All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 11, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
50:24
Europe In Crisis | Ep. 677
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Brexit hits a massive snag, France's government parlays with protesters, and we discuss segregated vacation spots.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Man, a lot of various and sundry topics to get to today.
If that teaser didn't get you, wait until you hear the bizarre news that I've got for the rest of the show.
Before we get to any of that, let me remind you that we now have $1.2 trillion added to our national debt as of fiscal year 2018.
Economists say that by the end of next year, we'll be spending more on the interest of our national debt than we spend on Medicare by 2023, more than we spend on the military.
As balloon payments become due, you need to ask yourself what the impact on the U.S.
dollar is going to be.
What is the impact on your investments?
What is your plan?
Can you afford another hit to your retirement like the last downturn when the S&P dropped 50%?
We've seen incredible volatility in the stock market over the last couple of weeks, and this suggests that perhaps you should be diversified in your investments.
You should hedge against inflation, hedge against uncertainty and instability with precious metals.
Gold is a safe haven against uncertainty.
My savings plan is diversified and yours should be too.
The company I trust with precious metal purchases, Birch Gold Group.
Right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver, if that's something you're into.
It's good for folks who want to protect their hard-earned retirement savings from geopolitical uncertainty.
Look back historically, when the bottom falls out of everything else, gold does tend to safeguard savings.
Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, and it's the holidays, you get gifts for everyone, so get yourself a free gift, the gift of understanding diversification.
Contact Birch Gold Group, get a free information kit on physical precious metal C. If diversifying into gold and silver makes sense, For you, again, that's a comprehensive 16-page kit revealing how gold and silver can protect your savings.
Go check them out right now at birchgold.com slash ben.
That is birchgold.com slash ben.
The folks I trust with precious metals investing.
All right, we'll begin today with Time Magazine, which has now announced its Person of the Year.
And predictably enough, in a time when the media really loves them some media, The persons of the year are all journalists because there's nothing that really attracts Americans to journalists as much as journalists patting themselves on the back.
The journalists have actually run out of enough hands to pat themselves on the back.
So who exactly is being honored?
They call them the guardians and the war on truth.
Obviously, President Trump being the war on truth and these people being the guardians of the truth.
Because if there's one group of people You can trust to tell you the truth without partisan rancor or fear.
It's those journalists, all those journalists who agree on everything.
Those are the people who we should certainly trust with all of your fact-based needs.
So there are a bunch of different folks who are photographed for the cover of Time Magazine.
Jamal Khashoggi was made the Person of the Year on the cover of Time Magazine.
Jamal Khashoggi, you'll recall, was the Saudi citizen who was here on a visa and then he went to Turkey and went to the Saudi consulate for a marriage document and was promptly murdered by the members of the Saudi consulate and then chopped up and sent in a bag back to Saudi Arabia.
This all went wrong.
It was very bad for the Trump administration, which of course has been very close with the Saudi Arabian government, particularly the new leader of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.
That's the reason the Time Magazine selected Jamal Khashoggi, who in reality was, in fact, pretty radical on politics.
He had a long time history of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
He was very much in favor of more radical Islam in the Middle East, not less radical Islam in the Middle East.
He was certainly no moderate.
But since he was murdered for being a journalist, he is the Time Magazine Person of the Year because people are trying to basically draw a parallel between President Trump's dislike for the media and violence against journalists.
So much so that they're honoring the folks over at the Capital Gazette, which was a newspaper, you'll remember, that was attacked in Virginia.
Now, it turns out that the Capital Gazette was not, in fact, attacked by a Trump supporter.
It was not attacked by somebody who hated the media because President Trump was not fond of the media.
It was attacked by somebody who had a personal vendetta with the paper.
So why exactly are they on the cover of Time Magazine?
Because Time has to draw a false line suggesting that journalists all over the world are under assault specifically because of President Trump.
It's not as though we've had, you know, evil, murderous governments that have been cracking down on journalists for legitimately all of human history.
It's that now we have President Trump in the White House and things have magically changed.
I do appreciate how there are no journalists who are actually from Turkey who are interviewed for these Time Magazine articles.
Turkey, of course, is the country behind all of the revelations about Jamal Khashoggi.
Turkey has arrested Literally hundreds of thousands of dissidents over the past several years as it moves from democracy into dictatorship.
Time magazine has nothing to say about that.
Jamal Khashoggi, however, is obviously worry number one.
Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the Jamal Khashoggi case, but again, this is the media trying to play itself up.
Who else was was honored?
Well, Maria Ressa, who is an editor, I believe, in Russia, who was indicted, and Wallone and Kal Suu, who are reporters who were convicted.
So the idea is that there is a war on truth, but lumping in the folks over at the Capital Gazette with folks who have been targeted by foreign dictatorships seems like a very bizarre thing for Time to Do, except that All these journalists want to see themselves as firefighters who are running to put out the fire of the Trump administration.
It's very silly.
It doesn't make any sense.
But that's okay.
Next year, Time Magazine's Person of the Year will just be Time Magazine.
I think that's probably where this is going.
It'll just be a mirror.
They actually did that one year.
Remember, you were the Person of the Year for Time Magazine?
It's a great way for them to get publicity.
They succeeded in getting publicity good for them.
But...
It's just another indicator that our journalist class is wildly disconnected from the needs and the wants of the American people.
Now, speaking of folks who are completely disconnected from the needs and wants of the American people, yet continue to gain credibility every day with that left-wing press, the Women's March has now been revealed for what it is, which was an intersectional scam that was at least One foot in anti-Semitism at all times.
So the Women's March, you remember, they were nearly made the Person of the Year last year by Time Magazine because this was the upswelling of women ever.
It was a new movement, a new movement of women everywhere that never materialized into anything concrete except for an angry march.
And was led by deplorables, actual deplorables, like Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour.
And that was an article over at Tablet Magazine talking about how deeply rooted the antisemitism was in the Women's March.
It says, on November 12, 2016, a group of seven women held a meeting in New York.
They'd never worked together before.
In fact, most of them had never met.
But they were brought together by what felt like the shared vision of an emerging mission.
There were effectively two different cohorts that day.
The first one included Breanne Butler, Karen Waltuck, Vanessa Rubel, and Marilyn Folger, a fashion designer-turned-entrepreneur with a sideline in activist politics who had assumed the nom-de-guerre Bob Bland.
These four were new acquaintances who had connected in the days since Donald Trump's election through political networking on social media.
Most of them had filtered through the Pantsuit Nation Facebook group, sounds like a party, where a woman in Hawaii named Teresa Shook had days before floated the idea of a female-centered march to protest the incoming administration.
Soon after, Rubel, a Washington, D.C.
native who founded OK Africa, a digital media platform dedicated to new African music, culture, and politics, reached out to a man she knew named Michael Skolnick.
The subject of a New York Times profile the previous year as an influencer at the nexus of social activism and celebrity, Skolnick held a powerful, though not easily defined, role in the world of high-profile activist politics.
It's very rare to have one person who everyone respects in entertainment or in politics or among the grassroots," said Van Jones in 2015.
But to have one person who's respected by all three?
That isn't anyone but Michael Skolnick.
When Rubel relayed her concern that the nascent women's movement had to substantively include women of color, Skolnick told her he had just the women for her to meet, Carmen Perez and Tamika Mallory.
They're recommendations that Skolnick could vouch for personally.
In effect, he was connecting Rubel to the leadership committee of his own nonprofit, a group called The Gathering for Justice.
Linda Sarsour, another colleague from the Gathering for Justice Network, was not present for the initial meetings, but soon joined the Women's March as co-chair a short time later.
In advance of the meeting, Bland suggested they convene in Chelsea Market, an upscale food court in Manhattan.
When the day arrived, women managed to find each other, but soon realized there was nowhere in the hectic maze-like mall of vendors quiet enough to sit and talk.
Eventually, they were treated to the rooftop of a nearby hotel, where, less than a week after the idea for the match sprouted, the seven women got acquainted.
According to several sources, it was there, in the first hours of the first meeting of what would become the Women's March, that something happened that was so shameful to many of those who witnessed it, they chose to bury it like a family secret.
Almost two years would pass before anyone present would speak about it.
It was there that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistant movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people, and even, according to a close second-hand source, claimed that the Jews were proven to have been the leaders of the American slave trade.
These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, the Bible of the New Antisemitism, according to Henry Louis Gates, who noted in 1992, among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.
To this day, Mallory and Bland deny any such statements were ever uttered either at the first meeting or at Mallory's apartment.
There was a particular conversation about how white women had censored themselves and also around the dynamics of racial justice and why it was essential that racial justice be a part of the women's right conversation, remembered Bland, but she and Mallory insisted it never had anything to do with the Jews.
None of the other women in attendance would speak openly to Tablet about the meeting, but multiple sources with knowledge of what happened confirmed the story.
Following an initial 30-minute phone call last week with Women's March co-chairs Tamika Mallory and Bob Land, Tablet submitted a detailed list of follow-up questions to the group by email and received a written response.
Answers from both exchanges are quoted at length in this article.
As the fame grew of the Women's March, so did questions about the Women's March origin story, including, at first privately, within the inner circles of the organizations, questions pertaining to the possible anti-Jewish statement made at that very first meeting.
And obviously all of the leaders of the very first meeting, or many of them, shut up about this, but it didn't stop the news from getting out.
So anti-Semitism was on the table from day one at the Women's March, and no one cared.
Because intersectionality does not care about Jews.
Intersectionality is just about the intersectional interests of a group of people So long as that group of people does not include Jews or white people.
As long as that is the case, it is fine to move forward with a march that is openly associated with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan.
That is totally cool.
Now, I have a question.
This meeting happened two years ago.
This meeting happened in December of 2016, or November of 2016, directly after the election.
Why did it take two years for our reporting, our firefighting journalists, to find out about this story?
I mean, the signs of anti-Semitism were in plain view at the Women's March.
Linda Sarsour is an open anti-Semite.
Tamika Mallory is an open anti-Semite.
These people are not hiding the ball.
These are folks who have repeatedly, repeatedly defended association with the most open anti-Semite in America, a man who calls Jews termites, Louis Farrakhan.
Did anybody in the media have anything to say about this?
And when they were asked about it, did they immediately move to defense?
If you go and look at, like, the Jewish Forward, which is not even a Jewish newspaper, it's a leftist newspaper masquerading as a Jewish newspaper, that outlet has sought to defend people like Linda Sarsour from charges of anti-Semitism, despite the fact that Linda Sarsour is an actual anti-Semite who is associated not only with boycott, divestment, and sanctions from Israel, but also with actual terrorists.
In other words, the left is fine with discrimination against particular groups, so long as those particular groups are not members of the intersectional coalition, or as long as they are low-ranking members who are willing to accept their subservience in all of this.
In just a second, I'm going to show you how this has infused so much of the mainstream left that it's quite insane.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, I need to talk to you about... Oh, Max!
So, we live in a fast-paced, multitasking world that demands quick thinking.
You want to be razor sharp on top of your game all the time.
You can't be me.
Okay, I know.
I have a naturally high energy level.
But, if you don't, you're flagging in the middle of the day.
Here's what you need.
You need a cognitive boost.
If drinking coffee or energy drinks isn't doing the trick, you need to try OMAX Cognitive Boost, a game-changing solution that fuels peak performance by boosting memory, focus, energy, all around crystal thinking.
Omax is offering my listeners 70% off a one-month supply of Cognitive Boost plus free shipping and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Just go to omaxboost.com slash Shapiro today to take advantage of this incredible savings.
