stockholders must be chosen equally.
In fact, in Norway, state-owned industries do something that doesn't happen in the United States.
State-owned industries in Norway can actually go bankrupt.
That's actually happened before.
So the state actually operates more like mercantilist 18th century Britain with regard to, for example, the royal trading companies, than it does like the Soviet Union or Cuba or along Marx's lines.
And Norway's a relatively friendly business climate for people who are looking to set up a business.
Heritage Foundation ranks it 23rd in the world, the United States ranks about 18th.
Now again, it is important to recognize that also the redistributionist tendencies of Norway and its workable economy are partially a result of the people who live there.
Culture matters.
Norway has a different culture.
In fact, Norway's culture is pretty easy to spot.
You know how you can tell when Norway has a different culture as opposed to other countries?
Number one, there's almost no diversity in Norway.
Only 13% of people who live in Norway are immigrants and only 15.6% of the population are immigrants or children of immigrants.
32% of the population of Norway has a higher education degree.
So if we're going to actually compare Norway to the United States, you want to compare apples to apples.
So how do we do that?
We compare Norwegians in Norway with Norwegians in the United States.
And here's a dirty little fact.
Norwegians in the United States earn more than Norwegians in Norway.
This is also true of Danish folks living in the United States and Swedish Americans.
Danish Americans, according to Nima Sandanji, She says, or he says rather, that Danish Americans have a 55% higher living standard than Danes themselves.
Swedish Americans have a 53% higher living standard than Swedes.
The gap is even greater, 59% between Finnish Americans and Finns.
So if you come over here from your home country of Norway, you're going to do better in the United States than you were doing in Norway.
Even Norwegian Americans who don't have the oil wealth, the redistributionist oil wealth of Norway, they have a 3% higher living standard than their cousins overseas.
So that statistic about higher per capita GDP, it doesn't make as much of a difference as you would think, OK?
Norway has about $71,000 per year per capita, $59,500 in the United States.
But again, a lot of that's due to oil wealth.
And the top personal income tax rate in Norway is 48%.
The corporate tax rate is 25%.
The tax burden in Norway represents 38.1% of total domestic income, compared to 26% in the United States.
Government spending amounts to 48.6% of GDP compared to 38% in the United States.
And it is super expensive to live in Norway.
This is the thing that people neglect about all these socialist Swedish and Norway, all these countries, the Nordic countries.
It's really expensive to live there.
A haircut can cost you 50 bucks in Norway.
Now, I may pay 50 bucks for a haircut, but that's because I'm a professional person on television.
OK, there is no super cuts for eight dollars in Norway.
It is the second most expensive country to buy food in Europe, which means it is the second most expensive country to buy food on planet Earth.
It is the most expensive country to buy alcohol and tobacco.
Vehicles cost 40 to 50 percent more in Norway than they do in the United States.
Food costs like 60 percent more than it does in the United States.
And by the way, they're running out of money.
Despite all of this, all of this oil wealth, they are realizing that eventually the oil wealth will run out.
And that's why they elected a conservative government, not a liberal government, a conservative government in 2013, and re-elected that government in 2017.
Norway may be more socialistic than the United States, but it is certainly not a paradise.
And the notion that we are going to base all of this, that we're going to become Norway, is just so ignorant on every level.
I have to imagine the only reason Elizabeth Burdick spit out Norway as opposed to Denmark or Sweden is that she recognized I was kind of right on Denmark and Sweden, so she picked another Nordic country to talk about.
Okay, so.
Meanwhile, President Trump, over the weekend, had another one of his speeches.
And this speech was a wild hootenanny.
I mean, a wild hootenanny.
So the President of the United States led off by explaining what his 2020 slogan would be.
When we start running in, can you believe it, two years from now?
Is going to be, keep America great!
Exclamation point.
Keep America great.
Exclamation point!
Okay, not like Jeb!
Exclamation point.
It's going to keep America great!
Exclamation point.
Because America wasn't great before Trump was elected, but now it's great, and so we're going to keep it great.
Okay, fair enough.
The guy's got a nose for marketing.
Can't really blame him on that one.
The left will go predictably nuts over all that.
That wasn't what made all the headlines, though.
What really made all the headlines is that Trump decided to go after a bunch of other political figures.
So one of those political figures he decided to go after was, of course, Maxine Waters.
Maxine Waters is indeed a non-intelligent person.
We've talked about Maxine Waters many times on the show before.
Maxine Waters is someone who's called the Los Angeles Riots, the L.A.
uprising.
The Los Angeles Riots were not an uprising.
It was a bunch of people in inner city South Central burning down inner city South Central.
It was not an uprising.
It was a riot.
Maxine Waters said in 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing just fine.
She tried to get a bailout for, I believe it was her husband's or her brother's bank, One United.
Maxine Waters is not, I mean, you can watch, listen, I've been very clear that I don't think that Trump is exactly Phi Beta Kappa.
I'm pretty clear when I think politicians are not all that smart.
Maxine Waters is not a smart person.
Trump says this, though, and people call him racist.
Maxine Waters, a very low IQ individual.
You ever see her?
Have you ever seen her?
Have you ever seen her?
We will impeach him!
We will impeach the press.
But he hasn't done anything wrong.
It doesn't matter.
We will impeach him.
She's a low IQ individual.
You can't help her.
She really is.
Okay, so people called him racist because he was in, I think it was John Favreau from the Obama campaign, who's now on Pod Save America.
Oh, this is racist.
He went to a white rural part of Pennsylvania and he said a black person's stupid.
That's racist.
In terms of lots of people are stupid.
I mean, have you watched this guy?
He's called people low IQ before.
He says people are stupid on a regular basis.
This is not a shock.
And also, Maxine Waters is kind of dumb.
Just putting it out there, there are lots of black legislators who are not dumb.
Kamala Harris is a smart person.
Barack Obama was an intelligent person.
Cory Booker, for as much as I dislike him, is a relatively smart person.
Maxine Waters is a dum-dum.
Maxine Waters is a Froot Loop.
And so Trump calling her a dumb-dumb is just, that is not racist.
Then he attacked the media because this is what Trump does.
You know, once he gets going, it's a comedy routine.
And so he goes after Chuck Todd in some rather colorful language here.
Here we go.
You ever see the story where I'm, it's 1999, I'm on Meet the Press, a show now headed by sleepy eyes Chuck Todd.
He's a sleeping son of a bitch, I'll tell you.
Yeah, it's kind of weird.
So Chuck Todd apparently is a sleepy-eyed SOB, which is pretty spectacular.
And then Chuck Todd responds.
Again, here's the thing about Trump.
Is this stuff the president should be saying?
No, of course not.
I don't remember George Washington calling Thomas Jefferson a sleepy-eyed son of a bitch.
That was not a thing.
Abraham Lincoln was not going, you know, that Jefferson Davis, that sleepy-eyed son of a bitch.
It wasn't a thing.
Let alone members of the media.
But, you know, it's a thing Trump does.
We're all used to it by now.
But what makes it ridiculous is that people in the media are still trying to schoolmarm him.
So what they really should say is, listen, the president of the United States, we understand he's having a tough time out there in the approval ratings.
But, you know, not appropriate language.
But instead, they decided to go completely over the top.
So as somebody who's been called every name in the book by pretty much everyone, I mean, there was a full op-ed in the New York Times, like, not that long ago.
What was it, four months ago?
By a particular columnist, suggesting that I was not as courageous as I think I am, that I was sort of a coward in some way.
That columnist and I regularly correspond now.
OK, so the fact that people are mean to members of the media and the members of the media can't take it, there are some pretty thin-skinned members of the media.
Here is Chuck Todd's response after all of this.
Many people, including myself, raise their kids to respect the office of the presidency and the president of the United States.
When he uses vulgarity to talk about individuals, what are they supposed to tell their kids?
I don't know, Chuck.
What are you supposed to tell your kids?
You know what I would tell my kids?
He's a jerk!
That's what I would tell my kids.
If my kid asked me, if my daughter asked me, why are people mean to you, dad?
I would say, because they're jerks!
And that'd be the end of the conversation.
Okay, but this sort of schoolmarming and tut-tutting, all of this combined with the leftist radicalism, none of this is going to hurt Trump.
In fact, all of it is probably going to help Trump.
Okay, so.
Now, I want to discuss the latest on Trump, North Korea, and all the rest.
So, President Trump, at this rally in Pennsylvania, he came out and discussed his upcoming meeting with Kim Jong-un.
So, last Friday, he sort of flip-flopped.
There was a statement that he wanted preconditions to meet with Kim Jong-un, the dictator of North Korea, that he only wanted to meet with him if there were certain conditions met.
And then, the White House walked that back and said, we don't want preconditions.
A lot of this is about Trump's faith in himself as a negotiator.
A lot of this is Trump thinks that he can walk into a room and get deals done.
Now, this is completely ignorant, OK?
Trump is not a great negotiator.
The last time he negotiated a deal, it was a deal that involved Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer walking in on the budget and walking out with exactly what they wanted.
But Trump thinks he's a great negotiator, and so here he is talking at his rally about meeting with Kim Jong-un.
He says, I'm the only guy who can make this deal happen.
They announced that he's not going to send missiles up anymore until through the meetings.
Well, think of that.
You know, we were losing.
We were getting a lot of missiles sent.
I wouldn't say Japan was thrilled.
Missiles flying over Japan.
They're very happy with what I'm doing.
And who else could do it?
I mean, honestly, when you think.
They're not going to send missiles up.
Think of it.
OK, so again, if this is the big concession that they're not going to fire missiles for like six weeks until they meet, that's not a concession.
And who else can do it?
Anyone.
Jimmy Carter could do it.
Bill Clinton could do it.
George W. Bush could do it.
If you want to meet with bad guys without preconditions, it's not all that hard.
I don't have a lot of faith in Trump's negotiation skills with regards to the North Koreans.
I really don't.
I don't think he's going to walk in the room and then come out of the room with a big deal from the North Koreans.
I explained why last week.
But that said, it is funny to watch people on the left fulminate over this.
Ben Rhodes, particularly.
Ben Rhodes is the worst human being.
Ben Rhodes, the former National Security Advisor to Obama, whose entire job Description before that consisted of writing unpublished novels from his Brooklyn apartment.
He ends up being the instigator of the Iran deal, allowing the United States to basically surrender regional sovereignty to Iran.
Here he is tut-tutting Trump over the North Korean meeting.
Now listen, I'm not in favor of the North Korean meeting, but I'm not going to hear it from idiots like Ben Rhodes.
Well, the concern I have is, look, this is not a real estate deal or a reality show.
When you're in a negotiation with something as complex as a North Korean nuclear program, in a situation that is volatile as the Korean Peninsula, you need diplomats.
So, advice one is, don't hollow out the State Department.
They have no ambassador to Seoul.
The person who was in charge of North Korean negotiations just left the State Department.
So, one, get the professionals in the room to put together a strategy.
Okay, you mean the professionals in the room, like the people you sent in to give a billion dollars in cash to the Iranians, like those people?
You know, like, on pallets?
And the people who you sent in the room to give the Iranians everything they could ever want, including regional control over large swaths of Iraq and Syria and Lebanon?
Those people?
Again, I'm not in favor of Trump meeting here.
I don't think he's going to do any better than Obama did on North Korea.
I do think that Obama's people tut-tutting Trump for doing exactly the same thing Obama would have done is ridiculous and crazy.
Okay, time for some things I like, and then some things I hate, and we'll do a quick Federalist Paper.
So, things that I like.
So, speaking of socialism, so this week we're going to talk a little bit about socialism for the education of Elizabeth Bruning over at the Washington Post.
Okay, there's a great book called The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.
It is well worth the read.
This is one of Orwell's lesser-read books, actually.
And the basic book was about socialism in Britain.
And so the first half of the book is about mass unemployment in north of England and the poverty that he sees there.
But the second half of the book is about how state control is not the answer.
And that's one of the things that's really interesting about Orwell, is Orwell certainly saw driving so much of theire against capitalism.
But he also recognized the dangers of socialism.
Another one of his books that I love very much is Homage to Catalonia, which is totally worth reading.
A lot of the books that he wrote that are nonfiction are actually better books than the books that he wrote that are fiction.
So you should check out Homage to Catalonia.
You should also check out The Road to Wigan Pier.
Both of those are really fascinating books and well worth reading.
Plus, he's just a great writer.
His writing really leaps off the page.
There's so There's so many classic books that don't read like classics and Orwell's really do.
Okay, time for, you know what?
Let's do a bunch of things I hate.
Let's just hate on a bunch of crap today.
Okay, so, OJ had a confession, like an if-I-did-it confession, that is from 10 years ago.
I remember when this first came out.
Actually, it's 15 years ago now.
And there's such hubbub, because people were saying, why should OJ be getting TV time to basically confess for a crime we all know he did?
Well, finally, that tape came out, and it was broadcast yesterday on Fox.
Here's what it looked like.
This guy kind of got into a karate thing.
And I said, well, you think you can kick my ass?
And I remember I grabbed a knife.
I do remember that portion, taking a knife from Charlie.
And to be honest, after that, I don't remember.
Except I'm standing there, and there's all kind of stuff around.
What kind of stuff?
Blood and stuff around.
I hate to say this, but this is what I remember.
I'm still in the back of the truck, and I can't believe what I'm seeing.
Because every time we go by intersections, it was like, where did these people get the time to make these signs?
Go OJ and stuff.
And what was strange is I was being depicted as a fugitive on the radio, but from the side of the roads, it was more people cheering.
I just remember listening to the radio, which I think was Dan Rather, it really saved my life.
Right.
Because when he said that OJ had a history, police were at their house all the time, eight or nine times.
That was the first time that week that I kind of woke up.
Hey, man, listen to what they're saying about me.
I said, you see, this is... My favorite thing about this interview is the interviewer sitting there going, wait, what's going on now?
So there's O.J.
basically confessing to murder.
Yes, of course O.J.
murdered his ex-wife, as well as Ronald Goldman.
Of course he murdered those people.
And of course it was during nullification.
And the fact that the polls show that a large percentage of black folks in America at the time of the O.J.
trials thought that he was innocent just shows That human beings generally, not just black folks, human beings generally have an enormous capacity for cognitive failure.
I'm talking about failure to accept cognitive dissonance.
The racial politics may not be what you like, but OJ Simpson did in fact kill his ex-wife.
Evidence, folks.
Evidence, evidence, evidence.
OJ was guilty, obviously.
Other things that I hate.
Oprah Winfrey just galls me.
She just galls me.
And now, you know, she's kind of making overtures to maybe I'll run.
My favorite thing is that she said that if God tells her to run, that maybe she'll run.
Now, I like that the women of The View are very angry at Mike Pence whenever he talks about God talking to him.
But when Oprah says it, suddenly there's an actual pipeline to God.
Here's Oprah Winfrey talking about all of her kind of fake religious nonsense, her spiritual but not religious nonsense just drives me up a wall.
Here she was talking to the audience about how to survive Trump's America, be a warrior of the light.
I think I have to just say, everybody is feeding yourself on the hysteria and the negativity.
You got to stay in the light.
But one of the reasons why I was so excited is about A Wrinkle in Time, because the message is that the darkness is spreading so fast these days.
you must become a warrior of the light.
I don't even know what that is.
I don't even know what that means.
You gotta be a warrior of the light.
Okay, what are you even talking about?
And then it gets even vaguer and more dumb.
Okay, so she said this one last week and I really wanted to play it and I just forgot about it.
This is where she's talking to a young girl.
What's her advice to young girls?
This is the most subjectivist nonsense.
Ay yi yi.
Okay, here she goes.
I have that advice for girls who look like you and for girls who don't, because the advice is really the same.
The highest honor on earth that you will ever have is the honor of being yourself.
And your only job in the world is to figure out, that's what this movie is about.
Your only job in the world, people think your job is to get up and go and raise money and take care of your family and stuff.
That's an obligation that you have, but your only true job as a human being is to discover why you came.
Okay, this is the most subjective, nonsense, post-modernist crap.
Okay, if your only job in the world is to discover yourself and to be yourself, my baby just did it.
Your job in the world is to better yourself.
Your job in the world is to be moral.
There are certain moral demands that are made upon you by nature and nature's God.
It's your job to fulfill those things.
Your obligations exist outside of you.
Your obligations are not only to yourself.
And if you believe that all of morality can be found within you, and that all you have to do is fulfill what you feel, and then everything will be great, this is how you end up with a solipsistic, nihilistic society where no one has anything in common because we all have our own mission in the world, and those missions often conflict with one another, but we're the only people in the end who really matter.
I hate this stuff more than I can tell you.
This nouveau garbage, just yuck.
Okay, fine.
Federalist paper number 19.
Good news.
This will take me 30 seconds because it's a very, it's a very historically based Federalist paper.
So, Federalist paper number 19, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison writing.
They consider talking about why the Articles of, they're still considering about why the Articles of Confederation were insufficient to preserve the Union.
They give a couple of examples as to why loose confederations have failed in the past.
They explore the situations of Germany pre-Bismarck, because obviously they're living pre-Bismarck, and the Polish Confederation and the Swiss Confederation.
Long story short, they essentially say all of these places have made themselves vulnerable to foreign invasion and have suffered from severe internal warfare as well, and that's why we need a stronger centralized government.
Boom.
Done with Federalist Number 19 in 30 seconds or less.
So, we will be back here tomorrow with a breakdown of everything that's going on.
Apparently, President Trump proposing a new quasi-gun control bill, or at least something to do with Parkland.
We'll analyze it and all of its details.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection