All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:36
Revenge Of The Mossad | Ep. 529
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Israel breaks stunning intelligence information about the Iran deal.
The New York Times talks up Karl Marx on his birthday.
And Robert Mueller's questions for Donald Trump leak.
We'll talk about all of it.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Alrighty, so many amazing things happening First of all, I do want to announce this, and I'll announce it again later in the show.
If you're not a subscriber to the show, you really should subscribe to the show, because on Sunday, we are beginning a brand new second podcast.
It's a second edition of the podcast, The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special, and I'm going to be hosting weekly in-depth conversations with a bunch of people.
Our first episode actually features me talking with Jordan Peterson.
It's a full hour long, so in some of these five-minute, ten-minute interviews, we really go in-depth.
We're talking with folks about politics and news and culture and everything in between.
And if you're already a subscriber, you don't have to hit another button, because it's immediately going to pop up in your feed.
So it should be awesome.
Again, this Sunday's premiere episode features Jordan Peterson.
I think that you should subscribe.
I think it'll be great, and you're really going to enjoy it.
Okay, so, before I get to the actual content of the show, because there's a lot of news breaking, particularly about Israel and Iran, first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at blinds.com.
So, there's one part of your house you really don't think about very much, but it's making your house look like crap, and it's your blinds.
Okay, you have the same blinds that you had from the person who moved in before you, and that person has the same blinds from the person who built the house in 1937, and the blinds look like garbage.
It's making your whole house look like garbage.
That's why you need to go over to my friends over at Blinds.com.
They make it really easy for you.
If you're not sure what you want or even where to start with Blinds.com, you get a free online design consultation.
You send them pictures of your house, and they send back custom recommendations from a professional for what's going to work with your color scheme, furniture, and specific rooms.
And they will even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as good in person as it does online.
Every order gets free shipping.
Here's the best part.
If you screw it up, you mismeasure, you pick the wrong color, blinds.com remakes your blinds for free.
So it is an awesome deal.
And they've really made it easy for you.
There's no excuse to leave up those mangled blinds that make it look like you just moved into somebody else's trailer.
Go to blinds.com and use promo code Ben.
You get 20% off everything.
At blinds.com for a limited time when you use promo code Ben.
Again, that's blinds.com promo code Ben for 20% off everything.
That's the faux wood blinds, the cellular shades, the roller shades, and more.
Blinds.com promo code Ben.
Rules and restrictions do apply.
Okay, so the big news yesterday is that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, got up and did a 20 minute speech in which he announced that Israel had done something unbelievable.
Mossad had somehow gotten a hold of 100,000 physical files from the Iranian government about their nuclear program.
That's an amazing thing.
Just think of how many boxes of materials that is that you had to deliberately smuggle out of Tehran.
How exactly did that happen?
It's a pretty incredible thing.
But what's in the files is even more stunning.
So, number one, the files detail the extent of the Iranian nuclear program prior to the Iran nuclear deal.
Iran has always lied about that.
They've said they weren't developing nuclear weapons, they just wanted a peaceful nuclear program.
The files show that that is, in fact, a lie.
Also, The fact that these files had been smuggled to a secret location demonstrates something else, which is that Iran had no intention of dismantling its nuclear program, as Barack Obama seemed to suggest.
Instead, they were just taking all of their files, moving them to the back room, continuing on with their secret nuclear program, probably, or at the very least, putting other parts of that nuclear program on hold for the moment while they develop all the technology, all the centrifuges and all of the ballistic missile technology.
And then in 10 years, after the deal is signed, so now eight years, Once that happens, they go right back to where they left off.
They pick up all their old files.
They have all the same people who've been working on this stuff.
And boom, in six months, they have a bomb.
Right?
That is the point of the Iran deal from where the Iranians stand.
That's always what people who have opposed the Iran deal have claimed is what the Iranians were attempting to do in the Iran deal.
And now it's been pretty well documented.
Here's what it looked like yesterday and sounded like when Benjamin Netanyahu spoke in front of the world about the files that they had gotten ahold of from the Iranians.
Well, tonight I'm here to tell you one thing.
Iran lied.
Big time.
After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret nuclear files.
And this is one of the big questions.
So why exactly did they bother hiding the nuclear files if, in fact, they were intent on dismantling their nuclear program or even on putting it on hold?
Why would they smuggle those files to someplace secret?
Why would they continue to have a defense program staffed by exactly the same people who are running the nuclear program if they put their nuclear plans on hold?
And the answer, of course, is they are lying.
And at the very least, they are planning to reinitiate that nuclear program as soon as the deal is up or at the very most, They may be pursuing nuclear plans in secret.
Here's Netanyahu talking a little bit about the smuggling of the files.
In 2017, Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in Tehran.
This is the Shorabat district in southern Tehran.
This is where they kept the atomic archives.
Right here.
So again, pretty amazing intelligence operation.
Now, all of the Obama acolytes are claiming that we already knew all of this stuff, that we knew that Iran was lying about its nuclear weapons for years.
That's why we tried to sign the Iran deal in the first place, because we knew that they'd been developing nuclear weapons.
Why would we have attempted to sign a deal with people if we thought that they weren't developing nuclear weapons?
Okay, fair enough, except for the fact that Iran then lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency when it came time to make the deal.
So one of the provisions of the deal is that Iran had to give all the details up of what exactly they'd been doing with their nuclear program in order for the deal to go through.
They didn't do that.
They lied about what they were doing.
They took all those files.
They hid them.
Because again, they plan on opening those files right back up as soon as this deal is up and then developing a nuclear weapon within six months.
That is their big plan here.
The fact that all of the Obama friends are out there defending Iran today and suggesting that Iran is honest and that Bibi Netanyahu is a liar tells you pretty much what you need to know about the Obama folks.
Remember, That Iran deal, which is an awful, awful deal, does not include ballistic weapons technology, so it means that the Iranians can continue to develop long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles without violating the terms of the Iran deal.
It does not cover the use of money given by the West back to Iran for purposes of terrorism, and so Iran has funneled an enormous sum of cash to Bashar Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Iran deal did not cover any of that.
Obama and Kerry openly admitted that we, the United States, are currently funding Iranian terror projects, that that is something that is currently happening.
And yet we are told that that Iran deal is so important that we have to maintain it.
We're told it's really deeply important for us to maintain the Iran deal.
In a second, I'm going to make the case for those on the right who say we shouldn't maintain the Iran deal versus those who say we should just scrap the thing.
But it is important to note the other place in which the Obama administration lied.
They lied openly, openly about the supposed moderation of the Iranian regime.
So the story that was sold by Ben Rhodes, who is a fiction writer, who somehow ended up as national security advisor under Barack Obama.
It's amazing.
All these people who say that Trump surrounds himself with unqualified people.
There's no way in the world that Jared Kushner is less qualified than Ben Rhodes because it's impossible for anyone to be less qualified than Ben Rhodes.
Ben Rhodes went from writing bad short stories that were unpublished in his Brooklyn apartment to being National Security Advisor because Barack Obama was friends with him.
And then Ben Rhodes constructed an entire narrative sold by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, who is a garbage human being and a terrible reporter, the same guy who fired Kevin Williamson.
Jeffrey Goldberg is the guy who played stooge for the Obama administration as they proclaimed that Iran was promulgating a new moderation.
They claimed that Iran had gone moderate, that the election of Hassan Rouhani, as opposed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was actually a moderate move.
And now Iran wanted to make a deal because Iran obviously was moving toward the center.
And if we just fostered that by reaching out to them, then very soon Iran would moderate Obviously, that has not happened.
Instead, the mullahs have been re-enshrined in power and strengthened in their power by the Iran deal.
They have millions of dollars flowing in they never would have seen before.
I mean, we shipped literally pallets of cash.
What was it?
$150 billion?
Something like that?
We shipped pallets of cash to the Iranians.
First of all, the reason we ship pallets of cash as opposed to just wiring the money is because then it's untraceable.
The Iranians know that.
We knew that.
The Obama administration lied about the Iran deal and they did it routinely.
So, the question is why is Bibi doing this now?
The answer is that Bibi is doing this now.
The Israeli Prime Minister is revealing these documents right now because Netanyahu is attempting to make the case for scrapping the Iran deal two weeks Before the Trump administration has to decide whether or not to recertify the Iran deal.
And the Israelis have been coordinating with the Americans all throughout this process.
It turns out that Netanyahu told Trump about all of these documents two months ago, and shockingly, Trump actually kept his mouth shut about them, which is pretty amazing in and of itself.
The Israeli ambassador says that the U.S.
has shared the documents with the United States, and in fact, the U.S.
has authenticated them.
I can guarantee you that if people had that information in 2015, this deal would have never happened at the time because it shows there's hard evidence there that Iran has a military nuclear program and that it falsified all their reports to the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
What Netanyahu did today, he did not present simply a smoking gun, he presented a smoking bomb.
Okay, and there's something else that's happening in the Middle East, too, and you have to be reading all of the tea leaves to see what's really happening here.
There is a Sunni alliance that is forming against the rise of Shia Iran.
That is exactly what is happening here.
Now, does this mean that the United States is going to go to war with Iran?
No, it doesn't mean the United States is going to go to war with Iran.
I don't think that President Trump is interested in using American military might in order to topple the Iranian regime.
Nor am I certain that he should.
In fact, I think there's a pretty good case that the United States should not be involved in using military force in order to topple the Iranian regime, if there's any way to avoid it.
That's why I think that Trump is taking a step back, and he's basically saying, let's weaken the Iranian regime, and then if Israel has to do what Israel has to do, then they have to do what they have to do.
And they've obviously been working hand-in-glove with the Saudis.
How do we know that?
Because the Saudis came out in the last two days, and Mohammed bin Sultan, who is the new prince over there, Yeah, the new king.
He said something incredible.
He came forward and he said that the Palestinians basically ought to take whatever the Trump administration offers them in a deal with Israel or sit down and shut up.
And the reason that they're saying this is because the Trump administration has said to everyone in the region, look, you want to stop Iran, you're going to have to get on the same page.
Hey, you have to stop using the Palestinians as a baton to wield against the Israelis.
You have to stop supporting Hamas.
You have to stop supporting the Palestinian Authority and Islamic Jihad.
You have to stop all of that.
And instead, you need to understand that you guys face a common enemy.
And the Saudis understand that.
The Israelis obviously understand it, too.
So what we have now is a working alliance between Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel against Iran.
And that alliance has been formulated with the end of the Iran deal in mind.
I'd be very surprised at this point if the Trump administration does not, in fact, tip over the Iran deal in a couple of weeks.
Now, the case against tipping over the Iran deal is that Iran is, quote unquote, abiding by the agreement, which means that they are not actively developing their nuclear program for the moment.
And the question is really timing.
Right?
Is everybody ready for what comes next if the Iran deal ends?
So if the Iran deal ends, presumably the United States reimposes sanctions on Iran.
The Europeans do not.
There's a bit of a foreign policy snafu there because Obama has, of course, put the onus on the West, not on the Iranians, to prove that Iran is lying, which is, I think, kind of ridiculous because Iran has been lying continuously about this stuff for decades.
And so the question becomes, OK, what happens after that?
And the answer is that once the sanctions are reinforced, once the Iran deal is off the table, the real purpose of that is to allow Israel to work with Saudi Arabia to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.
And that's really what this is about.
So, will that conflagrate into a larger war?
I don't think so.
I think the chances of that spiraling out of control with the Iranians attacking the United States, for example, they'd be fools to do so.
And the Russians are not going to jump in against the Israelis and the Saudis because they understand that that would precipitate American military action.
So, this would be probably a very contained military response by Israel and by Saudi Arabia, Which should have been pursued years and years and years ago if this Iran deal were to end.
If it's not to end, my guess is the only reason for doing that is because they haven't come up with a foolproof military plan at this point.
And so the goal here is to kick the can down the road until they actually have something ready to go.
Well, with all of that, and I have, I think, a pretty good sign that what I'm saying is true, which I'll explain to you in just one second.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Burrow.
Think about it.
All of your modern luxury items come in boxes.
Your mattress, your clothes, your eyeglasses.
Well now luxury couches actually come in boxes too.
No more heavy lifting.
No more dinging your walls when you're moving in.
Because of Burroughs.
So we at our house have some Burroughs furniture and it is just the most comfortable stuff.
Not only that, some of the furniture has USB outlets in it.
So if I'm sitting there and I have to charge my phone, I can sit there on the couch doing it.
I don't have to stretch a wire all the way across the room.
Their fabric is stain-resistant, which is great because I have two kids who make messes out of everything.
Burrow brings style and comfort to a whole new level, and they ship to your door fast and free.
It is affordable luxury.
It's the same quality that you would expect from high-end retailers without breaking the bank.
And what's really cool is that Burrow is adaptable, so all of their furniture is modular.
So if your space changes, then you can actually move the furniture around and it grows with you.
So you can get a couch that expands.
You can get chairs that have a place for another piece in the middle.
It's really cool, and again, they have that stain-resistant fabric that can take on your pet's claws, and it has that built-in USB charger, so it's got durability, it's got functionality, so you can enjoy 30 days of cozy on your Burro for risk-free, or try out Burro at one of their showrooms today.
So, you can try out for 30 days, and if you don't like it, then they'll take it back for free.
Go customize your own Burro and get 75 bucks off your order right now by going to burro.com slash Ben Shapiro.
That's B-U-R-R-O-W dot com slash Ben Shapiro.
Burrow dot com slash Ben Shapiro for 75 bucks off your purchase.
This is furniture that's going to last you a long time and it looks really good and it is super comfortable.
Burrow dot com slash Ben Shapiro for 75 bucks off your purchase.
Again, they make the luxury couch for real life.
Their Burrow furniture is just terrific.
Burrow dot com slash Ben Shapiro for that deal and to let them know that we sent you.
I've said that I think the indicators are pretty good that the White House is going to pull out of the Iran deal.
What is the chief indicator?
Well, yesterday there was a statement that came out from the press secretary, the office of the press secretary from the White House, and here's what it said.
The United States is aware of the information just released by Israel and continues to examine it carefully.
This information provides new and compelling details about Iran's efforts to develop missile-deliverable nuclear weapons.
These facts are consistent with what the United States has long known.
Iran has a robust clandestine nuclear weapons program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world and from its own people.
Okay, so there are a bunch of reporters who pointed out this is a pretty stunning statement, right?
They're not saying that Iran had a robust clandestine nuclear weapons program.
They're saying that it has an active weapons program, which would obviously be a violation of the deal and mean that we have to pull out of the deal immediately.
Well, The White House came out afterward and they changed the language.
They changed to Iran had a robust clandestine nuclear weapons program.
The White House said it was a clerical error, but there's very little question as to where the White House's head is at.
Right?
The White House believes that the nuclear deal is bad.
Barack Obama knew it was bad, but did it anyway, and lies to the American people about it.
Trump has been saying for years that the Iran deal is a disaster, and President Trump is right.
Now, as I say, none of this means the United States has to go to war.
The United States can do a lot of things short of going to war.
We can reimpose sanctions.
We can help facilitate the use of Saudi airspace by the Israelis.
We can ensure that Israel is defended in case of retaliatory strike.
But that doesn't mean that we have to go to active war with the Iranians.
We can support revolutionary movements within Iran in a stronger possible fashion if we have the sanctions reinforced.
It's very difficult to support people trying to topple a regime when you have a deal with the regime.
That's why I've always found the Obama line that it was either his deal or war to be so foolish and such a lie.
He's not the only one saying it, of course.
Pat Buchanan, who really despises Israel, he's been saying the same thing here as Buchanan making that case.
So you didn't watch Bibi Netanyahu's evidence and believe it today?
Because I believed every word of it.
I believed it.
Bibi Netanyahu, with due respect, wants the United States to fight a war against Iran.
Nobody's talking about fighting a war.
I don't want my country getting into another war.
I don't want another war either.
Okay, again, this is a lie.
When you have people like Pat Buchanan saying that everything is inevitably going to lead to war, that's nonsense.
It is worth noting, by the way, that Israel was very tepid about the Iraq war in the first place.
For all the people who keep saying that Israel was the cause of the Iraq war, go back and look at the evidence.
The Israeli government was really not stumping for the Iraq war.
They were very, very torn about whether the United States should go to war in Iraq in That was a George W. Bush initiative.
I think it was the right initiative at the time, based on the evidence that he had in front of him.
But, yeah, again, this sort of Papu-Canaanite, this is a war on behalf of the Jews routine, I don't think that's right, especially because as Iranian influence goes in the region, that threatens a lot of American interests aside from Israel, including Saudi Arabia, including the fate of Europe, including American troops that are stationed around the world.
Iran developing this sort of technology is extraordinarily dangerous, especially considering that Iran has such Okay.
Now, meanwhile, in other news, I just have to comment on Maxine Waters.
about Iran as the greatest state terror sponsor on planet Earth, that is obviously the case.
Okay, now, meanwhile, in other news, I just have to comment on Maxine Waters.
So Maxine Waters came out yesterday and she was talking about Kanye West.
Now, I'm growing tired of talking about Kanye West.
I think that Kanye West did something great, and over the past few days he's been tweeting out quotes from Thomas Sowell, and all of that's really good.
Do I think Kanye is a political expert?
No, I don't think he's a political expert, but again, kudos to Kanye for attempting to have conversations about politics in a fashion that doesn't fit directly into the jigsaw puzzle that the Democrats have built for him.
He's been saying that, you know, you should think for yourself on politics.
He's been saying that we don't have to be stuck on a particular political plantation.
Honestly, good for him for saying all of that.
Well, Maxine Waters has had enough.
The representative from California who is one of the more doltish members of Congress.
I mean, she's really a stupid human being.
Maxine Waters tore into Kanye West and here's what she said.
She said, quote, Kanye West is a very creative young man, but we also think that sometimes West talks out of turn and perhaps he needs some assistance in helping him to formulate some of his thoughts.
You see, Kanye West needs Maxine Waters to guide him because he's too stupid.
We don't think that he actually means to do harm, but we're not sure he really understands the impact of what he's saying at the time that he's saying it and how that weighs on particularly African American community and for young people in general.
And then she continued, quote, I understand that he is getting pushback from a lot of young people on the Internet, but we're hopeful that his creativity will continue to be demonstrated in his work.
And I think maybe he should think twice about politics and maybe not have so much to say.
So, this is pretty amazing because she's essentially telling Kanye West to shut up and sing.
That's exactly what that last sentence is.
He should think twice about politics and maybe have not so much to say.
And he should continue to show his creativity in his work.
So, let's get this straight.
When Laura Ingraham said to LeBron James, shut up and dribble, that was racist.
When Maxine Waters says to Kanye West, shut up and sing, that's just her, what, being great advisor?
A great advisor to Kanye West?
First of all, for her to claim that anyone is ignorant is insane.
Again, Maxine Waters is one of the more corrupt, stupid members of Congress.
This is a woman who, while she was sitting on the House Financial Services Committee, was named by Judicial Watch the most corrupt member of Congress, I think, four times because she was attempting to use the House Financial Services Committee, allegedly, to funnel money and make exceptions for her husband's bank, One United Bank.
He had a bunch of stock in the bank.
As for her stupidity, there's a lady who once said that Vladimir Putin was going to invade Korea, not Crimea.
She once said that she was, she said, I was once a millennial.
No, she was not.
She promoted abortion by saying, I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.
Which is a good reason for you not to march, because if your mom had had an abortion, you wouldn't be there.
But again, Maxine Waters, the entire left, a lot of folks on the left, very, very upset with Kanye West for daring to step outside of the typical box that has been built for all of these folks on the left.
If you're in Hollywood, this box has been built for you.
If you are a black person, this box has been built for you.
And so if you step outside the box, then Maxine Waters will clock you.
Again, if you step outside any box, the left will clock you.
And the resistance to this, I think, is growing exceedingly strong.
And there are a lot of people right now who are feeling like, you've been hemming me in.
I think, by the way, a lot of Trump's appeal in 2016 was based on the idea that he was breaking out of the box of political correctness.
I think a lot of the stuff he said wasn't politically incorrect.
I think it was dumb.
But the fact that he was willing to say things that were politically incorrect from time to time was one of his chief appeals.
And Hillary Clinton Made a huge mistake politically by reinforcing the perception of a lot of Americans that the left wants to build a small box for you to live in and if you go outside the box, then she will call you a deplorable.
And Donald Trump said, listen, I hate boxes.
Boxes are stupid.
The corners hurt.
I don't want them.
And then he just blew up the box.
I think that a lot of people felt the appeal of that and a lot of people are feeling the appeal of that now.
Which is great, which is great.
I think Kanye West is one of the people feeling the appeal of that.
Now, does there still have to be some sort of box for acceptable opinion and unacceptable opinion?
I think most people agree that not all opinion is created equal and not all opinion is equally valuable, but I I think that if we're going to err on the side of the size of the box, we have to err on the side of a large box, a box that fits a lot of opinions.
And again, a black person saying they want to vote Republican or consider Republican voting is not the end of the world.
And it's also worth noting that there's a lot of disinformation being put out by the Democratic left in an attempt to win Kanye West back.
Like, they keep putting out the myth that the Republican and Democratic parties switched places on race in the 1960s.
That is eminently untrue.
It's been disproved by people ranging from Sean Trent of RealClearPolitics to a couple of professors, I believe, at Princeton.
The statistics just do not bear this out.
But good for Kanye West and bad for Maxine Waters again.
Cudgeling people into line seems to be the main priority of so many folks on the left, which is really, really unfortunate these days.
Okay, so before I go any further, and I have to talk about the New York Times, which is celebrating Karl Marx's birthday.
I am not kidding.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Thrive Market.
Check out thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro for great savings on all the products you need to live a healthy life.
So if you're like me, you care a lot about health.
I work out every day, and that is why beneath this non-threatening exterior lies the hulk of a monster.
But one of the things One of the things I'm also careful about is not just the working out, but also the stuff that I put in my body.
And that's why I like to eat healthy food as much as I can for somebody who hates vegetables.
One of the ways that I do that is by shopping over at Thrive Market.
They're a revolutionary online marketplace on a mission to make healthy living easy and affordable for everyone.
You can actually shop for thousands of the best-selling non-GMO foods and natural products, always at 25% to 50% below traditional retail prices.
And check out the Thrive Market brand products because they are the highest quality ingredients at even more affordable prices than the current premium products that they carry on their site.
And you can get everything you need and it's all organized.
This is the nice thing, right?
You can actually filter the catalog by your values and dietary preferences.
So for me, that's awesome because I can search with one click of a button for everything that is kosher.
And that means that I know what I can eat at Thrive Market.
And again, more than 70% of the Thrive Market Catalog cannot be found on Amazon.
It's all top quality stuff.
It's highly curated, so it's only the best of each individual product.
And here is how it works.
Users right now get $20 off their first three orders of $49 or more, plus free shipping.
So most shoppers spend more than $49 on the site.
Anyway, do the math.
you spend $49, and Thrive automatically gives you back $20. So your total purchase becomes $30, and you get that deal three times in a row.
Pretty awesome deal.
Go to thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro.
That's thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro to get your instant $60 of free groceries.
Again, for each time you spend $49, you get $20 off. Thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro.
Check it out.
Use that slash Shapiro so that they know that we sent you.
Okay, so the good news is that while the left may be attempting to box everybody in with identity politics, they are also attempting to revivify the ghost of Karl Marx.
So the New York Times has written a bunch of pieces in the last year about why Marxism is awesome.
Which is pretty amazing, because then they charge you a pretty high subscription fee to be over at the New York Times.
But they've written op-eds in the last year titled, When Communism Inspired Americans, Socialism's Future May Be Its Past, and Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism.
Which seems wildly untrue, considering that the better sex under socialism of China involves forced abortion, which seems like that might kill the mood a little bit.
In any case, there's another piece out yesterday that I just love from a guy named Jason Barker.
He's an associate professor of philosophy over at South Korean University.
And the piece is called, Happy Birthday Karl Marx, You Were Right.
And there's a picture of a giant statue of Karl Marx.
And not only was Karl Marx not right, Karl Marx's idiotic philosophy led to the deaths of well over 100 million people during the 20th century alone.
So, if that's right, then I don't want to be right anytime soon.
But here is what this professor writes.
He writes, On May 5, 1818, in the southern German town of Trier, in the picturesque, wine-growing region of the Moselle Valley, Karl Marx was born.
At the time, Shur was one-tenth the size it is today, with a population of around 12,000.
According to one of Marx's recent biographers, Jürgen Neff, Shur is one of those towns where, although everyone doesn't know everyone, many know a lot about many.
Such provincial constraints were no match for Marx's boundless intellectual enthusiasm Rare were the radical thinkers of the major European capitals of his day that he either failed to meet or failed to break with on theoretical grounds.
And then he talks about all of his intellectual influences.
And he says, in 1837, Marx reneged on the legal career that his father, himself a lawyer, had mapped out for him and immersed himself instead in the speculative philosophy of G.W.F.
Hegel at the University of Berlin.
If you've never read Hegelian philosophy, don't worry about it.
It's incredibly abstruse and difficult to read, but the basic idea of Hegelian philosophy is that God is present in history and that history is essentially a progression from synthesis, from thesis and antithesis to synthesis.
In other words, there's one position, the opposite position, they fight with each other and the result is a synthesis of the best of both positions.
And therefore history is constantly moving in a progressive direction.
That is Hegelianism in two sentences right there.
Okay, but what Marx took from that is that history was going to move inevitably away from capitalism and instead toward communism.
So here's what Barker writes.
He says, And here's what Barker writes. And here's what Barker writes.
As we reach the bicentennial of Marx's birth, what lessons might we draw from his dangerous and delirious philosophical legacy?
What precisely is Marx's lasting contribution?
Today, the legacy would appear to be alive and well.
If by alive and well you mean the Soviet Union no longer exists after a century of oppression, and that the Chinese have embraced non-Marxist philosophy, and that the last standing vestige of true Marxism on planet Earth is probably in Cuba and North Korea, two gulag states, then sure, everything is going great for Marxism.
Oh yeah, and there's Venezuela also, which has just been a boon.
Since the turn of the millennium, countless books have appeared from scholarly works to popular biographies, writes this professor in the New York Times, broadly endorsing Marx's reading of capitalism and its enduring relevance to our neoliberal age.
In 2002, the French philosopher Alain Padieux declared at a conference I attended in London that Marx had become the philosopher of the middle class.
What did he mean?
I believe he meant that educated liberal opinion is today more or less unanimous in its agreement that Marx basis thesis that capitalism is driven by a deeply divisive class struggle in which the ruling class minority appropriates the surplus labor of the working class majority as profit is correct.
Even liberal economists such as Nouriel Roubini agree that Marx's conviction that capitalism has an inbuilt tendency to destroy itself remains as prescient as ever.
Well, okay, a couple of things that are wrong with this.
One, Marx's basic theory, which is that rich people exploit poor people for their own profit, is idiotic.
Okay, unless you can demonstrate that there is force that is being used.
The fact is that capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything else in the history of humanity, and it is not close.
Okay, in 1980, Twice the number of people as today were living in abject poverty on planet Earth.
Today, less than 10% of all people on planet Earth are living in what they call extreme poverty by UN standards.
That is solely due to free trade and capitalism.
Is it this idea that Marx's thesis is right, that it's all about class warfare?
No.
If you're an educated person and you've actually studied the issues, you don't believe this.
You have to be a fool to believe this.
You have to be a college-educated Bernie Sanders spouting idiot to believe this stuff.
But here's the part that I love about Barker.
So, here's what he talks about.
He says, Marx arrives at no magic formula for exiting the enormous social and economic contradictions that global capitalism entails.
What Marx did achieve, however, through his self-styled materialist thought, were the critical weapons for undermining capitalism's ideological claims of the only game in town.
So, what exactly does he say is the way that capitalism is going to fall, Marx, according to this professor in the New York Times celebrating Marx?
Well, Marx was convinced that capitalism would soon make relics of all of these workers, all these various types of workers.
The inroads that artificial intelligence is currently making into medical diagnosis and surgery, for instance, bears out the argument in the manifesto that technology would greatly accelerate the division of labor or the de-skilling of such professions.
Okay, first of all, here he has picked an incredibly poor example.
My wife, as mentioned many times on the show, is a doctor.
The fact that she is capable of using medical technology to diagnose has made her a better doctor.
It has not declined, it has not reduced the demand for doctors.
We still have a shortage of doctors in the United States, largely thanks to the regulatory policies of the federal government.
But this is my favorite part.
So then he talks about how what we really need here is something new.
He says, we need a classless and stateless society.
He says, where Hegel had stopped at advocating a rational liberal state, Marx would go one stage further.
Since the gods were no longer divine, there was no need for a state at all.
So it's not that the state existed in history and that God existed in history.
It's there was no need for a state.
Instead, we could have a classless, stateless society that would come to define both Marx and Engels' idea of communism and, of course, the subsequent and troubled history of the communist states that materialized during the 20th century.
I love this part.
He says, There is still a great deal to be learned from their disasters, but their philosophical relevance remains doubtful, to say the least.
So, just to get this straight, according to this particular professor of philosophy at a South Korean university writing in the New York Times, The history of Marxism can be completely separated off from the history of the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and every other state that has attempted state-sponsored communism.
None of that has any philosophical relevance.
They're sort of historical curiosities.
Weird that they all thought they were interpreting Marx too.
But apparently this guy is the only guy who understands Marx.
This is the best part, right?
So here he talks about where Marxism really exists.
And this is actually important.
Here's the part that's important.
Not just that the New York Times is celebrating Marx.
This part.
I'm about to read to you is important because you need to understand that what he says here is true.
The Marxist roots of identity politics are very clear and they are very disturbing.
He, of course, thinks it's great.
He says, the key factor in Marx's intellectual legacy in our present-day society is not philosophy, but critique, or what he described in 1843 as, quote, the ruthless criticism of all that exists.
Ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at, And in the sense of being just as little afraid of the conflict with the powers that be.
It says, Such movements recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class, and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.
We have become used to the go-getting mantra that to effect social change we first have to change ourselves, but enlightened or rational thinking is not enough.
Since the norms of thinking are already skewed by the structures of male privilege and social hierarchy, even down to the language we use.
Changing those norms entails changing the very foundations of society.
So in just a second, I'm going to explain what I just said there.
Why those two paragraphs are deeply, deeply important.
First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
So for $9.99 a month, you get a subscription to Daily Wire.
That comes along with my show.
It comes along with Michael Knowles' show and Andrew Klavan's show, the rest of those shows live.
Also, you get to view the video of the entire interview that I'm doing this Sunday with Jordan Peterson, an hour-long special interview with Jordan Peterson.
Our brand new show is launching.
Every Sunday, we're gonna be doing an interview with a major player, a major thinker, somebody who's really making headlines out there.
We're gonna be doing that every Sunday.
We have some people coming up who you're not gonna wanna miss.
Jordan is just the first.
That'll be really fascinating.
I can say this safely.
It is the most intellectual conversation that you will hear on podcasting.
It's really high-level stuff, I think.
So check that out on Sunday.
And when you get the subscription, there are added benefits that come with that as well.
Also, you get the annual subscription.
You get this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
You'll enjoy every second of it.
Both Jordan and I are drinking from this during our interview, so you can see the magic.
I mean, before the interview, we were both stupid.
And then we started drinking from this, and we both became somewhat smart.
So check out that Tumblr and enjoy it.
Also, Daily Wire is now available at Apple News.
So if you view Apple News, then you can now read our site through Apple News, which is pretty cool, all of the stuff that we are breaking on a constant basis.
Again, please subscribe and please become a subscriber because it helps us bring you the show every day and helps us bring you these specials as well.
And if you just want to listen for free later, iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, please subscribe, please leave us a review.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So back to this piece from the New York Times.
What is admitted in this piece upholding Marxism is something really stunning.
What he basically is saying is that when you look at all these ethnic solidarity movements, or the female solidarity movement, or any of these identity politics movements, these are newfangled attempts to use Marxist critiques to bring down society.
This is true.
If you go back to the 1960s and you look at the work of a lot of members of the Frankfurt School, people like Herbert Marcuse, And if you read them, what they are saying is that the new stand-ins for the lower classes that are going to rise up, the proletariat, who are going to rise up and take over the system, instead of doing it by class, he says, we're going to separate you by racial group.
We're going to say that you black people have been victimized by American society, and you gay people have been victimized by American society, and you Hispanic people, and you Jewish people, and you women, and you transgenders, you've all been hurt by American society, now rise up and tear down your oppressor.
The new Marxist revolution is happening, but it's not happening on the basis of class.
It's happening on the basis of identity.
And Marxists know that.
Now their whole goal here is to tear down the system.
And what they say is that once we have a classless society, all this will go away.
And this is why when you hear Bernie Sanders talk, it's really kind of ironic and hilarious.
When Bernie Sanders talks, he's talking the language of Marxism.
on behalf of identity politics, but the identity politics movement has grown so strong that it's now at war with some of its Marxist roots.
What I mean by that is that when you listen to Bernie, what Bernie basically says is, look, all these identity politics groups are being oppressed.
They're being oppressed.
The way they're not gonna be oppressed anymore is when there's a socialist utopia, When we have a socialist utopia in which income is redistributed and in which people at the top are stamped on and people at the bottom are uplifted, then there will be no more racism, there will be no more sexism, there will be no more homophobia and transphobia.
Everyone will get along.
Everyone will love his brother.
Socialism will be the solution.
Well, that was the message that was being put forth by all of the advocates of identity politics who originally started the identity politics advocacy in the 1960s and 70s.
So Bernie is just spouting what he knows from his 1960s commune time.
But the identity politics advocates, they say, well, Bernie is not paying enough attention to us.
The Marxists aren't paying enough attention to us.
They don't understand.
Even if we tear down the current capitalist system and we put in its place a socialist system, that's not enough.
Identity politics, tribalism actually overcomes Marxism in their rubric.
And so what you're seeing right now, and it's fascinating to watch, is an ongoing fight between the identity politics wing of the Democratic Party and the Marxist wing of the Democratic Party.
And they're going to war with each other, even though the Marxist wing created the identity politics wing.
It's really quite fascinating.
But it is important to note that the goal of all of this, the common cause, is to tear down the capitalist system, to tear down the social hierarchies, the supposed social hierarchies based on race, not on merit.
None of that is true.
What exists in the United States right now is a meritocracy.
What exists in the United States, by and large, without government regulation, is a free and open country where you can fall or rise on your own merit.
That's a very good thing.
But Marxists believe that all of that has to fall, and they are using identity politics as a tool in tearing down the social order.
The final paragraph from Jason Barker over at the New York Times is pretty amazing.
He says, "The transition to a new society where relations among people rather than capital relations finally determine an individual's worth is arguably proving to be quite a task." First of all, it's hard to say what exactly that's supposed to mean.
You know, I do judge all the individuals around me not based on how much money they make, but whether they are good people.
In fact, that's been a religious principle since the beginning of religion.
You're supposed to judge people not on the amount of money that they make.
You're not supposed to judge their worth by their income, but by how they are as human beings.
But Marxism says that we can somehow quantify that in such a way that we can pay people in accordance with their virtue, which is really weird and I think untrue.
But Barker concludes, Marx, as I have said, does not offer a one-size-fits-all formula for enacting social change, but he does offer a powerful intellectual acid test for that change.
On that basis, we are destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until the kind of society that he struggled to bring about and that increasing numbers of us now desire is finally realized.
So we're just going to keep repeating Marx's routine until Marx's dream is realized.
Marx's dream was realized, and it was a dystopian nightmare.
But the New York Times and leftists all over the world refused to recognize that, because that is their last best hope.
They tried bureaucratic centralization and top-down running things.
That didn't work in the early 20th century.
They tried fascism.
Fascism was a left-wing movement.
Mussolini began by studying Marx.
Hitler, too, began by being entranced with some of the ideas of Marx and Hegel.
All of these things were left-wing movements.
By European standards, they became right-wing movements because they became counter-communist.
But that does not mean that by American standards, these were right-wing movements.
OK, fascism, Italian fascism, if placed in the United States, would have been much closer to FDR than it would have been close to Wendell Willkie.
And the same thing is true of Hitler's politics.
But the fact is that the left is never going to let go of the Marxist dream because the left looks at human beings and they say, human beings suck.
The only way to transform them is by transforming the system.
Religion looks at human beings and says, human beings suck.
The only way to transform human beings is for human beings to transform themselves and to become better human beings.
It's not about the system.
It's about you.
One of those philosophies leads to better human beings.
The other philosophy leads to horrible societies.
Horrible societies, as a general rule.
OK, so in just one second, I want to talk about some big breaking news.
And that, of course, is chaos in the Mueller investigation as some of Mueller's questions are leaked.
Before I get to the Mueller questions, though, I just have to note one quick thing that's pretty amazing.
So, you know, I live in Los Angeles.
I've spent a lot of time, my entire life basically, in left wing areas, Los Angeles, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
And that means that I know a lot of folks on the left and a lot of folks on the left who like to talk about how terrible the United States is, how racist and awful it is, and spend all of their time trying to effectuate social change, spend all of their time trying to fix theills of society, trying to tear down the hierarchies in order to build a new, beautiful, classless society, a lot of those people are totally full of crap.
How do I know this?
Because when it comes time for those same rules to be applied in their backyard, suddenly it becomes, well, not so interested.
The latest case in point here is white residents of New York City's Upper West Side complaining about the idea that they're going to have to take in a bunch of low-income minority people into their schools.
So the College Fix is reporting that Raw Story, which is not a right-leaning news organization, caught this meeting on tape.
There's a meeting of residents in New York's Upper West Side, a meeting of the local school district.
And progressive parents find out that their schools will soon have to reflect the demographics of New York as a whole, and the schools in the area are currently predominantly white, and they get really mad.
Watch as these white parents become very upset about the idea of having to allow low-income minority children into their schools.
An emotional meeting on the Upper West Side.
Parents objecting to a proposal to require each of the 17 local middle schools to reserve a quarter of their seats for students scoring below grade level on state English and math exams.
Some parents warning that high-performing students would be shut out of the most desirable schools.
You're talking about telling an 11-year-old you worked your butt off and you didn't get that, what you needed or wanted.
You're telling them you're going to go to a school that's not going to educate you in the same way you've been educated.
Life sucks!
Is that what the DOE wants to say?
Okay, so I love that all of these people who presumably voted for Bill de Blasio and love the idea of forced busing so long as it's not in their neighborhood, as soon as it comes into their neighborhood, then it's like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
These are the same people who say that everyone down south is racist, but on the Upper West Side of New York, they're saying, we don't want those low-income black kids in our school because it's going to ruin our school.
This is, by the way, is why I believe that public education in general is a serious problem that has to be rectified by local answers.
It can't be rectified by government at a broader level.
Because all that's going to happen, by the way, here's what's really going to happen, is that there will be demographic changes in these schools.
The parents will just pull their kids out and put them in private school.
That's exactly what's going to happen because that's what's been happening in the United States for years and years and years and years, beyond which I'm not sure that the schools are generally the problem.
I think that very often the circumstances in which people grow up are much more defining as to whether you're going to be a success later in life than the school to which you went as an elementary school student.
I think one of the great myths of our public education system is that if you went to a really solid public school when you were five, that that is more indicative of your success level than whether you had a single mom or grew up in poverty in an area with a lot of crime.
I just don't think that's right.
I think that generally the two things tend to be linked, but that's more of a statement about the culture and society in which you grew up.
Again, not having nothing to do with color because there are plenty of poor white societies that have crappy public schools as well.
Dumping more money isn't going to fix it.
I'm not sure that forced busing is going to fix it either, but I want to point, but I can say that because that's what I believe.
I'm not sure the people on the Upper West Side who say that I'd be horrible for saying that are allowed to say that.
All right.
All the people on the Upper West Side who are listening to this, if you think that it's horrible and racist to suggest that maybe I should be able to put my kid where I want to put my kid in school, and that kids should have school vouchers so they can go where they want to school, If you think that that is racist and awful, let me just suggest that if you go to your local school meeting and rant and rave about a bunch of black kids coming to your school because you think it's going to lower the educational credentials of your school, maybe you ought to take a look in the mirror.
Maybe you ought to take a look in the mirror.
I'm not suggesting those black kids can't come to your school.
At all.
In fact, I think they should be able to pay to come to the school with vouchers.
I'm suggesting that there are these gated communities that exist with public tax dollars that are a serious problem in a lot of these areas, and that your objection on the left to people going to private school is really an objection that you should be applying to yourself, because at least people who go to private school aren't taking advantage of public money to send their kids to gated communities.
Okay, so.
In just a second, I want to discuss the situation with Robert Mueller.
So here's the situation.
Here's the latest.
Okay, so, on Monday, there's a new report from the New York Times, and it revealed dozens of questions.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller wanted to ask President Trump if he agrees to an interview for the Russia Probe.
So this is reported by Ryan Saavedra over at Daily Wire.
Some of the questions Mueller reportedly wants to ask Trump include, what did you know about phone calls that former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn made with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016?
What did you know about Sally Yates' meetings about Mr. Flynn?
How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn?
What was your opinion of James Comey during the transition?
What did you think about Comey's intelligence briefing on January 6, 2017 about Russian election interference?
What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey?
Why did you decide to fire him?
Now, here is the big problem with all of this.
There is pretty much not a lot here about supposed connections to Russia.
So here's some of the questions being asked about the original Trump-Russia collusion.
Remember, this whole investigation was originally about the idea that Vladimir Putin had been working with Donald Trump to steal the election.
Here are some of the questions he's going to ask.
When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?
This is the one between Donald Trump Jr.
and a couple of Trump officials and a Russian lawyer.
What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.' 's emails?
During the 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?
"During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, "use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?
"What knowledge did you have of any outreach "by Paul Manafort to Russia?" So we'll have to see whether this is more aimed at collusion or whether this is more aimed at obstruction.
It seems like very little of it is aimed at the collusion, because if they actually had evidence of collusion, then they'd be going after Trump and his people already, I assume.
I mean, if they actually had evidence of conspiracy to violate campaign law, then I assume they would already be going after people, so this really goes to intent.
What they're really trying for here is that Trump intended to do stuff and then he was obstructing justice by firing people.
But it doesn't sound like they have the goods just from the list of questions that they have put forth.
Again, I feel like Trump would be a fool to get in a room with Mueller because Mueller could catch him in some sort of perjury trap.
But, you know, maybe Rudy Giuliani thinks differently.
We will find out.
Okay, time for a thing I both like and hate.
We'll do a combined thing I like and hate.
So, here is the thing that I both like and hate.
Avengers Infinity War.
So I have many thoughts on Avengers Infinity War.
And if you haven't seen the movie yet, now is the time for you to cut short today's podcast and then go back and listen to it a little bit later after you've actually seen the movie if you're one of the five people in America who have not seen the movie yet.
Sorry for those in the room who have not yet seen the movie.
I'm about to spoil a bunch of crap for you.
So Mathis, it's time for you to turn off your earphones and then walk out of the room if you don't want to be spoiled, because I'm about to say a lot of stuff that's about to spoil the movie.
OK, so first of all, the movie is well made.
It's really well made, considering they have to juggle about 83 different plot lines.
And you can see from the poster that it's every person in the world in one movie.
The truth is, the real focus of this movie, the real focus of this movie is Iron Man, Thor, and the Guardians of the Galaxy.
Those are really the people who you're following during this film.
Captain America is not in the film very much at all.
Here's a little bit of the preview for one of the five people in America who didn't see the preview.
Here's a little bit of what the movie looks like.
The entire time I knew him, he only ever had one goal.
To wipe out half the universe.
If he gets all the Infinity Stones, he can do it with the snap of his fingers.
Just like that.
Tell me his name again.
Thanos.
We got one advantage.
He's coming to us.
We have what Thanos wants.
So that's what we use.
Okay, so everybody's in the movie, like everyone, including my mother.
Like everyone is in this film.
But here's my problem with the movie.
So I have a couple of problems with the movie.
Here's the stuff.
First, the stuff I like.
The stuff that I like is everything with Chris Pratt and Chris Hemsworth is hysterical.
Chris Hemsworth is the best thing in any of the Marvel movies now.
He is really, really funny.
Everything he does here is very Thor Ragnarok based.
There's one scene particularly between Chris Pratt and Chris Hemsworth that is just hysterically funny and really, really good.
Chris Pratt is really good in this.
It's pretty obvious who the stars are.
Beyond that, Thanos, as a character, is a good character.
Josh Brolin turns in a really solid performance as Thanos.
You don't notice the CGI at all, and his entire character is CGI'd, so that's a pretty cool thing.
There are a couple problems with Thanos' character.
Problem number one is that his motivation is insufficiently spelled out.
They say that he had a home planet.
His home planet was basically overpopulated and the entire planet died in poverty.
He had said, let's randomly kill half the planet and then we can fix and then we can prevent a shortage on Thanos' home planet.
That's Malthusian nonsense.
So first of all, somebody should have explained to him that perhaps with additional creativity of humanoid creatures comes additional propensity to create Awesome resources.
So back in the 1960s, Paul Ehrlich predicted that by the year 1990, half the population would be starving, basically.
None of that ended up being true.
So Thanos is basically Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford professor, with less hair.
And Paul Ehrlich was totally wrong.
He was wrong about everything.
People are more prosperous now.
There are more of us now than ever before in human history by a long margin.
And yet things are OK.
Honestly, this movie could have been solved if somebody sat Thomas Sowell down with Thanos.
Like, that would have fixed everything.
They should have gotten Julian Simon's ghost to sit down with Thanos, and they could have had a nice conversation about scarcity of resources and allocation of those resources.
Also, if it turns out that overpopulation is a thing among humanoid creatures, typically people just have fewer kids, which is what has happened throughout human history, which is why as countries get richer, it's actually interesting.
As countries get richer, people have fewer kids.
But, aside from the philosophical problems with Thanos, The movie revolves around Thanos.
So every beat of the movie is involved with Thanos' story.
It really is not Avengers Infinity War.
It really more is Thanos, The Origins.
Because this is all lead up to Avengers Infinity War Part 2.
And this is my big problem with the movie.
My big problem with the movie is that the entire thing is leading up to this giant climax where a bunch of people are going to get killed.
And suffice it to say, without telling you who gets killed, a bunch of major characters get killed, there are some characters who get killed for real.
But it is very obvious by the end of the movie that some of the characters who have been killed are not going to remain dead, though.
Okay, now the reason that I know this is because I'm not a stupid human.
And when I watch the end of Infinity War, and bad stuff happens, I won't fully spoil it, bad stuff happens to many of the major characters, there are certain characters where you go, oh man, I can't believe they killed that guy off.
And then they kill off a couple of characters, and you're like, nah.
Nah, because it turns out that Marvel is a Disney property, and Marvel is not gonna kill off all of its most bankable stars because they have movies already slated on the books with these stars.
Okay, so they're not gonna kill off, like, you're gonna know who I'm talking about, but there's one character in particular who's been in a film that made a lot of money, as in all the money.
They're not gonna kill off that character, right?
And when you're watching it and you're thinking about it, the minute it happens, it takes you immediately out of the movie because you're thinking, no, this is not true.
So in other words, we've got a two-hour, 40-minute movie leading up to the worst red herring in the world in which presumably all these characters are dead, but we know they're not really dead because they're going to reverse it and they're going to bring back all the characters.
That annoys the living crap out of me because if you're going to create this idea that there are major stakes in the movie, if you're going to create this idea that deep, horrible things are going to happen, then you can't do it with me as the audience knowing that you're faking, with me as the audience knowing you're lying, Like the first time it happens, the first time somebody dies, and it's a major character, at the end of the film.
There are a couple major deaths before that in the film, and those ones I think are real.
By the time they get to the end of the film, when a major character dies, and you know that that person is not going to die, you're like, but...
What?
So why couldn't we have just had, like, a seven-minute movie?
Like, sure, it was fun and all, but we could have had, like, a seven-minute movie, and the seven-minute movie would have gone something like this, right?
It would have gone something like this.
It would have been a Star Wars crawl that says, Thanos, Scourge of the Universe, has found a box with six Infinity Stones in it.
Flashback to Thanos on his home planet, debating with his friends and family about whether they should kill off half the population.
Him losing the debate, half the population dying, right?
Just like Jor-El on Krypton, right?
And then, Next thing you know, it shows Thanos with his magic glove on, right?
He snaps, and then you get the end of the movie.
So the whole thing could have been eight minutes long, and that actually would have been the prologue to the second Infinity War, which is where this stuff actually is going to happen, because this is all a lie.
The next Infinity War is where the remaining characters are going to go about reversing everything that just happened in this movie.
Don't do that.
That's cheating.
You cheated me out of $35 because I had to spend a bunch of money to go to the ArcLight with my wife to see this thing so I could talk about it.
And again, did I not enjoy it?
I enjoyed it.
I enjoyed it.
But you can't make me feel emotionally... There's one particular death where they do it, and they are so attempting to strangle you as an audience member.
They're so attempting to strangle tears out of you as an audience member in the way this character dies, and you're like, But he's not dead.
Like, I know he's not dead.
I know for a fact he's not dead.
Because there's a movie slated on the books with this star a year from now.
So he's not dead, right?
So you're lying to me.
You're trying to, like... There's a scene in the show Friends where there's an anniversary for Ross and... What's Courtney Cox's character's name?
It's not Rachel.
It's the other one.
In any case...
Monica, thank you.
With Ross and Monica's parents, and Monica is, and Ross can always make the parents cry at the, at the anniversary, and Monica desperately wants to make the parents cry, so she does a speech, and the parents aren't crying at all, and so she just starts telling stories about, like, when the dog died and all this sort of thing.
Like, there is that moment in Avengers Infinity War where one of the characters is, like, basically the producers are saying, like, you need to cry now.
If you're not crying now, it's because you're a bad person.
Why aren't you crying?
Why aren't you crying?
It's wrong with you, aren't you?
And I'm not crying because I know he's not dead!
That's why I'm not crying, you s- Okay, so.
Was it bad?
No, it was enjoyable.
But am I going to give them the credence of pretending?
Am I gonna pretend along with them that any of these people are really dead?
No, because I'm not a stupid idiot.
Okay, so there is my Infinity War summation.
And now, if I've spoiled the movie for you, sorry, but I gave you fair warning.
You could've tuned out earlier and then listened to it later.
Anyway, we'll be back here tomorrow with all the rest of the news, and hopefully I will have vented my spleen about Avengers Infinity War by then.
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