You really have nothing to lose, again, considering that you get a free shipping and a 60-day money-back guarantee, so it doesn't work for you.
You get the money back.
omaxboost.com slash Shapiro for 70% off a one-month supply of Cognitive Boost.
O-M-A-X-B-O-O-S-T dot com slash Shapiro.
Again, You're ready to optimize your mind, make sure that your energy level is up.
Go check it out.
Go check it out right now.
Well, the intersectional coalition doesn't accept everyone.
It doesn't accept people if you are from particular races that are not intersectional enough, that have not suffered enough in American society.
If you are a member of one of these intersectional groups, you can be as racist as you want to be, so long as you're being racist against the group of victimizers.
Today's example comes courtesy of Vice.
So Vice, one of the dumbest outlets on the internet, there are many of them, but Vice likes to feature stories, intersectional, woke, social justice warrior stories, you know, the important stories about how people of color fight back against the predominantly white superstructure in the United States.
So Vice, We're on a full story on HBO because, again, there's no bias in the media, folks.
HBO only does, you know, Pod Save America, live shows and Vice News Tonight.
HBO is not biased in any way.
They're just profit seeking.
That's what we know about HBO.
In any case, Vice News Tonight on HBO did a full segment about A group of women of color.
It was called what it's like to take a vacation away from white people, which, again, you know, I I'm always loathe to do these sort of reverse the race and then check it, but reverse the race and then check it.
Is that what it's like to take a vacation away from black people and see how that goes for you in the public discourse?
Here is a little bit of vice celebrating a bunch of women of color escaping the white people, the bad, bad white people.
This is like heaven right now.
Yeah.
Oh.
Alexis Bromley is from Nebraska.
She needed a break from white people.
In Omaha, it's very segregated.
It's, uh, it can be very isolating if you're a person of color.
Can you pause it for one second?
I just want to point out, she says that it's very segregated in Nebraska.
You know where else it's segregated?
In your segregated vacation spot.
That's where else it is very segregated.
But apparently, that's, it's totally fine to talk about segregation of races so long as you're a person of color.
Continue.
has only made these feelings worse.
So, she decided to go on a women of color healing retreat in Costa Rica.
Okay, a couple of notes about this.
The Women of Color Healing Retreat in Costa Rica.
Costa Rica is an area that was colonized by the Spanish.
It is 84% white or mestizo.
So, it's not exactly the most segregated area on planet Earth, but apparently it is fine for people to segregate themselves into communities of various colors, so long as those members are members of the intersectional coalition.
Otherwise, they'll call you parochial, right?
If you live in a Jewish community, then you're parochial.
If you live in a gated community that, not through any attempt to exclude people of other races, just happens to be predominantly white, then you are obviously involved in a form of segregation.
But if you specifically go to a women-of-color retreat to avoid the whites, to avoid the bad white folks, then, of course, you are doing just fine.
The radicalism of the left on full display.
But it gets even worse!
I have more radicalism for you!
Okay, so...
The left's intersectional ideals, in which they get to discard any semblance of normalcy and decency in favor of the most woke standards of social justice, it's getting ever more extreme.
Last week we saw that Kevin Hart, the comedian, was basically banned from hosting the Oscars because 10 years ago he made a joke about how he didn't want his son to be gay.
Which, I have to say, I don't see why that's such a terrible joke.
Really?
Like, do you want your child to be gay?
Like, if your child ends up being gay, maybe it's not a big deal to you, but it seems to me that if you would opt, in the best of all possible worlds, for your child to be straight, and you know, be able to get married to a person of the opposite sex and have natural-born children, and raise that family in a traditional way, I don't see why that is terrible.
Why that's so bad?
I know, that makes me terrible.
I'm not even talking about government crackdowns against gay folks or discriminating against gay folks or anything like that, but I would prefer that my children be straight.
I don't see why that should be a controversial statement.
In any case, Kevin Hart was ripped up and down for this statement saying that he wanted his own children to be straight.
Oh my God, so terrible.
By the way, if everyone did not want their own children to be straight, and all of their children, in fact, were not straight, it would be very difficult to create a new generation of humans.
But in any case, Kevin Hart.
Now is being targeted even more.
He apologized and then he was and then he stepped down from the Oscars.
That did not stop Brandi Miller of Huffington Post from suggesting that Kevin Hart needs to go further.
She says, apparently being Kevin Hart means never having to say you're sorry.
Just weeks after vehemently defending the controversial Cowboys and Indians themed birthday party he threw for his one year old son on Thanksgiving Day, no less.
The comedian is at the center of yet another controversy that he refused to apologize for.
I love this, that now he has to defend the controversial Cowboys and Indians themed birthday party.
Were the Indians all the bad kids?
Like, did the Cowboys run down the Indians and then slaughter them?
Or did the party involve them being shepherded into reservations as everybody cheered?
If not, then it was probably just cops and robbers, or Cowboys and Indians, and a group of two kids who were shooting each other with Nerf guns.
Oh no, so terrible!
But Kevin Hart is a very, very bad man.
A very bad man.
This week, the homophobic tweets from the early 2000s surfaced, wherein Hart belittles LGBTQ people through uses of words and phrases like the F-word, no homo, or using gay as a derogatory term.
This homophobia was not reserved to his Twitter account.
In his 2010 special, Seriously Funny, in talking about raising his son, Hart said, one of my biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay.
Keep in mind, I'm not homophobic.
Be happy, do what you want to do.
But me as a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will.
And then she says, the outrage over this is reasonable.
Really?
Is the outrage over this reasonable?
She says, well, people like Kevin Hart are causing LGBTQ kids to commit suicide!
How?
How?
I mean, there's no evidence he mistreats his own kid.
If his kid were gay, there's no evidence he would mistreat his own kid.
But again, I would prefer that my kid be Jewish, right?
Jewish in practice.
I would prefer that my kid, that my son be straight and marry a woman.
I don't know why this preference is such a terrible thing.
Again, but you have to I guess now be completely indifferent as to whether your child is straight or gay.
You have to be completely indifferent as to whether your child has to undergo the severe strains that are put upon people by homosexual tendencies or by living in a society that is not as tolerant in certain areas of homosexuality or by the fact that you're not going to be able to Genetically produce the next generation outside of in vitro fertilization or any of the other pressures that come along with being gay.
If you want your child, if you hope that your child doesn't have to undergo that, then this makes you a very bad person.
Pretty astonishing stuff.
And see if that works for the mass majority.
I know this is politically incorrect stuff.
I know we're supposed to pretend that as parents we are indifferent to how our children come out.
That we are indifferent to what sort of sexual lives our children lead.
But I have many preferences as to the sort of sexual child that my children lead.
Put aside homosexuality.
I have many preferences as to whether my child gets married or is living with somebody.
I have preferences as to whether my child is promiscuous or only has sex with the person they marry.
I have lots of preferences on this because I'm a parent and I'm allowed to have preferences and that's okay and that's good.
And speaking of this, the left has basically decided that it is very bad for parents ever to have preferences about anything surrounding their kids and so Kevin Hart must be made to apologize.
It is deeply important that Kevin Hart apologize for this and then presumably come out and say that he prefers that his kid be gay.
Or that he's completely indifferent as to whether his kid is homosexual or heterosexual.
I mean, this is truly amazing stuff.
As a parent, it is your job to decide which values you hope that your child holds.
That's good.
That sort of guidance is what children need.
As a father of two kids under five, kids need lines.
Kids need standards.
And hopefully those standards are ones that are productive to society and healthy for your children.
A society that prevents parents from inculcating standards in their own children is a society that is going to need a hell of a lot of psychotherapists in the very, very near future.
We'll get to the case in point of this in just one second.
But first, let's talk about you smelling better.
I mean, let's face it.
You stink.
But if you have ever been in a situation where somebody has come up to you and said, you smell amazing.
What are you wearing?
Whether it's Gucci, Prada or Versace.
Maybe you're one of these people who doesn't sting.
Maybe you're somebody who actually cares about what you smell like.
Well, if you care what you smell like, but your great taste is expensive, and you end up with a shelf full of half-used bottles, there is a better way to have great taste and save your pocketbook at the same time.
I'm talking about Scentbird.
Scentbird.com keeps me smelling delightful month after month.
I use colognes from Scentbird.
My wife uses perfumes from Scentbird.
And we are talking about like the best perfumes on the market.
I have a bottle of cologne that I bought probably 10 years ago.
It's still sitting on the shelf because why would you possibly use cologne you bought 10 years ago?
But you don't want to throw it out because it's still full.
Instead, what you should be doing is you should be getting scents that you can use on a regular basis and that are renewed regularly.
Okay, Scentbird has 450 designer brands.
You choose one every single month.
Try exactly the brands you want.
It is the real deal.
Hugo Boss, Gucci, Tom Ford, Kenneth Cole, and more.
It's like a monthly scent adventure.
Choose a perfume, and they will send you a 30-day supply.
This makes a great gift for a spouse, by the way.
It's 120 sprays, so you always smell amazing, and free shipping all the time.
Skip the department store.
The pushy salespeople don't buy one of those Costco-sized vats of perfume that you will never empty.
Instead, you can switch it up.
And you're getting the very best in scents right now.
That's why I use Scentbird.com.
That's why my wife uses Scentbird.com.
With the exclusive offer, you get 50% off your first month today.
That's only $7.50 for your first cologne.
S-C-E-N-T, bird.com slash Shapiro.
Use promo code Shapiro for 50% off your first month.
I mean, I'm telling you, these are the best colognes and perfumes on the market, and you're getting them For really inexpensive prices and you renew them every month.
It's great.
Scentbird.com slash Shapiro.
Again, when you do that, you get 50% off your first month today, $7.50 for your first cologne.
Sign on and smell great and stop smelling like a garbage heap.
I mean, smell better.
Come on, do better, folks.
Okay, meanwhile...
As I say, the left has doubled down on their perception that parents should have no standards for their children when it comes to crucial areas of life, like sex.
So Kevin Hart is very bad because he says that he wants his child to be straight, which there are any number of good reasons why you would want your child to be straight.
Plenty of them that have nothing to do with discriminating against gay folks.
If you have a preference for a straight lifestyle over a gay lifestyle, that it does not make you a discriminatory bad person.
It makes you a person who has a standard of behavior for your children.
But we're not allowed to have standards of behavior for our children.
Because that would be you imposing your desires upon your child, and we can't do that.
Children must run free, like Rousseau's Emile.
They must run free across the plains, learning from the woodchucks, learning from the bees and the birds and the monkeys and the beavers.
They must learn from falling down how to get up.
Now, if you're a parent, and I know there are a lot of parents in the audience right now who are listening to this going, uh, that's the dumbest crap I ever heard in my life.
You know why?
Because it is the dumbest crap you ever heard in your life.
I have a two-and-a-half-year-old son.
You know what he does full-time?
His full-time job, like, if he could be paid for doing this, he'd be a rich young man.
My young son's full-time job is trying to kill himself.
This is what he does.
Day after day, he finds the most dangerous thing that he can do, and then he does it.
He climbs to the top of the couch, and then he tries to jump off the top of the couch.
He is all of about two feet tall, and he tries to jump from a three foot height, because he is not a smart human.
He's smart for two and a half years old, meaning he can identify the entire alphabet.
But he is not capable of making wise decisions.
Yesterday the nanny came running in because he was my son was crying I was trying to get out for work and he was crying just bloody murder and I came out and I said what happened and the nanny said he was trying to plug in the hairdryer and He's crying and crying crying and I looked at him and I said if you do that then you could get burned There's electricity in there and he looked at his hand and he said get a boo-boo and I said right you'd get a boo-boo He said fire on my hand.
I said right fire on your hand and he said fun Hey, that's what kids are.
So this idea that you are not supposed to set limits on your children or guide them through the most perilous parts of life, the areas of gender and sexual identity and orientation.
It's so unbelievably stupid.
And society has done an incredibly poor job of teaching our kids anything with regard to sexual morality or values or the sort of or the sort of limits you have to place on your own sexuality in order to be happy.
And we all place limits on our sexuality in order to be happy.
That's what marriage is.
It is a big limit on your sexuality that you place on yourself in order to be happy and to commit and to lead a life that is deeper and more meaningful.
And to not want to give that to your child is incredibly stupid.
Also, I will point out that I think the premise of the anti-Kevin Hart argument is that you have no say in whether your kid ends up straight or gay because biologically your kid is just going to be what your kid is going to be.
Now, I'm not somebody who believes there is no biological influence on sexual orientation.
I believe that there are a lot of people who are biologically driven toward certain sexual attractions.
But that doesn't mean that environment doesn't actually do anything.
In fact, in twin studies, where the DNA is exactly identical, in twin studies, In 50% of cases, only 50% of cases, are both twins gay.
At least 50% of cases, one twin will be gay and one will be straight, which suggests that environment has something to do with something, or that epigenetics has something to do with something, but it isn't just pure biology.
In any case, the left basically suggests that your kid is biologically driven to be what your kid will be.
In the words of that great philosopher, Lady Gaga, you're on the right track, baby.
I was born this way, right?
And so you can't guide your child in any way.
If you try to guide your child, then you are a repressive, oppressive parent.
The logical extension of this is that you cannot place any limits on your children.
You cannot teach your children about anything.
And that's how you end up with this insane story, courtesy of TikTok, which is another one of these, now this type video services.
Focusing on these gay fathers, whatever, who have a child.
Again, okay.
And then, here's where it's not okay.
They refuse to tell the child whether the child is a boy or a girl.
They say that the child should choose the child's own gender identity.
This child should immediately be removed from these parents.
Should immediately be removed from these parents.
This is child endangerment.
Not telling your child whether they are a boy or a girl and letting your one-year-old choose whether they are a boy or a girl is a recipe for psychological fail.
It is a recipe for your child being a screwed-up human being.
Limits are what creates good children.
Every parent knows this.
We have known this for thousands of years.
Every psychologist worth their salt will tell you that providing no limits and no guidance for your child is the way to have a screwed up kid.
But this is now being celebrated by our media because the final essence of the intersectional coalition is that everybody must be celebrated for biology but not decision-making.
That we can't guide people's decision-making in any way as parents and that it would be discriminatory to do so.
So here's a little bit of this idiotic video that has been making the rounds.
Always the question is a boy or a girl.
And so often we will say to people, we don't know yet.
We're waiting for Zoe to tell us.
And we felt like we really want, as best we can, to have our child not have those stereotypes put on them.
And our child to have the openness to identify as whatever gender they want to, whenever they feel that's right for them.
We are preparing for whatever Zoe might say and however Zoe might identify, knowing that that might change.
So there might be a time where Zoe says, I don't feel like a they, I feel like a she or I feel like a he.
OK, this is so evil.
I mean, it really is evil to use your child as a political prop like this, to pretend that gender and biology are completely separate, which is just scientific.
It's a scientific nonsense.
It is complete scientific nonsense.
And this is the logical outcome of the caving of science to political correctness.
And you've seen it in the scientific psychological community, where people like the American Association of University Professors are now engaging with this garbage, this absolute tripe.
They're engaging with this stuff.
And then, you think there won't be any social consequences to a generation of children who would be raised like this?
Gender neutral?
Where we don't assign a gender to them?
Kids have a gender.
It is inborn in them.
So, let me get this straight.
When it comes to sexual orientation and sexual behavior, that is entirely biological.
But whether you're a boy or a girl is not biological, those are all social constructions.
This makes no sense whatsoever on any level, but this is what we're going to push, because in the end, what a lot of folks on the radical left really want is to reduce the amount of influence that a long history of successful civilization has on children.
We are going to start over.
We are going to recreate a state of nature that has never existed in biological or human history.
This pseudo state of nature we're going to recreate and this is somehow going to make a better world.
Except it's not going to make a better world.
It's going to create more suffering in children.
It is nasty and evil to a child to suggest that a one-year-old or two-year-old be allowed to make their own decisions.
You wouldn't allow your kid to decide what they eat at night.
You wouldn't decide your kid to allow your kid To decide what they dress like in the middle of winter.
And you certainly shouldn't allow your kid to decide how they identify.
They don't even know what the hell you're talking about.
They don't know what you're saying.
They don't know anything about boys or girls.
They are what they are, and then your goal is to channel them in the proper direction so they can lead a happy and fruitful life, not so they can live with psychological dissonance and suffering, which, by the way, if you are a transgender person, if you suffer from gender identity disorder, the chances that you're going to suffer from psychological dissonance and suffering are extraordinarily high.
Why you would want to thrust your child into that sort of gender confusion is absolutely beyond me.
It's not only beyond me, I think that it's beyond anyone of any rational bent or can't.
Okay, in just a second, I want to get to the breakdown in Europe, because I think that all of this ties together in the breakdown of fundamental Western civilized values and the lack of a shared philosophical intellectual values history is leading people toward a fracturing Whether it comes to parenting or whether it comes to politics, we'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about your online security.
So, as a public figure, I am constantly worried about being hacked or spied on.
I don't want my emails compromised or my credit card number or online banking password stolen.
Yet that happens to hundreds of millions of people every year.
So how can you protect yourself?
The company I trust to defend my online security and privacy is ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN secures and anonymizes your connection by encrypting 100% of your network data and hiding your IP address.
That means nobody can record or access your online activity.
Download the ExpressVPN app right now on your computer or smartphone and then use the internet just as you normally would.
You click one button in the ExpressVPN app and voila, you are now protected.
ExpressVPN is great for accessing content from anywhere.
With VPN locations in 94 countries, blazing fast speeds, ExpressVPN is consistently rated the world's number one VPN service for internet users.
So, if you want the best in online protection to free yourself from worries about hackers and spies, head on over to ExpressVPN.
The nice folks at ExpressVPN have extended special pricing of less than $7 per month to all my fans, so go visit expressvpn.com slash ben and claim your discount.
Again, that is expressvpn.com slash ben.
To learn more, expressvpn.com slash ben.
Go check it out right now.
Okay, we are going to get to Brexit.
We are going to get to the breakdown in France.
We are going to get to...
America's economy, all of these things we'll still get to.
But first, you have to go subscribe.
Dailywire.com, $9.99 a month.
That's the short pitch.
The longer pitch, you're going to get two more hours of me every day come January.
That means more in-depth exploration of the issues, commentary that you can use.
You'll be able to call in, like all sorts of great stuff when you go over to dailywire.com and become a subscriber right now.
For $99 a year, you get all of those things.
Plus this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, the leftist here's hot or cold tumbler.
Cast your eyes upon it.
And sorrow in your lack.
You know that you want this.
You know.
So go check it out right now.
It isn't yours until you put a ring on it, as Beyonce said.
And the only way you can put a ring on it is by giving us $99 a year, which is cheaper than the monthly subscription.
Makes a great Christmas gift.
You will enjoy it, I promise.
Go check it out right now over at Daily Wire.
Also, follow us at YouTube or iTunes.
We have a bunch of fantastic Sunday specials coming up.
We recorded one yesterday.
We have one today also that is just great.
So, these are coming out in the next couple of weeks.
They are awesome.
You want to be part of that and you want to be able to access our final question.
The only way you can do that is when you get a subscription for $9.99 a month.
So go check it out right now.
Subscribe at YouTube.
Subscribe at iTunes.
Leave us a review.
It always helps.
We're the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Well, if things are getting crazy over here, they're getting even more crazy in many ways over in Europe.
Somebody tried to steal the ceremonial mace over at Parliament.
So here is what's going on.
Basically, Brexit, which was the attempt by the British public to break away from the European Union, At least with regard to the regulatory structure.
Most people in Britain seem to want to keep the trade structures with Europe, but they don't want the free travel.
They don't want people being able to just come in and live in the United Kingdom without any sort of immigration restrictions in the UK.
They don't want the EU regulators cramming down one-size-fits-all over regulations and burdens on the UK.
But the Brexit referendum that happened a couple of years ago, during the 2016 election actually, the Brexit referendum has still not been carried out because it is unclear how exactly it will be carried out.
There's what they call hard Brexit, which is we just cut off trade relationships, we cut off immigration, we cut off everything, and then we renegotiate everything, and the EU has said we're not going to do that, and so this would damage the economy.
Then there's soft Brexit, which is we keep some of the trade stuff, but this leads to some complications because obviously the United Kingdom is also comprised of A bunch of different sort of areas, all of which have different trade relationships with the EU, or at least right now they have a unified trade relationship with the EU.
But this specifically becomes a problem in Ireland, where the actual island of Ireland is divided in half.
You have Northern Ireland, which is still part of the United Kingdom, and then you have Ireland-Ireland, which is a separate independent nation and has a relationship with the EU.
Would you actually have that become... It's operated kind of as a single country in many ways, but if that happened, would it break it in half?
So there are all these complicating factors with regard to Brexit, and this has resulted in some of the great video of all time.
So a Labour Member of Parliament was kicked out of the House of Commons yesterday for picking up the ceremonial mace after the Brexit deal vote was delayed.
After a government whip shouted tomorrow in regard to the debate and vote, meaning it will be held on an unspecified future date, jeers rang through the house.
Lloyd Russell Moyle then went over to the silver gilt mace, picked it up, and walked away.
As he went away, he was stopped by two female sergeants-at-arms staff.
He put up no resistance as he was stopped.
So here's a little bit of what it looked like when this Labour MP decided to steal the silver gilt mace.
It's a lot shorter than that movie with Nicolas Cage where they steal the Declaration of Independence.
and things really went crazy.
So here's a little bit of what it looked like when this labor MP decided to steal the silver gilt mace.
It's a lot shorter than that movie with Nicolas Cage where they steal the Declaration of Independence.
This is a real short movie, so we can watch this in about 15 seconds here.
So here he goes, picking up the mace.
No!
Don't take the mace!
No!
He's walking away with the mace!
And they're stopping him.
And that's the end of the absconding with the ceremonial mace.
And they're like, no!
No, you can't take the mace!
You gotta love Britain, man.
It's pretty spectacular stuff.
And they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say, and they say,
That was before London ran up against the bureaucracy of the would-be European super-state based in Brussels and before it was led, if that's the right word, by Tory Prime Minister Theresa May.
Presiding over a divided party, facing a pro-Remain British establishment and negotiating with a hostile EU, May never had an easy task.
She has nonetheless not only failed to rise to the occasion but has been crushed by it.
May has just pulled her Brexit deal from a parliamentary vote that she was going to lose in an embarrassing drubbing that might have loosed her increasingly precarious grip on power if May and the Conservative Party were to drop in Britain.
The people who could take over are Jeremy Corbyn, that absolute whack job anti-Semite, and the Labour Party.
She has negotiated abysmally, giving away leverage right at the start when she had prematurely invoked Article 50, beginning the process of Britain's departure with no realistic fallback plan if talks with the EU failed.
She ends it up with an agreement that would effectively leave Britain within most EU rules, with no means of influencing them anymore.
The London Spe- Because once you remove yourself from the EU, you can't vote on the EU rules anymore.
So, if you remain in the EU, For all intents and purposes, with regard to these regulations, but you can't vote on them, then you are now being... It's no taxation, it's no regulation without representation, but this would be representation... It would be regulation without representation.
Now humiliated and her credibility in shreds, May says she is going to go back to the EU to get more reassurances when the EU has said it isn't conceding anything else of consequence.
And why else should it?
There's no guarantee May can get any tweaks to deal through Parliament regardless.
The larger question is this.
Will the EU ever relinquish a nation-state once it has hooks in it?
Its officials have treated the Brexit negotiations as an opportunity to teach anyone hoping to follow Britain out of the EU a lesson.
Don't dare to try to take back the full measure of your sovereignty, lest we make it as miserable for you as possible.
When in the past, countries in Europe have voted the wrong way on fundamental EU questions, as Ireland, France and the Netherlands did over the years, they were ignored or made to vote again until they got the right answer.
Britain may yet suffer the same pitiful fate.
So it is unclear how Brexit resolves itself.
Suffice it to say that chaos is breaking out in Britain over Brexit and has been going on continuously for a couple years as the EU tries to remain in charge of Britain's regulatory structure.
Meanwhile, over in France, things are falling apart as well.
Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, who is going to lead the new wave of French, French dignitaries into the future.
It's going to be France in the future because Emmanuel Macron is young.
He's like 39 years old and he was fresh faced and he was brilliant and he was a, he was into globalization and he was a sophisticate.
Well, now it turns out a bunch of rioters took over Paris and he's basically bowing to their every request.
It turns out that not only do the French surrender to the Germans every, every few decades, they now surrender to their own citizens who protest in the streets rather than merely arresting them.
Macron actually came out and begged for the rioters to give him another chance with regard to the economic anger that has broken out.
I won't forget that there is anger.
There is worry.
There is indignation.
All of us, or most of us, in France feel it.
The anger was about the gas tax and the Prime Minister responded to that by cancelling the Yes.
However, I feel the anger.
So now it's I feel the anger and France is going to cave to all these protesters again.
Here is the problem when you have people who promise you over and over and over that they will spend until the end of time and then the money runs out or they have to raise taxes on people.
People tend to get angry.
And this is the problem with populism on a broad scale.
It's so funny.
Folks like to say that Macron is fighting back populism.
What they mean by that is the populism of the right.
Macron is fighting back against the populism of the right that suggests that there should be no immigration into France, for example, and that social welfare spending should be increased on the people who already live there.
It's sort of a far-right European nationalism, populist style.
And he's fighting back against the immigration side of that, but he's never fought back against the spending side of it.
Macron has never been one to really talk about how he's going to ratchet down the social spending or restructure that social spending to make it sustainable into the future.
He, like everybody else in Europe, has been promising his citizens for years that they were going to get all the things that they were promised without any sort of repercussions.
And there are repercussions to spending this much money.
Now, maybe it can work for certain periods of time in, for example, the Nordic states.
But what it takes for those social spending standards to work in the Nordic states are exorbitantly high taxes.
We've talked about this before.
In Denmark, they have an enormous social welfare state.
People in the United States on the left, they love it.
What they won't tell you is that the top tax bracket in Norway, or in Denmark rather, is 60%, and it starts applying at like $60,000.
Imagine that everyone in the United States who made $60,000 or more, which is pretty much everyone in the United States who is middle class or above, that all those people were paying 60% of their income to the federal government, and then paying a 25% sales tax, which is the VAT tax in Denmark.
It takes a lot of money to run all this stuff.
And in France, they've been lying.
They've been saying, we won't raise taxes on you, but we'll continue to spend.
And we've been doing the same thing in the United States, except to a lesser extent, we spend an exorbitant amount of money, which is why we have a 92% debt to GDP ratio in the United States, and it's going to get worse.
Not better.
And it's why every time the Republicans lower the taxes without lowering the spending, it's a problem.
And every time the Democrats raise the spending, even if they raise the taxes, it's a problem.
The problem here is not with the tax rate in the United States.
It's the tax rate in the United States that allows income mobility.
It allows businesses to start.
It allows businesses to thrive.
It allows foreign direct investment.
All those things.
The problem in the United States is that we do not have our spending under control.
And Europe is finding this out the hard way.
And maybe you can sustain with all of these problems if you have a strong social fabric.
In a lot of these Nordic countries, the social fabric is incredibly strong.
These are homogenous countries with long histories of people who have lived together with one another and shared values and shared family ties.
And they're very small.
But that's not true in a multi-ethnic democracy where the ties that bind us are largely ties of success because the ties of philosophy were forcibly expelled decades ago by the philosophical left, which says we have nothing in common except we share a country together.
It's a real problem.
And that's what's leading to a lot of the breakdowns in Europe.
It's leading to the political breakdown in the United States.
We don't have the social fabric to withstand economic uncertainty and troubled economic times, which is why we should be a lot more worried about the future of the economy in the United States than we even were a few decades ago.
In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, people went back to church.
Churchgoing actually went up in the 1930s.
The crime rates in the 1930s did not escalate dramatically.
And they didn't escalate dramatically, in part, because there were so many people who were still part of a social fabric.
Families, friends, communities.
That no longer exists.
So we are riding the wave of economic growth that has been continuous, largely, for the last several decades.
If that ever should peter out, things are going to get very ugly very quickly.
And that's why we better rebuild that social fabric and why we must look to economic reform if we want to see a continued growth rate without the social collapse that we are now seeing in France.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I like and then a thing that I hate.
A couple of things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
Let's talk a little bit about the moon landing.
So I'm always amazed that there are so many folks who think that the moon landing was fake.
We literally left a mirror up there so that we can gauge the distance between the Earth and the moon.
And we use that mirror in order so that we can make scientific measurements.
But Steph Curry apparently has now come out and says he thinks that the moon landing is fake.
Steph Curry, the star of the Golden State Warriors.
So things are going great.
Here's what he had to say.
We ever been to the moon?
Nope.
Nope.
They gonna come get us.
I don't think so either.
Elon Musk and the closest thing we got.
They ain't been on the moon.
You don't think so?
Stanley, you gotta do the research on Stanley.
You talking about we took something to the moon?
I don't think so.
Um, what?
So why do I like this?
Because I just like that America is full of people with crazy opinions.
You know, I'm one of these people who thinks that no matter how crazy your opinion is, you should get to express it, even if you're a kook who believes that the moon landing never actually happened, or if you're a kook who believes that vaccines actually cause autism, which is based on scientific nonsense and gobbledygook.
I think you should be able to express your opinions.
I'm grateful that I live in a country where people can express stupid opinions like the moon landing was faked and never happened.
I just, I like that.
And I wanted to point out that while social media wants to quash, well, I do love that folks on the left who are willing to hear out Steph Curry on the moon landing was faked.
Some of those same people are the ones who say, well, if you question the reality of man-made climate change destroying the earth, Uh, then you are an anti-science denier.
Or if you believe that there are biological genders, then you are a science denier as well.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
So again, this one could be in Things I Hate or it could be in Things I Like.
The Oscars is now considering the possibility of having a host-free Oscars.
So they want a bunch of celebs, kind of SNL style, without a host.
So I guess it would just be a bunch of skits and people kind of run on and off.
It'd be more variety show style.
I guess maybe there'd be a gong or something, which would be kind of great.
So the thing I hate about this is that instead of Hollywood basically acknowledging, because really they need to acknowledge now, Everyone has bad tweets.
Every single person in Hollywood has bad tweets.
There's a tweet that came out from Sarah Silverman in the last week in which she was using gay slurs.
There are tweets from Chelsea Handler in which she uses gay slurs.
There's a tweet from Jack Dorsey in which he talks about transvestites.
Everyone in Hollywood and in social media has tweeted bad stuff.
And yet, the standard that we have set in Hollywood is that if you're Kevin Hart, then you can no longer work at the Oscars because you once tweeted a thing.
So, Hollywood, instead of saying, you know what, guys, maybe we better throttle back on the social media puritanism, instead they've decided, you know what, we're not going to have any hosts at all.
Instead, we'll have, I guess, like a vending machine.
Somebody just walk up and pop 75 cents in the vending machine, hit the button, and La La Land will come out.
And then you'll realize after you open up the La La Land bottle that actually it wasn't La La Land, it was Moonlight.
It'd be real weird.
So this is actually how the Oscars are going to work now.
The left is so tied in.
The Hollywood left is so tied in to its social media crackdowns that they're unwilling even to acknowledge that those social media crackdowns will end with the destruction of everybody in Hollywood.
I do love that folks in Hollywood are so puritan when it comes to social standards, considering that by and large, the folks in Hollywood are some of the worst living people in America by any sort of traditional standard of virtue.
Other things that I hate.
So would you say that it was a news story?
If somebody who was an ISIS Advocate was arrested with a plot to attack a Jewish synagogue?
I would say that's a news story.
The Times of Israel is now reporting that according to the FBI, on Monday, they arrested a guy who is an ISIS sympathizer named Damon Joseph, who planned to carry out a mass shooting during Shabbat services on behalf of the Islamic State in Toledo, Ohio.
According to the Department of Justice, Damon Joseph was arrested on Friday after purchasing two AR-15 rifles and talking of killing many people, including a rabbi.
The affidavit filed in the U.S.
District Court in Toledo said Joseph was inspired by the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting attack in October, which killed 11 Jewish worshipers.
He also said that he was identifying synagogues in the Toledo area to carry out a mass shooting attack in the name of the Islamic State.
He said, I admire what the guy did with the shooting, actually.
I can see myself carrying out this type of operation inshallah.
They wouldn't even expect an attack in my area.
I have a question.
Why was this only reported really by the Times of Israel?
Why is it that this ISIS sympathizer who was trying to attack a synagogue in Toledo was really not reported widely?
I have a theory.
My theory is that no one cares about this story unless the person happens to be in some tangential way associated with the cause that President Trump pushes.
It turns out that, as always, anti-Semitism is only a story when folks on the left think it's a story that they can use to club people on the right.
So when an ISIS sympathizer wants to shoot up a show, then no big deal.
But when it's a white supremacist who doesn't like immigration, Who shoots up a shul in Pittsburgh, then it's all about Trump, and it's all about, it's all about the evils of the right, just as Time Magazine, again, giving an award, it's Time Magazine People of the Year, to a newspaper that was attacked, even though it had nothing to do with Trump, in order so that they can claim that President Trump's climate of hate is leading to this sort of stuff.
You need to check your values.
If a bad thing is only bad according to you because it allows you to target the other side, you're not doing your job as a moral human.
Bad things are bad, whether or not it helps you politically.
And the fact that on both right and left, we seem to have forgotten this basic truth that bad things are bad, whether or not it helps or harms you.
It's pretty amazing and speaks to our loss of basic virtue and basic civility.
Because the truth is, the only time that people really think about that is when they are at war.
At war, people tend to think, OK, well, the ends justify the means.
If you think about that all the time, then you are getting Western civilization wrong.
And not only that, you're contributing to its breakup.
All righty.
We'll be back here tomorrow with all of the latest news.
There's supposed to be some news about the Russia investigation, which continues apace.
We'll bring you all the latest 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 Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection