Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 17, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:05:55

The Great Media Beclowning | Ep. 1033

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	NBC News targets the Federalists with destruction with Google's help.
	Former Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine gives a very interesting lesson on American slavery.
	And President Trump issues an executive order on policing.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.com.
	Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com.
	Slash Ben.
	We're going to get to all the news.
	And boy, is there plenty of it.
	All of it's stupid.
	We'll get to all of the stupid news in just one second.
	First, you may have noticed things are rather uncertain right now.
	The stock market is bouncing up and down like a yo-yo.
	Maybe you've made money.
	Maybe you've lost money.
	Who the hell knows?
	It's all over the place.
	One thing that you do know is going to happen is that at some point the dollar is probably going to weaken, it's going to inflate, and that means it'll be a good idea to make sure that you at least diversify into precious metals at least a little bit right now.
	And you know what I'm going to say.
	My friends over at Birchgold, that's the place to do it.
	Last Thursday, the Dow dropped 1,700 points in the opening hours because of fear of coronavirus resurgence or of the Fed spending too much money.
	They might spend $10 trillion this year.
	Well, again, Good time to diversify into precious metals.
	Would have been smart to do it a few months ago when I told you to, but you can still do it right now.
	All you have to do is text Ben to 474747.
	Diversifying 10 or 20% of your portfolio into precious metals might be a good idea.
	When you purchase on or before July 31st, you get a free signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History.
	Birchgold will go to work for you and make things super simple.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	At least request a free information kit on diversifying into gold.
	Ask all your questions.
	You'll feel better about it?
	There's no obligation.
	Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	Again, during the months of June or July when you open an IRA in Precious Metals, you get a signed copy of my magical book, The Right Side of History, for free.
	Again, text Ben to 474747.
	And just as a financial matter, you should be at least a little diversified into Precious Metals with all of the chaos and uncertainty right now.
	Okay, so we begin with the big media story of the day.
	So the media have just beclown themselves.
	Over the past few months, they've absolutely beclown themselves.
	They've beclown themselves on coronavirus because they suggested that coronavirus was super serious until exactly the moment when people decided to rush out into the streets and protest en masse, at which point coronavirus became not serious at all.
	They've beclowned themselves on police violence by suggesting that the police all across the country are racist and systemically shooting black men, which is not true.
	They've beclowned themselves on everything from impeachment to Russiagate.
	I mean, it's just, it's an insane level of beclowning each and every day.
	But they've always been able to hide behind the idea that they were journalists and not activists.
	Well, now the mask is coming off, obviously, because in the midst of the George Floyd protest, we saw the New York Times basically cave directly to the activist wing of its own journalistic institution.
	We saw its woke staffers bully out the editorial op-ed page manager, who, of course, was on the left.
	We saw the Philadelphia Inquirer get rid of one of its editors, specifically because he was not woke enough, despite the fact that he had diversified the newsroom.
	So all of this was coming out, right?
	It was very clear that the journalistic Objectivity that was purported to reign at a lot of these institutions was bullcrap.
	The mask finally fell for, I think, what is the most clear time last night.
	And in the process, also unmasked a lot of the big tech companies, particularly Google, specifically Google, because I don't think all big tech companies are quite the same on this stuff.
	Google, particularly, for being unbelievably hypocritical in taking advantage of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields websites from being policed for their comment sections, right?
	Shields them from liability for their comment sections.
	Google decided that it would go after the Federalist, a right-wing outlet.
	It would go after the Federalist for its comment section.
	And NBC News was the leading driver here.
	So there's something that a lot of news organizations do these days when it comes to policing their competitors.
	What they will do is they will go to advertisers on a particular show, like, say, Tucker Carlson.
	This is the way that this works.
	They get some sort of notice from a group like Media Matters that Tucker has said something controversial, and Media Matters has taken him out of context to suggest that he is a racist.
	And then they will go to all the advertisers, and in the guise of news gathering, these outlets and these reporters will say, so, you still advertising on Tucker Carlson?
	Now, that's not news, that's activism.
	Because the basic idea there is we're going to report it if you don't drop the advertising.
	We are going to make an issue of it if you don't drop the advertising on Tucker Carlson.
	You are responsible for the stuff that Tucker Carlson says.
	So that's long been the sort of nexus between the open activism of groups like Media Matters and the so-called journalism of a lot of members of the media who are willing to run with that narrative and are willing to quote-unquote ask questions, but ask questions to achieve a certain purpose.
	So yesterday, the mask came off completely.
	Like, completely came off.
	So NBC News has a reporter named Adele Momoko Frazier, who reported on Tuesday that Google had banned The Federalist from its advertising platform.
	The supposed prohibition came after NBC approached Google with allegedly problematic articles featured on The Federalist's website.
	This is by Beckett Adams over at Washington Examiner.
	A spokeswoman then told The Washington Examiner that The Federalist is not currently demonetized, but here is the entire story.
	A British non-profit group is called the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
	These groups have basically been set up with shoddy, incredibly shoddy research.
	This has been going on for several years.
	These are the same sorts of groups that suggest that people like Dave Rubin or Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan or I are directing people toward white supremacist ideology.
	It's all this nonsense that they promote that suggests that if you are a typical conservative or not even conservative, that if you stand up for the idea that men and women are different, for example, that this is driving people toward white supremacy.
	It doesn't matter how many times you yourself have led the charge against the alt-right, you actually are alt-right.
	These groups exist.
	In order to promote a particular point of view of the world, which is that if you are right of Karl Marx, then you are in essence a fascist and can be grouped with the fascists.
	Okay, so this British non-profit group is called the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
	They published a paper that targeted 10 US-based websites that it said had published racist criticisms of the recent protests surrounding the death of George Floyd.
	Those websites, the non-profit group argued, stand to make millions of dollars through Google Ads.
	Now, their study was crap.
	There's no evidence that the Federalists, per se, Put forward any racist material on George Floyd.
	And the articles they cite are not actually racist.
	So what happens?
	NBC does exactly what I've talked about with regard to, for example, Tucker Carlson and media matters.
	NBC approaches Google with the Center for Countering Digital Hate study, demanding the tech giant do something about it.
	Now, NBC's original story quoted a Google spokesperson who said, quote, we have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence, or discrimination based on race from monetizing.
	Adding when a page or site violates our policies, we take action.
	In this case, we've removed the Federalist's ability to monetize with Google.
	A Google spokesperson declined to reconcile that above, quote, with the tech company's current position that it has not, in fact, demonetized the Federalist.
	A spokesperson for the Federalist did not respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment.
	The initial NBC report also included a passage where the author bragged that it was her news division, the ironically named Verification Unit, that approached Google with the hate study demanding the tech company do something about the allegedly offensive online content.
	Google blocked the Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention, said the original report, which has now been retconned and removed.
	The Federalist, the NBC reporter explained in a current version of the write-up, has become well-known in recent years for publishing far-right articles on a variety of subjects.
	It published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which was included in the report sent to Google.
	So the supposedly problematic article, by the way, is not racist.
	It just points out that the media have basically suggested if you cover the rioting and the looting, you are racist.
	Google, for its part, disputed most of the NBC's report, including the part where it said the Federalists came under scrutiny because of specific articles.
	Instead, Google says that the Federalists' comments section was the problem.
	A spokesperson said, we've been told the Federalists removed comments as of this time.
	She added, when our enforcement team reviewed sites, they reviewed the entire site's content, including the comments section.
	For policy compliance.
	In this instance, the notification to the Federalist was related to the comments section of the site, which is not a new policy.
	The comments sections consistently violated our dangerous and derogatory policy.
	Okay, then this reporter—remember, reporter, not activist, reporter—tweeted out, new, from NBC Verification Unit, thanks to at SF Fake News and CCD Hate for their hard work and collaboration.
	So openly saying, like, I'm collaborating with these groups in order to take down the Federalist.
	Thanks to them.
	Thanks to them.
	Okay, so obviously, look, NBC News is not a news outlet.
	It is an activist outlet.
	Just acknowledge that that's exactly what's going on here.
	There are two points worth making.
	One is that it is perfectly obvious at this point that so many members of the media, not all of them, many members of the media are activists in the disguise of journalists.
	So I'm glad this happened because it just takes the mask right off.
	It is perfectly obvious, and corporations should know it.
	And when a journalist calls you for comment on the latest thing Tucker Carlson has said, they're not calling you because they care what you say.
	They're calling you because they are threatening you.
	And everyone knows this.
	Everyone knows this.
	Okay, this is the dirty little game.
	The dirty little game is all you got to do is get a reporter from Huffington Post to call you up for a comment in order to drive an advertiser off a show, off a site, or off a particular outlet.
	That's all you have to do.
	Because basically, the Huffington Post journalists are the action wing of groups like Media Matters.
	Media Matters isn't openly calling for defunding Tucker Carlson.
	Instead, all they do is they just send off to their email list, to the NBC News Verification Unit, and to the Huffington Post quote-unquote journalists.
	And they say, look at this bad thing somebody said today.
	Why don't you call up their advertisers?
	Call up their advertisers, guys!
	And oh, look at that!
	It's news!
	Now it's news because advertisers are dropping from Tucker Carlson, right?
	This is the dirty little game.
	And now the game is out in the open.
	Because NBC News not only botched their own story, right?
	Their verification unit printed a story that was not true and had to revise it stealthily.
	But not only that, the NBC quote-unquote news unit was directly driving the story in the first place by going to Google and trying to have the federalist demonetized.
	So that's story number one.
	Your journalistic activists are in fact activists first and journalists second.
	And they are using their journalism as a guise for their activism.
	It's a Trojan horse.
	So that is story number one.
	Then there's story number two, and that is Google.
	We're gonna get to Google and their policy that supposedly allows you to demonetize based on comment sections, which is fully insane.
	We're gonna get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that right now, bad time to go to the post office.
	You might like the post office, but standing in line at the post office in a closed space, Probably not the best idea right now.
	Instead, why don't you just use Stamps.com?
	First of all, you'll save tons of money.
	Also, you'll save tons of time, even in the best of circumstances.
	Schlepping your stuff over to the post office is not exactly a great use of your time.
	Instead, head over to Stamps.com.
	We've been using Stamps.com here at The Daily Wire since 2017.
	No more wasting our time.
	Stamps.com brings all the services of the U.S.
	We'll be right back.
	It is very, very easy.
	Plus, you get huge discounts.
	You get five cents off every first-class stamp, up to 62% off shipping rates.
	So this is a real no-brainer, and right now, my listeners get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
	No long-term commitment.
	Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
	Again, that's stamps.com, and then click on that mic at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
	Four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale.
	Go check them out right now.
	Okay, so that's story number one, is NBC News' journalists who are actually activists demonstrating full-scale that they're activists and not journalists.
	And I don't want to hear from them anymore, that when they are calling advertisers for comment, that what they're really doing is just, they're just seeking out the news.
	No, you're making the news.
	Okay, you guys are Nightcrawler.
	Have you ever seen that movie with Jake Gyllenhaal?
	He starts off by basically making money covering car crashes, and then he starts staging the car crashes so he can make money off of the car crashes, right?
	You guys are Jake Gyllenhaal and Nightcrawler.
	You're staging the crimes.
	You're participating in the crimes in order so you can make money off of photographing the crimes.
	So you get to really enjoy yourself always, right?
	You get to be an activist, and then you get to pretend that you're actually just a reporter.
	But there's another story here that is very telling and it makes it very difficult for libertarians like me.
	I'm libertarian when it comes to big tech.
	I think that big tech, these are private companies.
	They get to basically do what they want.
	And so the idea that we should be regulating big tech, I've always found very dicey because I don't like the idea of Elizabeth Warren at the head of some editorial commission determining whether a website is liable or not liable for comments posted in its comment section.
	There's something called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
	This has become very controversial.
	Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that you are not liable for your comments section, essentially.
	That you are a platform so long as you are an open thread.
	So that doesn't mean you can't curate the open thread, but it does mean that you have to be an open thread, right?
	The people who are posting the content do not work for you.
	The people, so YouTube, right, is not liable for the content posted by its creators.
	So if I post something on YouTube that violates copyright, YouTube cannot be sued.
	Only I can be sued.
	That is the basic idea of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
	And it makes some sense.
	It was not designed to suggest that you cannot curate.
	In fact, Section 230 was designed specifically to stop people from penalizing people who curate because the basic case behind Section 230 was Why would you penalize a company that's taking down, for example, pornography on its site, as opposed to a company that just allows pornography on its site?
	Why would you penalize them?
	Bottom line is the distinction was between platforms which allow open thread, you can put up what you want, it can still be curated content, and sites that pay people to, or independent contractors to put up content on their site, right?
	Like so Daily Wire, we actually are sort of bifurcated in this way, right?
	We have a comment section that we curate, but that we are not responsible for legally.
	If someone posts something derogatory in our comment section, we are not responsible for that.
	We'll work to take it down, but we are not responsible for it.
	And then there are our writers, right?
	And our writers are paid by us.
	If they say something that is legally defamatory, right?
	Then we are liable, right?
	This is the law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
	And Google and YouTube and all the other open thread, right?
	All the other platforms have relied on Section 230 because imagine for a second that you're YouTube and all of a sudden you're made liable for every video that is placed on your site.
	And there are literally millions of hours placed on your site every single day.
	There's tons of content on YouTube that violates various legal provisions.
	Like tons of it.
	Tons of it.
	And let's say that YouTube were made legal, legally liable for that.
	Well, YouTube would not be in business for more than 37 seconds.
	They would be done.
	They would be toast.
	And so they've relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act saying, listen, we don't post all this content.
	We do our best to kind of curate it, but we don't post the content.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Right, fair enough.
	And I've said, okay, and if you don't like how they curate their content, well then, form a different site, right?
	You're perfectly welcome to do that, it's a free country.
	This lasts only so long as YouTube and Google actually hold themselves to the same standard.
	So Google owns YouTube.
	So, according to this NBC News report, basically what happened here is that Google went to the Federalists and said, you are not curating your comments in the way that we would like you to curate your comments, and therefore, we are going to talk about demonetizing you.
	So in other words, the standard that Google was holding the Federalists to was, you are responsible for the comment sections.
	We are going to demonetize you for your comment sections.
	We are going to remove the ability for you to make money from Google Ads because your comment sections are not properly policed.
	So in other words, you're responsible for your comment sections.
	We're not responsible for our site, but you're responsible for your comment sections.
	We cannot be held legally liable for the stuff that people are posting in our comment sections, because after all, that's an open thread.
	But you can be held liable by us for the comments in your comment section, even though you didn't post them.
	It's going to make it really difficult for libertarians like me to stare down Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri when he says, okay, hold up a second.
	Google is going to target people for their comment sections while maintaining that they are not liable for their own comment sections?
	That sort of hypocrisy cannot stand.
	You're really going to go after people for their comment sections now?
	And then you expect us to treat you as completely free of legal liability because after all, you're just a giant comment section?
	It don't work that way.
	If you are going to suggest that you actually get to exercise editorial control over where ads land based on comment sections, well now you're a publisher.
	You are treating yourself as a publisher at this point.
	Because your editorial control has gone so far that you are now making actual advertising decisions based on content appearing on somebody else's comment section.
	So no, we're not going to grant you that freedom from liability.
	We'll rewrite Section 230.
	One of the proposals that's been made is that you should be granted the right to sue if these publishers, if these platforms rather, do not adhere to their own rules in fair and even fashion.
	So if Twitter would take down a racist white person, but not take down Louis Farrakhan, for example.
	And again, I've stood against that because I don't think the government really has a place here.
	But if these institutions are going to act as the worst kind of government that I decry, it becomes very difficult for me to argue in favor of the libertarian position.
	So Google is just, the mask is off at Google, too.
	They don't care about YouTube.
	They don't care about any semblance of freedom of speech because they're going after people's comment section.
	And that's a pretext, by the way.
	This is a pretext.
	I don't believe Google's story.
	I think what actually happened is that they saw an article, they didn't like the article, they decided to penalize the Federalist, the blowback was too harsh, so they decided to blame the comment section.
	And they went directly from the frying pan into the fire.
	Because it turns out, it is worse to police a site based on its comment section than it is to police a site based on the articles that it posts.
	All of this is insane because we've now reached the censorious regime desired by the left.
	But rights are bad so long as they are exercised by people you don't like.
	Are you coming up?
	We're going to talk about a couple of other examples of media bias.
	One from Popular Mechanics.
	I mean, if you talk about losing the culture war, this is losing the culture war in stunning fashion.
	We're going to get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that sleep is very hard to come by these days.
	There are all sorts of studies saying people are not sleeping as well during the pandemic, which of course Makes a lot of sense.
	I mean, there's a lot of stress out there.
	I'm stuck at home in my house with three young children.
	This is very stressful.
	It's very, very stressful.
	Dirty little secret.
	School is designed to remove children from their parents for a few hours a day so you miss them.
	But the reality is that you go to bed at night and it's like, oh God, so much nervous tension.
	You need bull and branch sheets.
	You do.
	Bull and branch sheets.
	These are the best sheets.
	Bull and branch epitomizes an American business success story.
	They don't just make sheets and bedding, pillows and towels, all sorts of comfortable things for your home.
	With your help, They put thousands of people to work around the world from their pillows made in Cincinnati, Ohio to their mattresses made in Florida, Texas, and Arizona since they started six years ago.
	My Bull & Branch sheets, excellent example of something that feels small when you treat yourself to it, but then you realize it's not because you're spending hours every day on these sheets.
	They are incredibly comfortable.
	In fact, they're so comfortable, they've ruined other sheets for me.
	I cannot sleep on anything other than Bull & Branch.
	Like, when I'm at a hotel in the not-pandemic times, And I'm sleeping on sheets that are not Bull and Branch.
	It just doesn't work as well.
	Bull and Branch sheets are wonderful.
	They are breathable.
	They get softer with time.
	Remember, you'll only find Bull and Branch sheets online.
	It's spelled B-O-L-L and branch.com.
	If now's the time to make such a purchase, use code Ben Shapiro.
	Get $50 off your first set of sheets, which is a great deal.
	Again, shipping is fast and free.
	Restrictions may apply.
	See bullandbranch.com for details.
	That's B-O-L-L and branch.com right now.
	Use code Ben Shapiro.
	Get $50 off your first set of sheets.
	Okay, meanwhile, speaking of media bias, so Popular Mechanics put up an article titled, How to Topple a Statue Using Science.
	How to Topple a Statue Using Science, Popular Mechanics.
	They're going to teach you about using levers.
	It's really exciting stuff.
	You can safely topple a statue using science because it's very important right now.
	You need to know how to topple a statue.
	I really look forward to Popular Mechanics' next article, How to Build a Molotov Cocktail.
	Very important, important stuff.
	But don't worry guys, it's not activism, it's just journalism.
	It's just journalism, how to topple a statue.
	Now all of this is to back a narrative, right?
	All of this is to back a particular narrative.
	America is deeply systemically evil, all of its institutions are shot through with evil, and those who do not buy into the narrative must be punished.
	Must be punished.
	The best example of this is a truly horrific article from the New York Times.
	This insane article from the New York Times focuses on high school students and alum.
	It's called high school students and alumni are using social media to expose racism.
	Learning has been online and remote this semester.
	So too now are call outs of questionable behavior.
	Questionable behavior.
	So we're going to call out high school students now.
	Very, very important.
	Okay, so let me give my perspective on high school students generally.
	High school students are idiots.
	I was one once.
	High school students are dumb.
	Meaning that they, my first rule, I get asked for advice from high school students on a routine basis.
	And they say, do you have a piece of advice for us?
	It's like, stay away from social media because everything you do on social media lives forever.
	I started writing a syndicated column at age 17.
	Most of my worst columns were written from ages 18 to 21.
	When you are young, you are full of vinegar and pep and stupidity.
	And you are more likely to post something that you are going to regret later.
	I have a whole list of things online about the things I regret having said over the years.
	Well, if you're posting stuff on social media when you're 15, 16 years old, chances are very good you're going to post something incredibly idiotic and or offensive.
	Now the way normally you would deal with that in a typical scenario, let's say there were no social media.
	Somebody would say something offensive in class.
	Or something would say something offensive to a friend.
	And then the friend would go to the friend and say, you know, that really hurt my feelings.
	You really shouldn't say stuff like that.
	That was offensive.
	Maybe you didn't mean to offend me.
	I don't know, but you really shouldn't say stuff like that.
	And that would give the person a chance for repentance and for making themselves better.
	Right?
	That would be the idea.
	And I'm not speaking, you know, out of school here.
	When I was in high school, as I've talked about before, I was viciously bullied.
	And I don't just mean people calling me names.
	I mean actual hardcore physical abuse.
	I mean people hitting me with belts and such.
	I mean like really not great stuff when I was in high school.
	Now I know the names of all the people who did that.
	I still remember all their names.
	I remember all their faces.
	Many of them are still people in my social circles.
	I remember all of them.
	I've never said the names nor will I say the names because these kids were idiots.
	They were 16, 17 years old.
	They're morons.
	And we handled all of this internally.
	We had discussions with the principal.
	I didn't feel like justice was done.
	But what I did figure, and what I still figure, is that people have to move beyond what they were at 15 or 16 years old.
	And you have to give them the opportunity to move beyond what they were when they were 15 or 16 years old.
	This is particularly true when you're talking about... Mine was an extreme case of physical abuse.
	When you're talking about what people say, it seems to me that this is triply or quadruply true.
	You say something dumb when you're 15 or 16 years old, You shouldn't be held accountable at 30 or 35 for it, nor should you be publicly shamed when you are 15 or 16 for it.
	Somebody should come to you behind the scenes, a mentor, an elder figure, somebody from the community, and say, you know, you really shouldn't have said that.
	That was really bad.
	You should apologize to the person you hurt, and then you should move on with your life and act better.
	Because guess what?
	Being young is a time when you are supposed to make yourself better.
	People don't change very much beyond the age of 30, maybe.
	But when you're 15 or 16, there's a lot of change going on.
	Now the New York Times is writing full-scale articles on why it is good to social media shame high school students who post dumb and or racist crap online.
	And I'm just wondering, isn't it possible to help them course correct their behavior without this sort of stuff?
	And by the way, this goes for black, white, and green.
	If you're a 15-year-old kid living in the inner city and you post something really awful online, I don't think that should ruin your life.
	And I don't think you should be quote-unquote publicly shamed for that.
	It's one thing to commit a crime, white, black, or green.
	It is another thing to say something offensive, white, black, or green.
	Because people say dumb stuff when they're 14 or 15 years old.
	Now, the New York Times is really promoting this idea that what's good is this public shaming ritual.
	And it's got to extend all the way down to childhood.
	So the New York Times has a very, very long article by Taylor Lorenz and Catherine Rosman.
	Again, this is activism masquerading as journalism because it's actually pushing the agenda.
	Called, High school students and alumni are using social media to expose racism.
	Over the past few weeks, as the Black Lives Matter movement has grown following outrage over the killing of George Floyd, high school students have leveraged every social media platform to call out their peers for racist behavior.
	Very important stuff.
	You're making the world a better place by taking little Jessica, who said a very bad thing online, and then exposing her to the minions of hatred in the boo box over at Twitter.
	Very, very important.
	You couldn't just go on to Jessica and say, you know that was offensive, you might want to take that down.
	You couldn't have been a decent human being.
	Instead, you decided, the public must be— We have to Justine Sacco this person.
	We have to publicly shame this 16-year-old.
	Students have repurposed large meme accounts, set up Google Docs, and anonymous pages on Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, and wielded their personal followings to hold friends and classmates accountable for behavior they deem unacceptable.
	But they're not holding them accountable.
	All they're doing is ruining their lives.
	Accountability would be, you go to somebody and you correct the behavior.
	That's holding them accountable.
	People will post videos of people saying the n-word or videos where they're being racist or using derogatory words and stuff like that, and they go viral.
	Said Sophia Giannata, 16, a sophomore at Whitesboro High School in Whitesboro, New York, where a teacher was recently criticized for stating that all lives matter in a virtual school event he later apologized.
	Question.
	How is all lives matter like a great example of such vicious racism that you require public ostracization and public apology?
	On June 2nd, an anonymous Instagram account dedicated to exposing racism at San Marcos High School in San Marcos, California appeared online.
	OCSNeptaliGarcia19, a senior, noticed it almost immediately.
	The account was shared across group chats and Instagram stories.
	Within a few hours, it had amassed about 900 new followers.
	The account began sharing screenshots and videos of students at school using racial slurs, engaging in cultural appropriation, participating in the George Floyd Challenge.
	I mean, all this is ugly stuff.
	And making insensitive remarks.
	The names and handles for each student were included in the posts.
	Within 48 hours, the account had grown to nearly 3,000 followers.
	And this is the key, right?
	It's all about the virtue signaling of the followers.
	It's not about correcting the sins of the people who are sinning.
	It's about all these people following so they can hit the click, the like, the retweet, and then they can spread out the shame.
	I've participated in the correction of this person's ba- No, you've corrected- You've participated in the destruction of this person who could have been course-corrected.
	Who could have been course-corrected?
	Because I assume when you're 16 or 15, you can be course-corrected.
	And I think it's a fairly safe assumption.
	It's one of the key assumptions of American criminal law for juveniles, by the way.
	We're going to get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that a lot of people worry right now about, can they buy life insurance?
	The answer is yes, you can indeed buy life insurance.
	And if you have loved ones, depending on your income, you probably should.
	It's the smart thing to do under any circumstances when there's an increased chance of plotting.
	Well, this would be a good time to get your life insurance.
	PolicyGenius is in contact with the life insurance companies on their platform every day.
	They're keeping track of all the changes in the market so you don't have to.
	That means they can get you covered quickly and for the best price.
	So here's how it works.
	PolicyGenius compares quotes from the top life insurance companies all in one place.
	It takes just a few minutes to compare quotes from the top insurers and find your best price.
	This doesn't just save a lot of legwork.
	You could save $1,500 or more a year by using PolicyGenius to compare life insurance policies.
	Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape for free.
	So if you hit any speed bumps during the application process, they will take care of everything for you.
	They don't just do life insurance, by the way.
	They do auto insurance, and they do disability insurance, all sorts of stuff.
	So go check them out right now at PolicyGenius.com.
	They will find you the best rate, handle the process completely soup to nuts, they'll get you and your family protected, hopefully give you one less thing to worry about.
	Go check them out right now at PolicyGenius.com.
	Again, that is PolicyGenius.com.
	Again, the New York Times promoting this idea that this is very good.
	These call-out pages, they're very good.
	These pages are popping up left and right at Ethan Ramirez, 18, a graduate of Bowie High School in Austin, Texas.
	There's ones that are region-specific, high school-specific, district-specific.
	Several large meme accounts have also now devoted themselves to exposing racist behavior.
	Students are invited to submit screenshots of problematic behavior, which are in turn shared to an audience of sometimes thousands online.
	They'll allow people to submit anonymous info or images or videos.
	They'll cross out the senator's name but leave the racist person's contact info basically for everyone to call them out.
	The result is a social media pylon.
	Harassment, doxing, cancellation.
	Brinna Barry, 16, a student at a Catholic day school in Jacksonville, Florida, learned this firsthand.
	After posting some advocacy on Instagram and TikTok for the Blue Lives Matter movement, Ms.
	Barry, whose father is a police officer, was met with vicious harassment.
	Her posts spread across her peers' Instagram feeds, and quote, my own friends were commenting that I was a racist and they can't support me.
	Things travel fast.
	I'm nervous about my address getting leaked.
	Question, is this making things better?
	Is this really making things better?
	It turns out that most of the political change that happens in the United States is based on friends talking to friends, and people talking to each other like friends.
	How often have you been converted by people browbeating you?
	The answer is virtually never.
	People are not politically converted, and they're not converted from sin by people browbeating them.
	Fire and brimstone type stuff tends to get people motivated, but it doesn't actually convince people on the other side or people who have sinned that you are a welcoming presence hoping to help them.
	Instead, what it does is alienate them.
	It makes them feel that you're a bad person.
	This entire culture is designed to make a certain cadre of people feel very good about themselves for doing something very bad.
	The call-out culture is a horrible thing for the country.
	It is a bad thing for the country.
	Calling people out privately and telling them that you don't like that behavior and as a friend you think it's a bad idea, that's a good thing.
	Calling people out publicly in front of a thousand strangers, particularly kids...
	In order to quote-unquote shame them is an absurdity.
	It's a moral absurdity.
	You're not doing anything good.
	You're not.
	All you're doing is creating a totalitarian culture in which people are afraid to speak.
	And then, by the way, still say the bad things behind closed doors because they've not been converted from their original views.
	Instead, they've just been browbeaten into silence.
	So you didn't correct the problem.
	All you did was push it underground.
	And that's really what's going to happen here.
	And it's ugly.
	It's bad.
	And speaking of the call-out culture and the stupidity of call-out culture, Mike Gundy, right, who is the Oklahoma coach, Oklahoma football coach, he was called out.
	Why?
	Because that guy, he wore a t-shirt with OANN on it.
	One America News Network.
	He had that t-shirt and he wore it and he said he sometimes watches it.
	That's very bad.
	So now, he's been forced to apologize.
	First rule of mob cancellation, don't apologize.
	Don't apologize.
	Apologize for the stuff that you have done that's actually wrong.
	Don't apologize for liking a particular network.
	Don't apologize for any of this stuff.
	Because guess what?
	The apology's not going to be enough.
	Gundy's going to find himself on the chopping block partially because he apologized.
	The dirty little secret of cancel culture is you don't have to be canceled.
	You don't have to be canceled.
	You can only cancel you.
	In a free country, only you can cancel you.
	Here's Mike Gundy apologizing yesterday because he's afraid of losing his job, and then probably the apology will prompt him to lose his job anyway.
	Here's Mike Gundy from OSU yesterday.
	Once I learned how that network felt about Black Lives Matter, I was disgusted and knew it was completely unacceptable to me.
	I want to apologize to all members of our team, former players, and their families for the pain and discomfort that has been caused over the last two days.
	Black lives matter to me.
	Our players matter to me.
	Okay, blink a few times if you need, if it's an SOS.
	I mean, these are hostage videos, essentially.
	Right?
	You can believe Black Lives Matter and also watch the news coverage on OANN.
	In fact, you can even, you can watch all sorts of kooky stuff.
	It's a free country.
	You can do whatever you want.
	But this idea that this means that you are racist because you watch stuff that was not approved by the popular, and listen, I'm not a huge fan of some of the programming on OANN.
	There's some people over there I'm friends with.
	There's some people I definitely am not.
	But the idea that you wore a t-shirt and now you are cancelled is absurd.
	And again, the only way to escape the censure is to repeat the mantras.
	I talked about this yesterday.
	This is unity through totalitarianism, through cultural totalitarianism.
	Repeat and believe.
	Repeat the mantras and you will be protected.
	And so you end up with Roger Goodell suggesting that he wants Colin Kaepernick, a man who suggested that the killing of the lead terrorist in the Iranian regime was just the murder of more black and brown bodies by America, right?
	Colin Kaepernick, a guy who wore socks with cops and pigs on them while he was practicing back in 2015.
	That guy is going to be the social guide of the NFL, according to Roger Goodell.
	Again, Roger, blink if you need us to deploy a team.
	These hostage videos are just beyond.
	If he wants to resume his career in the NFL, that obviously is going to take a team to make that decision, but I welcome that.
	that support the club making that decision and encourage them to do that.
	If his efforts are not on the field, but and continuing to work in this space, we welcome to that to that table and to be able to help us and guide us and help us make better decisions about the kinds of things that need to be done in communities.
	Okay, and great.
	I definitely need Colin Kaepernick, who's worn a Che Guevara t-shirt, by the way, to talk about, like, OANN t-shirt, very bad, apologize.
	Che Guevara t-shirt, you know, actual communist mass murderer, totally fine.
	Totally fine.
	Good stuff happening in our culture right now.
	And what exactly is the narrative that you're supposed to buy into?
	You're supposed to buy into the narrative that America is uniquely evil.
	Tim Kaine, former vice presidential candidate, senator from Virginia, He actually just said this straight out on the floor of the Senate yesterday.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about what you can get for Dad this Father's Day that he will love.
	I'm not talking about he needs another tie or something.
	I'm talking about the steak!
	The steak.
	Omaha steaks.
	So, I had the privilege of being sent maybe a kosher Omaha steak.
	This thing is just phenomenal.
	Phenomenal!
	Omaha Steaks has a limited Father's Day offer for our listeners.
	Go to omahasteaks.com, enter the code Shapiro into the search bar to save 55% on the gift Dad will love.
	For $79.99, your gift will include four naturally lean top sirloin steaks, hand-carved, aged at least 21 days for tenderness and flavor, four premium boneless chicken breasts, four gourmet jumbo franks and kielbasa sausages, a package Of savory all-beef meatballs, four perfectly brown potatoes au gratin, four made-from-scratch caramel apple tartlets, and Omaha Steak's signature seasoning packet.
	This stuff comes, and it is fresh, it is delicious, hand-carved and aged at least 21 days for tenderness and flavor.
	That is the Omaha Steak's difference.
	Dad gets all that delicious food, plus the free pound of steak-cut bacon.
	The amazing gift, ready to be shipped straight to Dad's door in time for Father's Day for just $79.99.
	Makes me wish I didn't keep kosher.
	This Father's Day, send Dad the gift he really wants, the meat!
	Go to OmahaSteaks.com, type Shapiro in the search bar, save 55% when you send the Summer Sizzle Pack for $79.99 and get free steak cut bacon with your order.
	Don't wait, head on over to OmahaSteaks.com, type Shapiro in the search bar to order the Summer Sizzle Pack for Father's Day today.
	Go check them out right now.
	Okay, we're gonna get to Tim Kaine and the narrative you're supposed to repeat, all the slogans you are supposed to repeat, and how we're making the world a better place.
	By changing snap, crackle, and pop on the Rice Krispies packaging.
	Very, very important stuff.
	Solving racism, one branding matter at a time.
	We'll get to that momentarily first.
	This year, it's been like eight years, this year.
	It's been a crazy year.
	Like every day, I thought that the news cycle had magnified tremendously since Trump took office.
	And then this year happened, and it turns out that we are just living on a hamster wheel of news.
	Well, if you can't get enough of the actual news, not the crap you get from NBC news, the activist journalists have left, But if you want, you know, right-wing opinion journalism, and you want the straight facts told to you from a conservative point of view, go check out dailywire.com right now and get a reader's pass.
	You get access to exclusive op-eds from us, your podcast hosts, as well as guest writers, and in-depth analysis from our Daily Wire reporters on top of our regular breaking news.
	I have a brand new article out today.
	On the totalitarian subculture that has taken over the mainstream culture.
	Our membership tier is Reader's Pass.
	It's already a bargain at three bucks a month, but if you join today, you get your first month for 99 cents.
	You also get access to our mobile app.
	You receive push notifications for breaking news and special content, and you can join the community of DailyWire members who are actively commenting and discussing our content with each other.
	That is mobile ad-free access to all of the DailyWire news, exclusive op-eds, all of our podcasts on the mobile app, all for the low price of $1.
	Best of all, Your dollars are getting you the news you need without the left to spin.
	So head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join today.
	Also, when you're a subscriber, you get to ask questions during our backstage lives.
	We have a backstage.
	So yesterday I had an all access, which let's be frank, it's amazing.
	People love it.
	I sing random songs in random voices.
	Chris Matthews did make an appearance to sing music of the night.
	Actual things that happen on all access live.
	Backstage is a little different.
	We actually talk about issues.
	It's me and Jeremy Boring, Michael Moles and Andrew Clavin, maybe a couple of special guests.
	We're having one tomorrow, Thursday, 3.30 Pacific, 6.30 PM Eastern.
	We have a backstage, so make sure that you subscribe now so you can get access to all of these magnificent glories!
	Also, also, please go pick up a copy of my new book, pre-order a copy of my new book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, comes out July 21st.
	Never have I written a book that is more relevant.
	I mean, this book is like right on the money relevant.
	I wrote it back in December, January, before the pandemic.
	And then the pandemic hit, I thought, oh, this book is probably going to be kind of back-shelved because, after all, we can't really argue over a pandemic, can we?
	Wrong!
	Wrong I was.
	It turns out that all of the seething issues underneath American politics, The destruction of America's core philosophy, the destruction of her history, the destruction of her culture of rights.
	All of that is first and forefront in the minds of most Americans these days.
	My book is not just an expose of that.
	It is a rebuttal to all of these very, very bad ideas that you are seeing promulgated in the public sphere.
	It's called How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	I think it's a useful book.
	It is not just a vitally A vitally relevant book.
	It is a useful book as well.
	How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	Go pre-order it right now at dailywire.com slash ben.
	That's dailywire.com slash ben.
	You can pick it up at Amazon as well or at any other bookseller.
	It's coming out July 21st.
	So order it now to make sure you get your copy.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty, so, Tim, what is the narrative that you must believe and repeat?
	The narrative you must believe and repeat is that all of American history is rooted in bigotry and evil, all of America's institutions are bigoted and evil, and that America is uniquely evil.
	Because what you can't do is contextualize the United States.
	You can't contextualize our history.
	You can't point out that America was not unique.
	In allowing slavery.
	America was unique in working to get rid of slavery.
	Western civilization is unique in that way.
	It took Western civilization to end slavery.
	Slavery still exists in many non-Western parts of the world today.
	Like, en masse.
	Officially, Saudi Arabia didn't abolish slavery until 1963, guys.
	Like a hundred years after the Civil War.
	It took Western civilization to end slavery.
	Western civilization is uniquely good because of the good stuff it did.
	Western civilization is like the rest of humanity in terms of all the bad stuff it did.
	It is uniquely good in terms of the good stuff that it did.
	But, for the left, the narrative is that America is uniquely evil.
	And so, this prompts people like Tim Kaine to say something so historically ignorant, it's almost beyond belief.
	He says that America created slavery.
	He doesn't say just America.
	The United States created slavery.
	Now, that's an absurdity on its face.
	First of all, the United States didn't actually form until 1776.
	Until then, it was British colonies, right?
	So even if you believe the 1619 Project, the United States inherited slavery from colonists who had been there for 150 years.
	But as it turns out, he's not even right about this.
	Slavery in the Western Hemisphere did not originate with Americans.
	It didn't originate with British colonists.
	But here's Tim Kaine being a complete and utter buffoon, because he is a complete and utter buffoon who's about to go stage a hold-up on a train, apparently.
	He's always wearing these bandanas.
	He can't just get a regular mask.
	Gotta wear the bandana.
	Looks like he's gonna participate in a hold-up.
	Anyway, here was Tim Kaine.
	Remember, this guy was almost the Vice President of the United States.
	Here he was yesterday.
	The first African Americans into the English colonies came to Point Comfort, Virginia in 1619.
	They were slaves.
	They'd been captured against their will.
	But they landed in colonies that didn't have slavery.
	There were no laws about slavery in the colonies at that time.
	The United States didn't inherit slavery from anybody.
	We created it.
	It got created by the Virginia General Assembly and the legislatures of other states.
	It got created by the court systems in colonial America and since that enforced fugitive slave laws.
	We created it.
	We created it.
	He says, we created it and maintained it over centuries.
	In my lifetime, we finally stopped the practices.
	We've never gone back to undo it.
	I know, I feel like we've undone the legal regimes that allowed slavery.
	I feel like we undid that a while ago.
	And also, we've spent the last 50 years undoing the regimes of Jim Crow, it feels like.
	He says, stopping racist practices after 350 or 400 years, but then taking no effort to dismantle them, is not the same as truly combating racism.
	Taking no steps to dismantle them?
	We've literally spent every waking hour in the American federal government trying to dismantle Jim Crow.
	And what does he think the Civil Rights Act was?
	Seriously, we've spent $5 trillion on poverty programs that were largely designed by their creators in order to alleviate a lot of the disproportionate impact of things like Jim Crow.
	Also, Tim Kaine's just dead wrong on the history.
	In order to paint America as uniquely evil, he has to ignore the fact that slavery has been the actual rule rather than the exception across all of human history.
	It existed for the Greeks.
	It existed for the Romans.
	It existed for the ancient Hebrews.
	It existed in Native American tribes, by the way.
	Pre-existing.
	The coming of Western civilization.
	It was British colonists, not Americans, who imported slaves to America.
	Spanish colonists held slaves in the New World long prior to 1619.
	They began importing African slaves to Hispaniola, which is now Cuba, in 1501, a hundred years prior to the arrival of British colonists.
	The first African slaves arrived in Spanish Florida in 1526.
	Slavery was not uncommon among Native American tribes either.
	Captives were regularly taken and made into slaves for particular tribes.
	Slavery was common in Latin America and in Mesoamerica.
	So the idea that America is uniquely evil is something that Tim Kaine has to rely upon.
	And if you don't repeat and believe, then it's because you are unwoke.
	You are unwoke.
	Repeat and believe.
	Repeat and believe.
	Just absolute insanity.
	But again, bad history lies at the root of all this.
	By the way, people in the Democratic Party don't even know their history.
	Hysterically, I mean, this is really quite funny.
	A top mainstream fact checker wrote on Tuesday, you remember the Democrats just a few weeks ago?
	It was actually last week.
	They wore kente cloths.
	Remember this?
	In the most obvious moment of cultural appropriation in human history, a bunch of old white Democrats who couldn't even get up after kneeling knelt while wearing kente cloths.
	If Mitt Romney had worn one to a Black Lives Matter rally, he would have immediately been called out as an old white dude trying to appropriate cultural symbolism.
	Nancy Pelosi does it in Hero of the Republic.
	Heroine of the Republic!
	Well, it turns out that, according to a top mainstream fact-checker, kensei cloths were, quote, historically worn by an empire involved in the West African slave trade.
	Whoops!
	USA Today fact-checked the following statement from a Facebook user.
	Yesterday, the Democrats wore kensei scarves and knelt down for their photo op, so check this out.
	Kensei cloth was worn by the Ashanti.
	It's made of silk, so the affluent wore it.
	The Ashanti were also known as slave owners and traders.
	Whoops.
	The USA Today rated the claim true, saying that the kente cloth was historically worn by the Asante people of Ghana, who were involved in the West African slave trade.
	Well, that's awkward.
	That's awkward.
	Yeah, it turns out that slavery was not unique to America.
	And also, if you're going to culturally appropriate, do it better, Democrats.
	Really, really well done.
	But the good news is that we are fixing all the things, all the things that are really generating racism in America.
	Those are the things we have to fix.
	Quaker Oats has now decided to drop its Aunt Jemima brand because it was stereotypical and based on antebellum stereotypical images of black people.
	That's fine.
	You want to drop the brand?
	All to the good.
	Really, seriously, enjoy yourself.
	That's fine.
	Quaker Oats can do exactly what it wants.
	I also hope that they drop the Quaker Oat brand because that is also based on a stereotype about Quakers being honest as the day is long and all of this.
	But dropping the Aunt Jemima brand?
	More power to you.
	You want to do it?
	Fine, but are we really going to pretend that people have been eating the pancake batter from Aunt Jemima for years, and that this evidenced some sort of toxic racism?
	I mean, I don't want to speak for everybody, but I feel like Aunt Jemima's cake batter and pancake batter, they're kosher.
	I feel like I've been eating that for a long time, and it has never once occurred to me that race has anything to do with the pancake batter.
	Like, again, you want to get rid of a stereotypical symbol?
	Enjoy.
	But are we going to pretend that this is making, like, a real difference in American life?
	Because if so, you're an idiot.
	Like, if you really believe that race- Racism solved!
	We got rid of the Aunt Jemima symbol.
	We're not- we're not just doing that, by the way.
	Apparently, Kellogg's cereal boxes have been added to the list of supposedly racist symbols by a disgraced leftist former politician in the UK.
	This is according to Breitbart.
	Fiona Onasanya, a former Labour Party MP, who's kicked out of parliament by her own voters, has called on Kellogg's to justify why Rice Krispies is represented by three white boys while the Coco Puffs mascot is a monkey.
	Yes, clearly Kellogg's...
	There are no words.
	There are no words.
	Solving racism by going after the white elves, all the white elves on the Rice Krispies box.
	Solving racism.
	Now here's the part that's the most idiotic about all of this.
	There are certain areas of American life where policy can be made that actually reduces racial divides.
	But because imaging, this is a perfect example of this, because image and message matters a hell of a lot more than actual policy outcome, you end up with crappy policy, truly bleepy policy.
	Bleepy being a four-letter word that begins with S and ends with it.
	Okay, this is a truly bleepy policy.
	So, the University of California dropped the SAT and the ACT.
	Why?
	Because it turns out that disproportionately, black and Hispanic students were doing all that well on the SAT and the ACT.
	And so for a long time, this has been a bugaboo of the left, that the test is racist.
	It can't be that people are underachieving for a variety of reasons, including bad educational environment.
	No, it's got to be that the test is racist.
	There's only one problem.
	There's only one problem.
	The UC system actually did a study, a 228-page report.
	And that 228-page report, which was loaded with hundreds of displays of data from the UC's various admissions department, according to Richard Bernstein at RealClear Investigations, found that the SAT and the ACT actually helped increase black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment at the system's 10 campuses.
	The report recommended that their use be continued.
	Why?
	Because it turns out the real reason that black and Hispanic students were not getting into the UC system is because their grades were not high enough.
	So it turns out that the SAT and the ACT actually militated against the worst use of things like grades.
	So they say you want more black and Hispanic students?
	Keep using the SAT.
	And the ACT, it doesn't matter that it has disproportionate results.
	It's even more disproportionate when you look at grades.
	So keep using the SAT and the ACT.
	But the UC system, because they want to say that the test is racist, even if the evidence shows that it absolutely is not racist, they're getting rid of the SAT and the ACT.
	Eddie Kamau, a professor of education at UC Riverside, co-chair of the faculty task force, said in a Zoom interview that, quote, many of us thought the process might be a political one.
	He said there were several very prominent figures with public statements made pretty clear their opposition to tests even before the task force started its undertaking.
	The regent's vote was kind of preordained.
	It was 23 to nothing.
	23 to nothing.
	There was not a single person in the UC system who voted to keep the SAT and the ACT despite factual data provided by admissions departments showing that the ACT and the SAT actually made more black and Hispanic students eligible for the UCs.
	So the regents decided to get rid of the SAT and the ACT.
	Maria Anguiano, who's one region, said, I very much appreciate the task force's work and the database it put together, but I also believe in peer review as part of the research process.
	There's been decades of research showing that SAT scores are mostly correlated with wealth and privilege, so I can't support the use of this tool.
	It's exclusionary and a filtering mechanism.
	Ironically, of course, the SAT and the ACT and the college boards were actually designed to prevent privilege from being utilized because it turns out that Jews, Italians, and Irish and people from Asian countries were scoring better on those tests.
	And it was granting them access above and beyond the sort of WASP-y admission systems that had heretofore existed at many major universities.
	So they just ignored the data.
	Well done, everybody.
	According to that report, by the way, the UC system in 2018 admitted 22,613 applicants with weak grades but strong SAT scores.
	A quarter of those students were members of underrepresented minorities, or URMs, nearly half were low-income or first-generation students.
	Breaking down the numbers, 24% of Hispanics, 40% of blacks, 47% of Native Americans who gained admissions to the UC did so because of their SAT scores, not despite them, according to the task force.
	The original intent of the SAT was to identify students who came from outside relatively privileged circles who might have the potential to succeed at university, said the report.
	This original intent is clearly being realized at the UC.
	But instead, because it's more important to say that the SAT is racist because of its disproportionate outcome, because that's deeply, deeply important, they just got rid of the SAT and the ACT, which actually hurts minority kids!
	Because again, the message is more important than actually helping minority kids.
	By the way, it is also worth noting that bigotry is perfectly allowed so long as you're perfectly woke.
	As part of the messaging, it's perfectly okay to be openly anti-Jewish.
	I mean, beyond the obvious of Bill de Blasio ignoring anti-Semitism in his own city, there have been a bevy of various pro-Black Lives Matter celebrities who are approvingly posting videos of Louis Farrakhan.
	Chelsea Handler posted a video of Louis Farrakhan, who's just a vicious anti-Semite.
	She said Farrakhan's statement on racism from an old clip of the Phil Donahue show was powerful.
	When a commenter asked her if she would single out for praise some out-of-context statement of Hitler's, she argued Farrakhan's hate was different because, quote, he is just responsible for his own promotion of anti-Semitic beliefs.
	They are very different.
	So anti-Semitism is just an opinion some people might hold.
	It is not evidence of being hateful.
	By the way, a bunch of other celebrities then came out in support.
	Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, they all voiced support for Handler after she tweeted out Louis Farrakhan.
	So certain types of bigotry, okay.
	Certain types of non-bigotry, like the SAT and the ACT, absolutely not.
	Only the message matters, guys.
	Only the message matters.
	Now, you want to see, full scale, how only the message matters?
	Point out the fact that Donald Trump yesterday signed an executive order that changed some policing tactics in the United States.
	So you put out this long executive order and the executive order does things like certifying independent credentialing bodies that are designed to address certain topics and reviews like policies and training regarding use of force and de-escalation techniques to make it to set up a federal database so that people who are bad cops are known throughout the United States.
	That they can set standards for certifications that demonstrate that the state or local law enforcement agency's use of force policies prohibit the use of chokeholds, except in situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law.
	So all of this is policy that many on the left should be very comfortable with, right?
	I mean, it is pushing for added funding for mental health and homelessness and addiction.
	It is attempting to get rid of certain policing tactics.
	It's an attempt to make bad cops more answerable and less able to shift from department to department.
	I mean, that's what the executive order does.
	Okay, but President Trump, in the process of this, didn't rip into the police as racist.
	And that's the message the media wanted to take away.
	That's the message the media wanted to take away.
	So President Trump yesterday, he said, listen, we want to make the cops better at their jobs and give them more tools and hold them to a higher standard.
	But if you remove cops, the law abiding get hurt, which is obviously true by every available social science statistic.
	Americans want law and order.
	They demand law and order.
	They may not say it.
	They may not be talking about it, but that's what they want.
	Some of them don't even know that's what they want, but that's what they want.
	And they understand that when you remove the police, you hurt those who have the least the most.
	Okay, he's exactly right about this.
	But people, instead of embracing the executive order, and also embracing the message that you need the cops, the media decided that the big story here is that Trump wasn't repeating the message.
	He wasn't repeating the messages they wanted him to repeat.
	So the headline at the Washington Post was, Trump signs order on policing, but Democrats and activists say it falls far short of what is needed.
	The headline from NBC on Trump's executive order suggested that Trump signs order on police reform, but says nothing about racism.
	So it's all what he doesn't say.
	It's all what he doesn't say.
	It's an absurdity.
	So there are some people who are at least honest about this.
	Van Jones, he says some progress has been made here.
	At least Van Jones is honest about this.
	There is a new floor, a higher floor for Congress to now depart from that includes law enforcement support for data, for de-escalators, for better training, and against chokeholds.
	I think progress has been made, muddied by, I think, a speech that was, you know, really, I think, you know, over the line in a lot of ways if you're trying to go for unity.
	But I think the speech goes away over time.
	I think the progress that the people have made in getting even the Trump White House, the Republicans, and now law enforcement along with Democrats to take steps forward is really powerful.
	Hey, Van Jones got trended for this on Twitter for giving credit for the executive order.
	The more typical view from the left was that of Maya Wiley on MSNBC, who said her big issue was not what was in the order, but the fact that there were a bunch of white people signing it.
	Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump himself have long, since the beginning of this administration, made clear that they are on the side of lawless policing in a law and order framework.
	And he just did that again.
	Andrea, you know, we have to stop and take one, really one slowdown for a minute on the optics of that press conference.
	All I saw were white faces when we're talking about black bodies.
	Ah, there we go.
	There we go.
	So it doesn't matter the content of what was said, all that matters is the color of the faces.
	Makes perfect sense.
	Makes perfect sense.
	This is all making for a better society.
	The message matters more than the actual policy.
	Helping people comes second to actually hurting people.
	Right?
	That's all that matters.
	Hurting people who don't repeat the right message.
	That's the important thing.
	That's the important thing.
	Making society better.
	One... One... One...
	Castigation at a time.
	Well done, everybody.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate, and then we'll do a quick thing that I like.
	So, quick thing that I hate today.
	So this is amazing.
	So Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci had said very early on that masks are not particularly effective.
	This clip went around.
	Masks are not effective.
	And it turns out masks are actually incredibly effective.
	Countries that have used masks have seen very little regression in terms of COVID cases.
	That masks help prevent spread and transmission of this stuff.
	If everybody wore a mask, transmission would drop very close to zero.
	That masks are maybe the best tool that we have in the absence of other drugs that could be used here.
	So why exactly were they recommending that we not use masks?
	Because Anthony Fauci said we can't trust the American people.
	The American people would have gone out and bought masks for themselves and then they would not have been available for medical health professionals.
	So we lied to people.
	We lied to people.
	Well done.
	So you had more community spread because the federal government decided to lie to people.
	Don't trust people.
	Lie to them.
	Well done, Anthony Fauci.
	The public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.
	And we wanted to make sure that the people, namely the healthcare workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in harm ways to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected, we did not want them to be without the equipment that they needed.
	So, they lied.
	They lied.
	Really good stuff.
	Trust your public health experts, except when they're openly lying to you, in order to achieve a certain policy result.
	This is a very bad way of governing.
	It wouldn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democrat.
	It's a very, very bad way of governing.
	Meanwhile, the media continue to do their best to seed panic all over the country.
	So they weren't panicked last week when tens of thousands of people were out in the streets.
	That's all for the good, right?
	You have a Black Trans Matters, Lives Matters movement in Brooklyn, and you got 40,000 people out there, but you got some kids playing in Williamsburg.
	Gotta stop that.
	Gotta weld the playground shut.
	Now it's panic time.
	And where is it panic time?
	Well, where do you think it's panic time?
	Florida, Texas, and Arizona.
	Yeah, panic time in Florida.
	Now, here's the question.
	Not the number of positive tests that come back.
	The question is, what are the hospitalization rates?
	When we reopened, the question, flattening the curve was never about stopping the spread of the disease entirely.
	Flattening the curve was about preventing the overwhelm of our healthcare system.
	I said this one million times on the program.
	And I know we've been moving the goalposts radically.
	I mean, like, all over the field.
	To the 20-yard line, to the 10-yard line, to the 50-yard line.
	Like, all over the damn field.
	We're now way off the field, right?
	We've moved to a separate field.
	We've moved to a different location.
	Entirely with the goalposts.
	The original purpose of flattening the curve was to prevent the hospital system from being overwhelmed.
	It is not being overwhelmed in Florida.
	It is not being overwhelmed in Texas.
	It is not being overwhelmed in Arizona.
	It doesn't matter.
	The media are now covering this stuff without any sort of real context.
	So the headline from the New York Times is, Florida, Texas, and Arizona all set records for the most cases they have reported in a single day.
	They also set records for the most number of tests they gave in a single day.
	Okay, so the actual question is what is the positivity rate and what's the hospitalization rate?
	Because even if the positivity rate is high, maybe it's a bunch of young people coming in with mild cases.
	That doesn't mean that the hospital system is going to be overwhelmed.
	I don't care if somebody gets COVID and then they have like a fever for a few days and they're fine because they're 20.
	Like, that's not something you should deeply—just as I don't care if somebody gets the flu and they're out of work for a couple of days.
	That's not a huge—that's not something that is earth-shattering news, right?
	That is not the destruction of the American healthcare system or the rise in death, right?
	What we really ought to be worried about is preventable death, meaning the overwhelm of the healthcare system.
	That was that area above the line in the high curve, right?
	That's what we were all worried about.
	There is no evidence that Florida, Arizona, or Texas are being overwhelmed.
	According to the New York Times, however, the virus continued its steady spread across the Sun Belt on Tuesday, with state officials in Arizona, Florida, and Texas all reporting their largest one-day increases in new cases yet.
	Florida reported 2,783 new cases, Texas 2,622, Arizona 2,392.
	The new daily highs came as all three states have increased testing and moved swiftly to ease social distancing restrictions and allow more businesses to reopen.
	Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida attributed the uptick to more widespread testing, noting, at a news conference Tuesday, the state was not only testing far more people than it did earlier in the spring, but was also going into high-risk environments and testing farm workers and migrant workers and finding new cases.
	But epidemiologists have said the numbers suggest increased transmissions.
	Well, you would expect there would be increased transmissions.
	There are more people out in public, obviously.
	But that does not necessarily mean that the state has to shutter again.
	He said you have to have society function, which, of course, is exactly right.
	Now again, the notion that this is going to overwhelm the healthcare system and we have to shut down again, you're seeing the media starting to stump for all of this.
	How about this?
	How about the fact that nationwide, the positivity rate remains essentially the same as it was since late May?
	It's a little bit different in some of the states, it is not different nationally.
	Basically, it's receded in New York, it has increased in some places that have opened up elsewhere, but the death rates have not increased and the hospitalizations have not increased to the point where we are worried about it.
	This is why Mike Pence is saying, there isn't a coronavirus second wave.
	Mike Pence has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today.
	He says,
	Cases have stabilized over the past two weeks.
	The average daily case rate across the U.S.
	has dropped down to about 20,000 from 30,000 in April and 25,000 in May.
	The truth is we've made great progress over the past four months.
	It says we've expanded our supply of crucial medical equipment.
	We've expanded our tests to roughly 500,000 per day.
	We've increased personal protective equipment.
	We've also made great progress on developing therapeutics and a vaccine.
	Last month, Gilead Sciences announced it would donate 940,000 vials of its new drug Remdesivir to treat more than 120,000 patients in the U.S.
	under Operation Warp Speed.
	And by the way, it is worth noting, in other good news that is not getting all the press that it should, it turns out that a very, very common steroid, I asked my wife about this because of course she is a doctor, I asked my wife about this, it turns out that a very, very common steroid dramatically reduces death in people who are on ventilators or on oxygen.
	This is according to the New York Times.
	But again, the media are reporting this but it's not getting the kind of coverage as, spike, we're all gonna die.
	Really, that was the... There was a story yesterday.
	I think it was from... Was it from the New York Times?
	I'm trying to remember the source.
	About how if you flush a toilet, it's gonna flush these germs three feet in the air and stay there forever and you're all gonna die.
	Never flush a toilet again.
	Great ideas, guys.
	How about this?
	How about you try to measure how many people have been infected by flushing toilets before you panic everybody?
	We heard for weeks that you were gonna get it from picking up an Amazon package at your front door.
	Okay, turns out that's not true.
	Nobody's getting it from surfaces.
	People are getting it from being in close contact with human beings in closed areas and breathing on them.
	Because the viral load on surfaces is just not that high.
	The New York Times, again, this is good news.
	In an unexpected sign of hope amid the expanding pandemic, scientists at University of Oxford said on Thursday an inexpensive and commonly available drug reduced deaths in patients with severe COVID-19.
	If the finding is borne out, the drug, a steroid called dexamethasone, would be the first treatment shown to reduce mortality in several severely ill patients.
	Had doctors been using the drug to treat the sickest COVID-19 patients in Britain from the beginning, up to 5,000 deaths could have been prevented, according to researchers.
	The reason that they didn't is because using a steroid has the effect of suppressing the immune system and people were afraid.
	They didn't know what was more important to strengthen lung function or to strengthen immune system function.
	And it turns out that immune system function might have been the problem in many of these cases.
	The immune system overcompensating.
	In severe cases, the virus directly attacks cells lining the patient's airways and lungs.
	The infection can also prompt an overwhelming immune response that is just as harmful.
	The drug appears to reduce inflammation caused by the immune system protecting the tissues.
	In this study, dexamethasone reduced deaths of patients on ventilators by one-third.
	By one-third.
	Which, by the way, would be like the overall death rate, because virtually everybody who died, or a lot of people who died, ended up on ventilators before dying.
	By one-third.
	That is a major, major downgrade.
	Deaths of patients on oxygen, by one-fifth.
	Which, again, makes sense, because most patients who are on oxygen don't end up dying.
	Right?
	Once you end up on a ventilator, there is a good shot you are dead.
	Of COVID-19.
	But, if you can reduce that by one-third, then you're talking about a reduction in overall death rate that is extraordinary.
	This is really, really good news.
	And, by the way, If this does cut deaths, I mean, this is Dr. Atul Gawande, right?
	He was not on the right.
	Surgeon and author.
	He wrote on Twitter.
	He said, it would be great news if this really does cut deaths by one third in ventilated patients with COVID-19.
	It would be great news.
	I mean, you were talking about then moving this thing down closer, not quite to, but closer to the deadliness level of the flu, which would be really, really important.
	Why is that not the big news today?
	Why is the big news that if you go out to a restaurant, you stay six feet away from somebody, you're going to die?
	There is no overwhelming of the hospital system that is going on in the United States right now.
	There's increased testing.
	The increased testing is partially responsible for the detection of increased COVID activity.
	The extension of hospitalization rates is not radical.
	We are not seeing the system being overwhelmed.
	That doesn't mean you should stop being careful.
	You should continue to be careful.
	Everyone should continue to be careful.
	But the notion that we are on the verge of a second wave spike and everybody's going to die is just not borne out by the evidence.
	OK, time for a quick thing that I like.
	So if you haven't checked out the verdicts with Ted Cruz, with my friend, Senator Ted Cruz, and my not friend, Michael Moulse, then you definitely should.
	So Michael Moulse is the guest host with Senator Cruz, and they talk about all of the issues of the day.
	They bring in people from the Trump administration, other members of the Senate to talk about what exactly is going on on Capitol Hill.
	Frankly, I haven't seen anything that goes quite as deep into what exactly is going on behind the closed doors of Capitol Hill better than the verdicts with Ted Cruz.
	Here's a little bit.
	Something I've noticed just on these shows is you hear so much about how personal relationships and these sort of unplanned moments can really shift the path of policy in the country.
	Well, it does.
	But I think the other thing is the interesting thing.
	So so Ted goes, come on, I'm going over to see the president.
	You need to come with me.
	We need to talk to him about Obamacare.
	And I'm going, OK, well, you got it.
	No, no, we're just going.
	I mean, and so.
	So you get this and you go, okay, we're going to drop in on the president of the United States and talk policy on a Saturday, by the way.
	We literally Ubered over.
	I mean, it was kind of, and you're sitting there going, it's a miracle Secret Service didn't shoot us.
	And we're like, we're actually in Congress.
	They're like, I don't know about that.
	But, but it's all about.
	One, relationships.
	You're exactly right, Michael.
	But the other part of that is about tenacity.
	It's making sure you're tenacious about what you know is good for the American people.
	And you're willing to fight that fight.
	And Ted obviously has not only a career of doing that, Alrighty, so check it out.
	The Verdict with Ted Cruz and Michael Knowles is there too.
	So try to ignore the fact that Knowles is there and just enjoy the fact that this is real insider stuff from the people who are playing the game on Capitol Hill.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, enjoy the rest of your day and we'll see you here tomorrow for your next assignment.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, Assistant Director Pavel Lydowsky, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Playback and Media operated by Nick Sheehan, Associate Producer Katie Swinnerton, Edited by Adam Sajovic, Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina, Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
	I think there are enough of those already out there.
	We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else.
	So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
	Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.

▲