All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 18, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:00
The Attack On Capitalism | Ep. 641
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The attack on capitalism ramps up, scientists fear the alt-right, and the media cannot get over Herstace.
We'll get into all of it.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Quick note up front.
I thought that one of our producers, Colton Haas, had the best take on the horse face situation.
Altogether, he said that perhaps President Trump was just using voice to text.
And he said, horse face.
And it just messed up.
Just it was Siri's fault.
Maybe, maybe.
Well, we'll get into all of the latest news, but a couple of announcements first.
First, if you are in LA this weekend, come see us at Politicon.
I'm giving a keynote speech at noon on Sunday, followed by a book signing and a town hall event with the Daily Wire gang.
I can't say I'm really looking forward to spending all day with you people, but I guess that we'll have to be there anyway, so you may as well show up.
It's guaranteed to be a great time for you, and to produce an abundance of leftist cheer, so you're not going to want to miss it.
Make sure you use promo code DW when you get your tickets, so they know that we sent you.
We get nothing out of it, they get nothing out of it, but use that promo code anyway.
Make sure to use promo code DW when you get those tickets, and again, they will know that we sent you.
Also, before we get into the day's news, You know, there are certain ways that you can save money that cost you a lot of time and they're annoying.
This is not one of those ways.
This is a way for you to save money that will not cost you time and will not be annoying.
That, of course, is Honey.
It is a free shopping tool that automatically searches the internet.
Honey has already saved listeners of this podcast an average of $26.34 because so many of our listeners have actually used Honey before.
Honey believes everyone deserves the best possible prices on all the things they love, which is why it works on all your favorite sites like Amazon, eBay, J.Crew, Walmart, Best Buy, Groupon.
I use Amazon all the time.
I buy books and products from Amazon all the time.
Honey helps me out nearly every time.
It's really spectacular.
I've saved significant percentages of money.
By using Honey.
They have 10 million members, over 100,000 five-star reviews.
Honey is the money-saving shopper tool that everyone can agree on.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
That's joinhoney.com slash Ben.
All you do is you go to joinhoney.com slash Ben, and you register, and then it automatically basically uses all of the best promo codes to get you discounts.
Go check it out.
Joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Honey is the easiest way to save money while shopping online.
Use Honey.
Go check it out right now.
All right, so.
I want to talk about a broad issue that is now happening in American politics and that is a sudden lack of interest in or enthusiasm for capitalism.
The greatest system of markets ever devised by mankind.
Free markets which have raised half the globe from abject poverty in the last 30 years alone.
Free markets which have created the kind of prosperity in which you get to sit there and enjoy entertaining shows every single night from people like me just by sitting there.
Just imagine a world 150 years ago where most people's homes were lit not by electricity, but by candlelight, where heat was not a thing, where people died when it was cold outside and died when it was super hot outside, when disease was rampant, when entertainment mainly consisted, if you were lucky, if you were lucky, of reading around a fire, but very often consisted of less than that.
I mean, the reality is that your life now is so unthinkably great in terms of material prosperity that if somebody were dropped into 2018 from 1870, they would literally not know what had happened.
They would think that they were on an alien planet inhabited by a species similar to the one that they knew back home, but in an area of complete Material prosperity.
They would think they were almost literally in heaven.
Remember, like one in three kids, one in four kids in families were dying in large swaths of Europe.
And child mortality in the United States was a lot higher.
I mean, today you have a baby, you can pretty much expect that baby to live till the age of 80.
This is amazing, amazing stuff.
And that has been brought about by free markets and capitalism and entrepreneurialism.
So naturally, that means that we're now going to eat free markets, capitalism and entrepreneurialism.
We're going to dump all over them.
And there are a bunch of stories today along these lines.
The top one that comes to mind is there is one from Kim Kelly over at Teen Vogue.
Now, this is an older piece.
It's from April of this year, but Teen Vogue tweeted it out again yesterday.
It should be noted, Teen Vogue is supported by ad dollars.
And they make all of their money by running stories about the latest products that you can buy.
But they ran a piece called, What Capitalism Is and How It Affects People.
And the tweet from Teen Vogue was, Why Capitalism Needs to End.
Okay, Kim Kelly wrote this at Teen Vokes.
Folks, they're trying to teach teenage girls this.
Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which a country's trade, industry, and profits are controlled by private companies instead of by the people whose time and labor power those companies.
The United States and many other nations around the world are capitalist countries.
But capitalism is not the only economic system available.
Throughout history, other countries have embraced other systems like socialism or communism.
So it's important to explore what capitalism actually is.
CNN recently reported that 66% of people between the ages of 21 and 32 have nothing saved for retirement.
However, according to Salon, the reason many millennials haven't been investing in mutual funds or building up their own financial nest eggs isn't because they're too broke or that they lack personal responsibility.
It's because they think our current economic system, capitalism, will cease to exist by the time they are in their 60s.
In other words, they think that somebody else is going to come along and pay their bills.
Bernie Sanders is going to come out of the sky and pay their bills.
Capitalism has become markedly less popular among the younger generations, with the Washington Post noting in April 2016 that in one survey, a majority of young adults aged 18 to 29 said they rejected it outright.
And this article goes on to try to explain where capitalism comes from.
They say that capitalism is evil because individual capitalists are typically wealthy people who have a large amount of capital invested in business.
This is false.
Individual capitalists are anyone operating in a free market system and selling their labor or their products of their labor.
That is a capitalist.
Anybody who is involved in the free market is a capitalist.
You don't actually have to be the person who is hiring somebody else in order to be a capitalist.
As long as you are investing your capital even in buying products, that makes you a capitalist.
But she continues, these are the people who benefit from the system of capitalism by making increased profits and thereby adding to their wealth.
A capitalist nation is dominated by the free market, which is an economic system in which both prices and production are dictated by corporations and private companies in competition with one another.
Again, false.
Capitalism is a free market system in which prices are dictated by what competitors are willing to sell and what, more importantly, consumers are willing to buy.
If you're in a business where no one wants your product, you don't get to set the price where you want to set it.
If I could, I would sell this podcast for a million dollars per listener.
I cannot, because the market does not bear that price.
The same thing is true in your business as well.
But these basic misunderstandings about the free market lead to the idea that the free market is somehow oligarchic, when in reality, the free market is the most democratic system of property ownership ever devised by humankind.
It says that you are the owner of your own labor and your own time.
It says that you are the owner of the product of your own hands.
But according to Kim Kelly at Teen Vogue, our great economic, clear thinking source, she says, All of which is true.
places a heavy focus on private property, economic growth, freedom of choice, and limited government intervention, all of which is true.
Generally, these tend to be toward the right of the political spectrum.
And then she says, how does capitalism impact people?
Well, it depends on whether you're a worker or a boss.
If you own a company or employ the workers, capitalism may make sense.
But if you are not, then it's bad for you.
That's a bunch of nonsense.
OK, capitalism, again, has raised the globe from abject poverty.
It's the reason why you have cool stuff today.
So, why do people oppose capitalism?
Well, anti-capitalists view capitalism as inhuman, anti-democratic, unsustainable, deeply exploitative, and say it must be dismantled.
They see it as inherently at odds with democracy because of how capitalist bosses hold power over workers in the workplace and the fact that the more capital one accrues, the more power they have.
Again, untrue.
Richer people do not have more power over other individual human beings than poorer people do because they can't compel you to do anything.
It's when regulatory capture takes place that they have more power.
Power is not just... Power is not just being rich.
Power is, are you pointing a gun at somebody?
Power does issue from the muzzle of a gun.
It does not issue simply by basis of being rich.
How many times has a rich person asked you to do something just in your life and you've said no?
Probably fairly often.
I'm not even talking about things they're offering to hire you to do.
If they offer to pay you something, that is not power.
That is them offering you a consensual exchange and you saying yes.
In any case, the enthusiasm for capitalism has fallen away because everybody gets to be the product of a capitalist system.
We all get to live extraordinarily wealthy, long, healthy lives because of capitalism, so that gives us the ability to crap all over it.
The same way that spoiled brats yell at their parents who have spoiled them, we are yelling at free markets that have spoiled us, too.
The latest evidence of this is also Pope Francis talking with Michael Moore during his weekly general audience in St.
Peter's Square at the Vatican.
The current Pope is not a friend to capitalism.
He's a liberation theologist.
He believes that progressive economics ought to be wedded to the Gospels.
And therefore, he has constantly talked about the shortcomings of free markets as though the alternative government-controlled distribution of resources is going to be superior, even though it has not been.
And even the supposedly socialist countries that folks on the left like to talk about, the Nordic countries, Norway and Denmark and all the Scandinavian countries, Sweden.
Those are all capitalist countries with socialist redistribution systems piled on top of them.
The question for those countries is how long you can keep piling elephants on top of stilts and hope that the stilts continue to support that weight.
The stilts are capitalism, the elephants are socialism.
It is not that the entire system is socialism.
But the Pope meeting with Michael Moore is pretty indicative of where we are.
And then we have a much ballyhooed proposal from Kamala Harris, the senator from California, who is just awful.
I know, she's my senator.
She is proposing what they call a Trump-sized tax plan of her own.
The Atlantic, doing yeoman's work to try and suggest that a tax plan is basically just redistribution of resources.
Here's the Atlantic reporting on Kamala Harris's new tax plan.
And this is the way Democrats are going to run here.
The way that Democrats are going to run And this is an example of it.
that undercuts capitalism, and this is an example of it.
Here's her proposal.
According to The Atlantic, Harris is offering a kind of funhouse mirror inversion of the sweeping Republican tax initiative, one that would, instead of slashing rates on high-income households and corporations, push huge credits out to middle-income and poor families.
The Lift the Middle Class Act would provide monthly cash payments of up to $500 to lower-income families, on top of the tax credits and public benefits they already receive.
Last year, Congress gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to corporations.
Harris told me that money should have gone to American taxpayers who need it instead of handing it over to corporations and the top 1%.
Now, the fact is that the people at the bottom of the spectrum, the people at the bottom of the spectrum, are not actually paying any tax right now.
They are receiving net tax benefits.
Okay?
The people who are paying all of the taxes, and I mean literally all of the taxes in the United States, all of the net taxes in the United States, are the wealthy in the United States.
Okay?
The wealthy in the United States are paying far more than their fair share.
It is just a lie that people at the bottom of the economic spectrum are paying the tax burden in the United States.
We have the most progressive tax system on planet Earth, and yes, that includes the Scandinavian countries.
The lie about the Scandinavian countries is that they are progressive in their tax structure.
They are not.
They heavily tax people at the bottom of the lower end of the economic spectrum as well, because you have to pay for stuff.
But Democrats don't want to pay for stuff.
And as we'll see as we examine Kamala Harris's supposed tax plan, she's not talking about paying for stuff.
Instead what she's talking about is essentially forcing Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy or forcing us to take out inordinate amounts of debt that will inevitably have to be paid for either through inflation Or through higher taxes, not just on people who are rich, but on everyone.
On everyone as well.
Okay, we'll talk about all of that in just one second.
But first, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights.
So, there's a reason that the Founders felt the Second Amendment was the most important amendment because it protected all the other amendments.
And you want to exercise those Second Amendment rights.
You're a law-abiding citizen.
You want to own a gun.
Well, if you are a gun lover, Have you entered to win your brand new gun from the USCCA yet?
If not, what are you waiting for?
You're about to miss the deadline.
The Gun of the Day giveaway ends very soon.
You can get up to 24 chances to win your gun daily, but only if you act right now.
It could be 24 Kimbers, 24 Glocks, 24 Sigs, even 24 AR-15s.
Just text SAFE to the number 87222 and reveal which gun you could be taking home today.
But hurry!
Free guns are not going to last long.
Today's gun disappears at midnight today.
The USCCA wants to get More guns into the hands of responsible, law-abiding, armed Americans like you.
And they are here to help train and protect protectors.
So don't put it off.
Don't miss your chance.
Text SAFE, S-A-F-E to the number 87222 and enter right now.
You have until midnight tonight to win today's gun.
Text the word SAFE to 87222 before it's gone forever.
That's 87222.
Again, text that word SAFE to 87222.
Go check it out.
Right now.
So Kamala Harris is basically suggesting that this is a tax plan to sign checks to people who don't actually pay taxes.
This is the great lie that Democrats and the media are constantly telling about things like the Trump tax cut.
When they suggest that it's skewed toward the wealthy, the only reason tax cuts are skewed toward the wealthy is because the wealthy are the only people paying taxes in the United States.
People at the lower end of the economic spectrum are not paying income taxes.
They are not paying income taxes.
Again, the net taxes that are paid by the wealthy, they pay for 97% of all government expenditures.
Those in the top half of the income bracket are paying virtually everything.
Virtually everything.
As of 2015, this was the case.
The top 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the income tax.
The bottom 50% of all Americans with an income below the median pay 3%, 3% of the total income tax.
We have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world.
So it's just a lie that people who are rich are not paying their fair share.
But Kamala Harris really just wants to pay off a bunch of poor people to vote for her.
That's basically her plan.
Her proposal joins a growing number of aggressive plans coming from Democrats concerned with economic stagnation, competing to win over younger and more progressive voters, and emboldened by the success of President Trump.
They differ in their mechanisms, costs, and effects, but all point to the same Robin Hood goal, not just raising taxes on the rich, but shunting vastly more money to the working classes and the poor.
In Harris's case, that means something like $200 billion a year more.
Now, again, it is important to notice that in the United States, the amount of benefits that are being received by people at the low end of the economic spectrum, it's tens of thousands of dollars in very many cases.
I mean, there have been a lot of studies that have been done on this particular issue, benefits received by people who are lower income in the United States.
The numbers are pretty astonishing.
The folks who receive benefits, 49% of the population as of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government.
The number of households receiving government benefits has steadily risen over time.
And those benefits are almost entirely going to people who are in the lower half of the economic spectrum.
So those are the entitlements that include things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, children's health insurance, food stamps, school lunch programs, the earned income tax credits.
In 2010, the Tax Foundation found that 60% of Americans were receiving more in government benefits than they paid in taxes.
So, again, the folks who are receiving the government benefits are now the people that Harris basically wants to give more government benefits to.
Now, I'll explain in one second why this is a bad idea.
To continue with Harris's tax plan, she's offering as much as $3,000 a year for a single person or $6,000 a year for a married couple on top of existing tax and transfer programs dispersed either as a lump-sum tax refund or as monthly payment.
As many as 80 million Americans would benefit.
So who is going to pay for all of this?
The answer is that they don't care.
That really is the answer.
They say that this is going to jog the economy because if you give a bunch of money to people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum, this is what creates economic growth.
That is not true.
It has never been true.
What jogs economic growth is the creation of new products and services that create new jobs and that also allow people to buy cooler stuff.
Socialism is about freezing the economy in place and redistributing all the pie that's in the room.
Capitalism is about expanding the size of the pie.
Now, that doesn't mean that everybody is going to get an equal distribution of the pie, but it does mean that you're going to be able to generate new and better types of pie, bigger pie, everything that makes pie awesome.
Otherwise, you can just freeze it and distribute it until there's no pie left.
That's basically the socialist model.
So, where are they going to pay for all of this?
I love how The Atlantic describes Kamala Harris' proposal.
Of course, the federal proposals would come at significant cost.
In some cases, on the scale of the Trump tax cuts or the Affordable Care Act.
Those are not the same thing.
Trump's tax cuts are not things that cost money.
They are me paying less money into the federal government.
That is not a federal cost.
A federal cost is you spending my money, not you telling me I get to keep my own money.
It is not a cost to let someone keep their own money.
The way that this is measured is insane.
Suggesting the Affordable Care Act, which is a government expenditure based on tax receipts, is the same thing as cutting tax receipts by saying that people can keep their own money is a slight of hand, a fiscal slight of hand.
The Brown legislation would cost $1.4 trillion over a decade.
The Harris legislation would come in at something like $200 billion per year, which means $2 trillion over the course of a decade.
Harris has proposed repealing the Trump tax cuts to pay for her bill, but that is not even going to come close to covering the kind of cost she's talking about.
And they're talking about universal health care, and they're talking about free child welfare, and they are talking about free child care, and they are talking about free college tuition.
None of this stuff is going to get paid for.
So why is there all this enthusiasm for this sort of stuff in a time when we have, as of yesterday, 7 million unfilled jobs in the United States, a 4% unemployment rate, and a historically booming economy?
Why are we talking about undermining the pillars of capitalism?
Because we have shifted our mindset in the United States.
And this is really what I want to talk about today.
We have shifted our mindset when it comes to what our lives should be like.
We believe we are guaranteed things here in the United States.
We believe that we are guaranteed a solid level of living because we live here.
You hear this from Bernie Sanders all the time.
In the richest country in the world, should we really have people who do not have enough money to buy all the pudding that they could possibly want?
You hear that from Bernie Sanders all the time.
The assumption there being, you were born here, you deserve stuff.
You were born here, therefore America's rich, therefore you get stuff.
A baseline assumption that you are entitled to things.
Here is what you are entitled to in a free country.
You're entitled to adventure.
That's what you're entitled to.
You are born entitled to exercise your rights in pursuit of adventure.
You get to make up your own story here.
That's the American dream.
The American dream is people who are coming from across the sea to a place they did not know, to an environment they were not used to, and building lives for their families and creating prosperity from the ground up.
The American story is people crossing the Appalachians into wilderness they did not know, places that had not been mapped.
Going to areas where they had no allies, setting down roots and trying to build towns and civilizations.
That's the American story.
The American story is poor folks who have an idea and go find funding for that idea and then build that idea into some of the great companies in American history.
That's the American dream.
The American dream was never, you're here, therefore we give you things.
That was never the American idea.
And that's not to say that we can't be generous.
That's what private charity is for.
That's why we need a virtuous citizenry where we take care of each other.
But the American dream has shifted now.
And what we're told by the left is that the American dream is going unfulfilled if you do not have a certain standard of living provided to you by others.
I'll give you a couple examples of how the American mindset has changed in just a second and why it's really dangerous and what it has to say about the future of the country.
First, let's talk about the software that you're using at your company.
You need to make your company more efficient.
Your company's great, I'm sure, but you're using software from 1997.
You're still using Microsoft Paint, okay?
You can't do that anymore.
You need to actually go out and get the software appropriate for your business.
But you don't know what software that is, which is why you need to talk to my friends over at Software Advice.
When it comes to picking the right software for your business, Software Advice has done all the research for you.
Their team of advisors can point you in the right direction, so you can start working more effectively right away, and it's absolutely free.
Just go to softwareadvice.com slash ben, answer a few short questions about your business.
You'll be connected with an advisor to discuss the best software options for your needs.
Talking to an advisor takes 10 minutes or less.
Whether you're a medical professional, a construction manager, an HR pro, you name it, software advice is going to save you time and help you make a more informed decision.
And if you're an entrepreneur or you work solo, software advice is a great way to get an expert opinion, even without the resources of a big company.
End the software struggle today.
Go to softwareadvice.com slash ben to get started.
That's softwareadvice.com slash ben to connect with an advisor for free right now.
Upgrade your business.
Go to softwareadvice.com slash ben.
Go check it out right now.
Softwareadvice.com slash ben.
So, the American mindset has shifted radically.
And you can tell this in a couple of ways.
So, did you ever see the movie Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe?
It's about Jim Braddock.
So, Jim Braddock was this over-the-hill boxer who Basically had played out the string and was given a shot at the World Heavyweight Championship.
And for a while, he's on the dole.
It's the middle of the Great Depression.
He's on the dole and he takes money from the federal government.
After he wins the championship, he walks back into the welfare office with a roll of cash, and he hands it back to the welfare office.
And they say, sir, you don't need to pay that back.
And he says, yes, I do.
How many Americans today would actually do that?
How many Americans today, if they made the money, would walk back into the welfare office and turn the money back over to the welfare office?
I think the answer is pretty close to zero.
I think most Americans don't have any sense of shame or guilt about taking money from other folks.
They don't have any sense that if they could prevent it, it would be better for them not to take that money.
I think people feel in the United States that they are entitled to money because the government is nameless and faceless.
See, here's one of the nice things about charity, as opposed to the way that it works on the governmental level.
The government makes it seem as though the government is handing you the money.
The government has no money of its own.
The government is taking from me and giving to you, or taking from you and giving to me, or taking from the future and giving it to us now.
The government is not a repository of magical money trees.
There is no money forest.
But the government presents you with the idea that there is.
So, when the government signs you a check, you don't have to feel guilty about anything.
It's just receiving free money, after all.
However, when it comes to charity, and there are folks in my community, my Jewish community, who receive charity, they feel terrible about it.
You can see that.
You can see they feel terrible about it.
And I think that's a good thing.
I think it's a good thing.
I think you should feel bad about taking charity as long as you, because that's what's going to encourage you to not stay on the dole.
It's going to encourage you to get out there and work.
It's going to encourage you to make a move toward prosperity so you can pay all those people back.
If you see the money that you are receiving, As a step toward getting your feet under you once again so that you can pay people back.
It's a much better way of viewing money and money is growing for free and that you can just take it no matter at any time at any place.
It's just a lack of entrepreneurial spirit.
And unfortunately, I think that that's the way that we're going in the United States.
That's example number one.
Example number two, there's a lot of talk these days And by the way, this exists as well in places like Norway.
So Norway, which is prized, loved by folks on the American left, they ignore the fact that Norway actually has become a place where the work ethic is starting to collapse.
The Economist wrote in 2015, Norwegians have coined a verb to NAV, meaning to get money from NAV, the state's benefit agency.
You actually see this happening where people Believe that they are entitled to things.
The very fact that we call these benefits entitlements as opposed to benefits is suggestive of this fact.
That's point number one.
Point number two.
The idea of picking up and moving.
We are the most mobile society in the history of mankind.
It is easier to get from one place to another on planet Earth faster than any time in the history of humankind.
When we talk about our ancestors in the United States, we're thinking of people in covered wagons taking six months to cross the country.
You can do it in six hours now on a plane.
And for significantly less cost.
And yet we are now less mobile, right?
Fewer Americans are actually leaving their hometowns.
I mean, which is not a good thing.
We actually want people to go out there and seek adventure.
Right now, Americans are moving less often than they were, right?
This is an article from the New York Times.
Well, part of that is because of family.
I live very close to my parents.
or her mother, according to an upshot analysis of data from a comprehensive survey of older Americans.
Over the last few decades, Americans have become less mobile.
Most adults do not venture far from their hometowns.
Well, part of that is because of family.
I live very close to my parents.
But if I were to move, my parents would probably follow me, not the other way around.
If I want to live close to my family, you have to follow prosperity.
You have to follow adventure.
You have to follow the call.
You have to move.
But Americans don't feel that way anymore.
Americans feel like they're entitled to a job in their hometown where they grew up, at the factory where their parents worked.
That is not the way that human beings have worked for literally all of human history.
And yet now, we believe that in order to facilitate people being able to stay where they were originally based, we have to shift the way that the free market works.
Well, that's not correct.
And again, this is not coming out of a place of lack of sympathy.
This is coming from a place where I sympathize with people's plight.
And the question is, what can you do to make your life better?
Democrats, folks on the left, they like to talk about, what can we do to make your life better?
And the answer is, very little.
The real question is, what can you do to make your life better?
Because every successful person on planet Earth is a person who at some point said to themselves, what can I do to help myself?
America is a country of people saying to themselves, what can I do to help my lot in life?
What can I do to be more ambitious?
What can I do to stretch my wings and fly?
And then we say, OK, well, what can we do to provide that wind?
What can we do to get all the obstacles out of your way?
What can we do to remove the barriers?
That's the American way.
It is not the American way to say, listen, you know, it's uncomfortable to stretch your wings.
It may be difficult to leave home.
It may be hard to do this.
But, so we're just going to make sure you know you never have to.
We are going to coddle you.
We are going to make sure that you are swabbed in the warm blanket of government benefits.
We are going to ensure that you never have to get out there and fly.
Again, this is not coming from a place of no sympathy.
This is coming from a place of, you can't enervate your children, you can't enervate your communities, and you can't enervate your country on the basis of empathy alone.
And that is the best case interpretation of what exactly Democrats are doing here.
The worst case interpretation is something much more cynical.
The purposeful enervation of an entire sector of the population specifically to gain votes and thereby political power.
And after you look at towns like Detroit, it's hard to imagine that's not what's been going on there for decades.
Because the failure of this sort of thinking is evident in major cities and counties across the United States.
If you actually want to reinvigorate the American spirit, we're going to have to teach people the same lesson that God taught Abraham at the very beginning of the Bible.
Get up, leave the home that you were born in, and go to a place you do not know.
That's how we become bigger.
That's how we become better.
That's how lives become better.
That's how the world becomes better.
That's how trade becomes better.
It's why you have cool stuff.
It's why cultures become better, because they experience and bounce off of other cultures.
This notion that we can hunker down now because we've reached paradise and all we have to do is hunker down and live and redistribute what's in our backpacks.
Those backpacks are going to run out.
This is not the way any of this works.
Okay, so in just a second, I want to talk about this fascinating article in the New York Times about why scientists are now attempting to avoid actual research out of fear of the alt-right.
But first, let's talk about the clothes that you are wearing.
So dudes, if you travel for work and you're looking for small comforts to make your trip a little bit better, you need to check out the Perth Performance Pullover from Peter Millar.
First of all, I have a bunch of Peter Millar clothes.
They are just awesome.
I mean, really, they are slick looking.
And they are really well tailored, and they look great, and they happen to be supremely comfortable.
The Perth Performance Pullover from Peter Millar is particularly awesome.
It feels great, it looks great, it is super convenient, and it barely takes up more space in your bag than a water bottle, so if you get a little cold on the plane, you throw it on to help cut the chill.
Plus, even after sitting for hours on the plane, the Perth will look crisp and fresh and not wrinkle.
And I wear mine on planes.
I mean, it's one of my favorite things to bring on trips with me.
Do yourself a favor.
Get a Perth pullover today.
You will definitely thank me.
Head over to PeterMillar.com slash Ben to get your Perth today.
Be sure to use my link and you'll receive complimentary shipping and a free hat as well.
That's PeterMillar, M-I-L-L-A-R dot com slash Ben.
It's not just the pullover, by the way.
I've got Peter Millar shorts that are really stylish and comfortable.
I've got a couple of shirts that are Great looking shirts from Peter Millar.
I have a pair of slacks from Peter.
All their stuff is just terrific.
Go check them out.
PeterMillar.com slash Ben.
And again, when you do that, you get complimentary shipping and a free hat.
That's PeterMillar.com slash Ben.
OK, so we have a lot more news coming up, including a bunch of celebrities who decided they don't like fairy tales, which is real weird.
So we'll talk about that in just a second, but you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com to subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, get the rest of this show live, the rest of Andrew Clavin's show live, the rest of Michael Moles' garbage show live.
Get all of those wonderful things, except for Michael Moles' show.
It's not a wonderful thing, it's more just like the poop on the sandwich.
But in any case, get all those things for $9.99 a month, plus For $99 a year, get this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr is cheaper than the monthly subscription because $99 a year is less money than $9.99 a month.
Do the math yourself.
You'll find that it checks out.
Go check it out.
Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr comes with all those things.
Plus, when you subscribe over at YouTube or iTunes, please leave us a five-star review.
Those are the reviews we care about.
If you're not going to do that, don't leave a review.
Just five-star reviews over at iTunes and YouTube.
We have a Sunday special coming out this week with Andrew Klavan.
We have a couple more with real big names coming out.
In the next couple weeks as well.
Lots of good stuff coming.
You're going to want to be a part of it.
Go check us out at dailywire.com.
We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So there's a fascinating article in the New York Times I want to talk about because it speaks to the lack of objectivity when it comes to the intersection with politics.
The article from the New York Times is titled, Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed, which is a weird title.
And here's what they say.
It's from Amy Harmon.
Nowhere on the agenda of the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics being held in San Diego this week is a topic plaguing many of its members, the recurring appropriation of the field's research in the name of white supremacy.
Sticking your neck out on political issues is difficult, said Jennifer Wagner, a bioethicist and president of the group's Social Issues Committee, who had sought to convene a panel on the racist misuse of genetics and found little traction.
But the specter of the field's ignominious past, which includes support for the American eugenics movement, looms large for many geneticists in light of today's white identity politics.
They also worry about how new tools that are allowing them to home in on the genetic basis of hot-button traits like intelligence will be misconstrued to fit racist ideologies.
This is an argument that I have on a pretty frequent basis with a friend of mine, Jane Koston, over at Vox.
Jane is black and And I think rightly has great sensitivity.
I think everybody should have great sensitivity, but I think Jane would suggest that her background contributes to the sensitivity with regard to the racist past of the United States and the racist association between politics and bad science.
And so this has led to some serious conversations between the two of us about political correctness, about whether, in fact, there's an appropriate time to talk about IQ, for example, or standardized testing, for example, or about natural differences between men and women.
Like, when can you talk about biology without being condemned as a sexist or racist?
These are real issues that we have to discuss and take on head-on.
Unfortunately, the scientific community has decided to quash a lot of actual science because they are afraid that people who are racist are going to take that science out of context and then use that to club into submission a minority group.
And that's basically what this New York Times article is about.
It says, In recent months, some scientists have spotted distortions of their own academic papers in far-right internet forums.
Others have fielded confused queries about claims of white superiority wrapped in the jargon of human genetics.
Misconceptions about how genes factor into America's stark racial disparities have surfaced in the nation's increasingly heated arguments over school achievement gaps, immigration, and policing.
Instead of long-discounted proxies like skull circumference and family pedigrees, according to experts who track the far right, today's proponents of racial hierarchy are making their case by misinterpreting research on the human genome itself.
And in debates that have been largely limited to ivory tower forums, the scientists whose job it is to mine humanity's genetic variations for the collective good are grappling with how to respond.
Now, here's the real way to respond to all of this.
Put out the science, and then defend the science.
That's the way to respond to all of this.
Instead, the scientists, afraid that their science is going to be misappropriated, misinterpreted, or used for bad reasons, they have decided that they are going to simply quash all of this discussion internally.
John Novembri is a University of Chicago evolutionary biologist.
He says, One slide Dr. Novembri has folded into his recent talks depicts a group of white nationalists chugging milk at a 2017 gathering to draw attention to a genetic trait known to be more common in white people than others, the ability to digest lactose as adults.
It also shows a social media post from an account called Enter the Milk Zone, with a map lifted from a scientific journal article on the trait's evolutionary history.
In most of the world, the article explains, the gene that allows for the digestion of lactose switches off after childhood.
But with the arrival of the first cattle herders in Europe some 5,000 years ago, a chance mutation that left it turned on provided enough of a nutritional leg up that nearly all of those who survived eventually carried it.
And then the post shows a snippet of hate speech urging individuals of African ancestry to leave America, saying if you can't drink milk, you have to go back.
Well, so what?
I mean, so what?
They're idiots.
And one of the great ironies of white supremacists is they're the stupidest people on the planet.
They're constantly talking about how white people are superior and they're just dumbasses.
That's one of the things that's so funny.
It's like, if you're going to proclaim white superiority, then you really should send your best.
But as President Trump would say about Mexico, they're not sending their best.
The white supremacists are not sending their best.
They're sending idiots.
And they're like, oh yeah, white people, better than everybody else.
Also, I scored 1100 on my SATs.
In a commentary that accompanied the paper in the journal Genetics, Dr. Novembri warned that research is wrapped in numerous caveats that are likely to get lost in translations.
Because people are flaunting DNA ancestry tests indicating exclusively European heritage.
But the problem here is that we actually have to look at what science does have to say because it is a confounding factor when you look at attributing racism to America.
So take, for example, racial disparities in education.
So there's a lot of talk these days about affirmative action and whether people are performing at certain levels eligible to get them into college.
And the suggestion is that it is historic American racism that has led to the education gap in America's higher education system.
Well, an alternative would be that the test scores do not line up equally among various ethnic groups.
Right?
They just don't.
And that's true, not just with regard to black and white.
It's not true with regard to white and Asian.
White people score lower on the SATs than Asian people do, as a general matter in the United States.
How much of that is genetic?
How much of that happens to be environmental?
We don't actually know the answer to that.
That's a hotly fraught question in science.
But suggesting that racism is to blame for everything without looking at other confounding factors, like, for example, test scores, is a mistake and leads us to the wrong outcomes and leads us to the wrong measures to deal with those outcomes.
Genetics is not the answer to all of these disparities, but neither is racism.
Now, these are questions we have to be very careful about because obviously you don't want to give material to people who are suggesting that some people are inherently worse, or more evil, or more violent, or stupider because of the color of their skin.
Genetics doesn't line up that way, but you also have to look at questions of science because you are a scientist.
So it is fascinating to watch this debate play out in real time.
So there are doctors who have organized meetings of social scientists to discuss the social implications of the field's newest tools.
David Nelson, a Baylor College of Medicine geneticist, who's president of the Human Genetics Society, says it will not stay completely quiet on the issue.
They said there is no genetic evidence to support any racist ideology.
Which is true, because racism is a moral view, and genetics is a scientific view.
And scientific racism is the use of science in order to be racist.
It is not the use of science in order to pursue good ends.
So, if you're silencing research because you're afraid of how people are going to use that research, then I would suggest that you're misusing science, and we need to have some very hard conversations about actual science, actual problems, and actual solutions, without falling prey to the idea that because bad people are going to misuse the information, we have to quash the information itself.
OK, now, meanwhile, I have to discuss this, these insane, ridiculous stories today, the couple of insane and ridiculous stories.
So, number one, Keira Knightley says that she is not going to allow her daughter to watch The Little Mermaid or Cinderella.
Which makes perfect sense because she played in Pirates of the Caribbean, a woman who had to be saved by a man.
But here she is talking about she's not going to let her kids watch Disney movies.
I love how PopSugar covers this.
Keira Knightley has a strict parenting rule about Disney movies and the reason is spot on.
And what is her reason?
Let's hear it from Keira Knightley.
And she's banned from seeing certain children's movies, right?
Yeah.
What are they?
Cinderella.
Banned.
Because, you know, she waits around for a rich guy to rescue her.
Don't.
Rescue yourself, obviously.
Right.
And this is the one that I'm quite annoyed about, because I really like the film, but Little Mermaid.
I mean, the songs are great, but do not give your voice up for a man.
Hello.
Wow.
Okay, so Little Mermaid is immoral, but for other reasons.
Little Mermaid is about a girl who decides to disobey her father, leave her culture, and go gallivanting around, even though she knows that her father is going to be turned into, like, a nematode.
So that Little Mermaid has some serious problems with it.
But, Cinderella?
Really?
The message of Cinderella is wait around to be saved by a man?
First of all, has she seen the modern version?
The modern version is great.
Have you guys seen the modern version of Cinderella?
Like Justin and Senya?
The one directed by Kenneth Branagh?
It's terrific.
It's a terrific, terrific film.
It's really good.
And if you think that Cinderella is supposed to be some sort of shrinking violet, you haven't even watched the original Cinderella.
The original Cinderella, she's kind of sassy.
If you go back and you watch it, it's actually true.
But, This idea, women can't be saved by men.
Women, save yourselves.
Listen, women should be independent.
Women should save themselves.
Also, there are situations in which women need men.
It's called all of human history.
And there are situations in which men need women, also called all of human history, but need each other in different ways.
One of the great annoyances that I have with some of the modern Disney films is that every single Disney film is now concerned with this idea That women are deeply independent and they do not need a man.
It's one of the reasons why Frozen is much more popular with critics than Tangled was, even though Tangled is by far the superior movie.
Because Tangled is about, yes, an independent young girl, but also about the guy she falls in love with who has to actually perform heroic feats in order to help her.
That's okay.
That's good for boys.
And guess what?
That doesn't mean that girls can always count on guys to save them.
But when evil is afoot in the world, it is typically men who are going out there to meet the evil with a sword or a gun.
Let's not pretend that all gender roles are the same.
Now, I'm going to say something deeply controversial.
Men and women are different.
I know.
Very controversial.
And fairy tales tend to embed these ideas that men and women are different.
That women are largely composed by evolution to help build, and men are largely built by evolution to help protect and defend.
This is the difference between men and women.
Men are built to destroy things.
They can build things too, but only when they are doing so for the purpose of cultivating a family or cultivating a civilization, which is where women come in, right?
Women help build civilization by helping to tame men.
Men help build civilization by being tamed by women.
And also, I mean, this is what the taming of the shrew is really about.
And also, and also by basically changing their destructive tendencies toward growth.
Reinforcing those things is not a terrible thing.
How many women have watched Cinderella and really been damaged by it?
How many women have watched it?
Is there a woman who watched Cinderella and then she was like, you know what?
I'm just gonna sit here.
I'm just gonna wait for a dude.
Really, I don't know what these women are thinking.
And then Kristen Bell came out and she said something very similar.
Kristen Bell said that Snow White sends the wrong message.
Now, I hope that she was joking, but I have no clue whether she was joking.
Um, I kind of doubt it.
She says that Snow White sends kids a bad life lesson.
She says, every time, she says, every time we close Snow White, I look at my girls and ask, don't you think it's weird that Snow White didn't ask the old witch why she needed to eat the apple or where she got the apple?
I would say, I would never take food from a stranger, would you?
My kids are like, no, and I'm like, okay, I'm doing something right.
Well, you don't actually have to teach your kids that.
That's sort of the theme of the story, is that Snow White's an idiot.
Right?
The theme of the story is that Snow White shouldn't be taking apples from strangers.
And then she also says, don't you think it's weird the prince kisses Snow White without her permission?
Because you cannot kiss someone if they're sleeping.
Again, I don't know how many people actually think it's okay to kiss someone while they're sleeping, because it's weird.
The whole point of that fairy tale and Sleeping Beauty is that it only works because it's true love's kiss, right?
She's met the prince before.
And the idea is that love overcomes even death.
That is the actual theme of the fairy tales.
But I guess we're going to rip all this stuff away in favor of surface messages about Me Too and women's empowerment.
Really, really dumb stuff.
OK, so in just a second, I'm going to talk about some things that I like and some things that I hate.
So let's do some things that I like real fast.
So we begin today with a great new book out about Babe Ruth.
Jane Levy is one of my favorite authors.
She is just terrific.
She's written a biography of Sandy Koufax.
That's quite good.
She wrote a biography of Mickey Mantle.
That's spectacularly good.
And she has a new biography out about Babe Ruth.
I love sports books.
And if you enjoy baseball or business, go check out Babe Ruth and the World He Created.
The title of the book is The Big Fellow by Jane Levy, who is one of the best living American sports writers.
She's really, really first rate.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Many, many things that I hate today.
Yay, so much hatred.
Okay, so, we begin today with CNN's Brooke Baldwin.
You remember that just a week ago, she told Matt Lewis and Mary Catherine Ham that they should not use the word mob on her program to describe Democrats who are actually mobs, because that would be mean, and the only real mobs are Charlottesville mobs.
Here she is trying to explain herself and failing dramatically.
And listen, like, I don't want to be the word police, and that was not my intention, but I also believe in calling out talking points, and to hear him bring that up, I had to say something, and honestly, at the end of my day, like, I'm sure you check your Twitter too, and if I have irked the left and the right, then I've done my job.
OK, so yeah, she doesn't irk the left ever.
When's the last time you heard the left go, yeah, Brooke Baldwin really irks me.
So I'm not sure where the irk both left and right comes from.
So media bias just on full display.
Speaking of media bias on full display, there's an article at NBC News today by Alex Seitzwald, who is a good reporter.
I've dealt with him a little bit.
He used to work, I believe, for Slate.
Is that right?
Well, now he has an article, and this article is not a good article.
It is called Betomania by Democrats Are Crazy for Their Authentically Cool Senate Candidate.
When is the last time you heard about a Republican candidate losing by near double digits in a blue state?
And there was a lot of talk about how cool he was.
And the media were fawning over him.
Now, this is not the first time that we've seen this.
They did the same thing with Wendy Davis.
She was the cool kid.
And then she lost by 20 points to Greg Abbott in Texas.
And there was Jon Ossoff in Georgia 6.
He was the cool guy.
And then he lost in Georgia 6 to Karen Handel, a woman I know, but who's a very generic congressional candidate.
Who'd run a couple of races statewide before and lost.
But there are all sorts of articles.
John Ossoff, the wave of the future.
Have you heard of John Ossoff since?
What's he been doing?
The best part of that story was that John Ossoff basically got conned into marrying his girlfriend to run for Congress, like he hadn't married her for six years.
And then he was like, well, maybe I'll win if I marry her, which got to be flattering to her.
And then he lost.
Oops.
Well, now they're writing full articles about Democrats are crazy for Beto.
Which part of it about Beto was the really great part?
The part where he pretends to be Hispanic by using the name Beto when his actual name is Robert O'Rourke?
Or the part where he drove over a median line while drunk, plowed into a truck, and then tried to drive away when he was 26?
Which is the best part, you think?
About Beto O'Rourke.
But the Democrats are really in love with him.
And there's this whole long article about the wonders of Beto O'Rourke.
He's just spectacular.
jim messina former hillary staffer says people are motivated by him as a political leader and a human being he's authentic and luckily luckily authentically cool for him to play play air drums to the who or skateboard is both authentic and cool people want to hang out with him okay so here's something about people who are authentic and cool okay we'll I remember when the right tried to do this with Marco Rubio, and I like Senator Rubio, but I remember when they're like, Marco Rubio listens to rap.
That makes him cool.
Okay, how do you do, fellow kids?
Beto O'Rourke is how many years old?
How old is Beto O'Rourke?
He's 46 years old.
If you're skateboarding when you are 46 years old, you're no longer cool.
You get banned from the city park for being a creep.
Like, really?
He's a skater?
Like, at least when Bill Clinton was trying to be cool, he was playing the saxophone or something, which is something you can do as a middle-aged person and not look ridiculous.
But if you're 46 years old and you've got your long, wavy hair, man, and you're just riding around on your skateboard, and you're playing air drums to the who?
Like, the only time you play air drums, if you're an adult human, is when you have children to amuse your kids.
Like, I airbanned in the car to amuse my four-and-a-half-year-old because she thinks that it's very funny.
I don't do it in public because I'm so awesome, because I play violin in public.
Right?
I mean, come on.
Come on.
It's not... I don't even know... Just ridiculous.
So, well done, media.
Just doing Yeoman's work.
Joy Behar also contributing to the media's wonders this week.
She said that Trump is teaching Americans to be sexist, racist bullies, as opposed to the media, Here's Joy Behar screeching at you from The View.
care about whether somebody is one 1024th Native American and teaching everyone that men are evil and ought never to be listened to in any case.
Here's Joy Behar screeching at you from The View.
I know every time I criticize The View, I lower my chances of being on the show, but there's only so much I can do to steer clear of this particular fray.
This guy is training American kids to disrespect women, say they call them names, you know, to be racist in many ways, to be bullies, even though his wife says, be a bastard, don't be a bastard.
We're a country full of independent thinkers.
He's a bully.
OK, number one, I think that the idea of president as moral leader sort of collapsed with Bill Clinton.
I think that's been true for 20 years.
If you are looking at the president and saying, I wish my child would act like the president.
First of all, you should only say that you wish your child would act like a person you think your child should act like, not based on the position.
It's like saying, I wish that my child would act like the CEO of Exxon.
Well, it sort of depends on who the CEO of Exxon is.
If it turns out the CEO of Exxon is a good guy, great.
If it turns out the CEO of Exxon is a scumbag, then that's probably a bad idea.
I'm always confused by people should follow the character of the President of the United States.
I agree.
I wish the President had more character.
I wish the President didn't say these things.
I wish he treated women better.
But, if you really think that Trump is what's poisoned the well here, you haven't been watching for the past couple of decades in American politics.
Hey, time for a couple extra things I hate today.
So, Roseanne without Roseanne, which the ABC launched a show called The Conners because they still had to make money without funny, actually.
So, Roseanne Barr tweeted out, Because they killed her off in the series?
I guess they killed her off of a drug overdose?
Is that right?
In the Conners?
Well, the show was a complete, complete fail.
When Roseanne returned on ABC earlier this year, it got nearly 20 million viewers, an 18.2 million viewers, a 5.1 rating.
When it finished, it had 10.3 million viewers and a 2.4 rating.
The debut of The Conners started off with 10.5 million viewers and a 2.3 rating.
So, not great.
And it's just going to decline from there because it turns out that no one wants to watch Roseanne without Roseanne.
ABC should have just killed the show, if they really felt the necessity to kill the show.
Or they should have rehabbed Roseanne.
Or they should have said, listen, we need to take a break from Roseanne.
We'll be back in a while after Roseanne has done her required penitence.
But instead, they're not going to do that.
They'll just keep plugging along with the show nobody really wants to watch.
That's not even a story that I hate that much.
Here's the story I really hate because it's just so idiotic.
Agence France-Presse is now reporting that rising US star Issa Rae held up her hand up Wednesday to sexualizing men in her hit television series, Insecure, saying it was time for the female gaze to have its day.
Gaze being like G-A-Z-E, not like the female gaze like Ellen DeGeneres.
Like the female gaze to have its day.
The African-American writer and producer, who first broke through playing herself in the cult YouTube series, Awkward Black Girl, admitted she was all for the camera lingering longer on the glories of the naked male.
Okay, so a couple of things.
So she says, men are more sexualized in the series because we are seeing this through the female lens.
She says, when I'm in the act myself, I don't say, ooh, look at my body.
You're seeing what I see, what I'm looking at.
It's all very intentional.
We're always seeing bleep and bleep on TNA on screen.
This is an opportunity to reverse that.
She says that her mom, who's a good Christian, hates the show.
She said, the bad language, the sex.
She'll say, why did I even bother with parental control and having you not watch R-rated movies if you grew up to make the things you weren't allowed to watch?
She said that she's basically making porn.
What I think is hilarious about this is it's time for women to sexualize men.
Well, I thought the critique was that men were sexualizing women and that was bad.
Men shouldn't treat women as pieces of meat.
So I guess now the reverse is that women should sexualize men and treat them as pieces of meat.
There's a difference, however.
When women are sexualized by men and treated as pieces of meat, they don't like it.
It is one of the great objections, the correct objections of the MeToo movement.
Don't treat me like a piece of meat.
Don't sexualize me.
Don't treat me as though I'm just a sexual object.
Fair enough.
Correct.
How do you think men react to being sexualized?
If a woman says to a man, I really want to see you naked, there is not a man on earth who is upset about this sentence. - Yes.
Yeah.
Like, really, this is not men do not operate in the same way that women do.
And only idiot radical feminists think differently.
If a man says to a woman in a bar, I want to see you naked.
She is insulted and throws a drink in his face.
If a woman says to a man in a bar, I want to see you naked.
The man says, OK, where do we go?
That's really how that goes.
There's a 1989 study.
It's still my favorite social science study ever.
There's a 1989 study in which these college professors sent an attractive woman into a bar to ask a hundred men whether they wanted to go home with her for the night.
75 of the 100 men said yes.
Then, the same study authors sent a man into the bar to ask a hundred women whether they wanted to go home for the night.
How many women said yes?
Zero.
Zero.
So when people, when, when radical feminists are like, it's time for us to start sexualizing men, they're like, go for it, man.
We've been waiting for this for generations.
Like go, go for it.
But again, if you are convincing women that you are somehow acting inequality to men, it's going to work out well for you.
It ain't gonna work out well for you.
Okay, it's not going to work out well for you, because it turns out you'll just be used and abused by a bunch of men, and in the end, you are not acting authentically the way that you actually feel about sex.
You're acting as people are telling you to feel about sex, and that means that you are probably going to feel emotionally empty afterward.
Now, maybe there are some people who are very into the casual sex, and they like to sexualize men, and everything works out great.
I'm not talking to you, and I really mean you, like it's one person.
I'm talking about all the other women on planet Earth who attach emotional intimacy to sex.
Because there's other studies that demonstrate that women have better sex in emotionally intimate situations.
Sex with strangers does not work the same way for men and women because this is what evolution teaches us.
Again, this is not me subjectively trying to promulgate my traditionalist views on sex on women.
Evolutionary biology is not in favor of women having random promiscuous sex with strangers.
It leads to the genetic offspring of idiots.
Really, this is why women are more sexually selective than men.
And this is true in every sexually dimorphic species, basically.
So it's, again, go for it.
You want to do this?
All you.
Enjoy.
But let's not pretend that this is in any way going to forward the enjoyment or happiness of women.
It's really, really asinine.
OK, so we will be back here tomorrow with all the news.
Plus, is today Thursday?
Man, it's been a long week.
So tomorrow's a Friday.
That means it's mailbag time.
And you can ask all your questions.
So be a subscriber at DailyWire.com to get those questions in right now.
And we'll see you here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection