Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 30, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

54:04

Supreme Betrayal | Ep. 1042

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Chief Justice John Roberts plays legal games to strike down another pro-life law.
	Corporations pull back from social media to avoid political blowback.
	And COVID continues to spike.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.com.
	Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash ben.
	I have a lot to get to today.
	First, there's a lot of uncertainty out there right now.
	You want stability, especially with your investments.
	A couple of weeks ago, the Dow dropped 1,700 points in one day because of fear.
	Fear of coronavirus resurgence and fear from the Fed.
	Loomy Outlook expected spending of $10 trillion this year to fight the effects of COVID-19.
	Your grandkids will be paying for this.
	We are all going to be paying for this.
	We may be paying for it with an inflated dollar.
	We may be paying for it with higher taxes.
	Bottom line is, you want to be diversified in your assets, and taking a look at precious metals would be a smart move right now.
	It would have been a smart move several months ago.
	You'd be really, really up on your money.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	When you purchase on or before July 31st, you get a free signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History, from my friends over at Birch Gold.
	Ask them all your questions.
	They're the people I trust with precious metals investing.
	Birch Gold 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.
	I always tell you, get fully informed before you spend your money.
	Ask all your questions to my friends over at Birchgold and get informed before you invest.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	No obligation.
	Birchgold has thousands of satisfied customers.
	Countless.
	Five star reviews.
	A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	Protect your family by protecting your savings the way I did.
	By investing in gold with Birch Gold Group.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	During the months of June or July, when you open an IRA in precious metals, you get a signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History, for free.
	Again, text my name, Ben, to 474747.
	We're going to get to a little bit later on in the program.
	The Elizabeth Warren claim that it is time for all of us to become anti-racist.
	I'm going to explain the difference between being a not racist and being an anti-racist in the view of people who are on the left and why it is that they have perverted the definition of racism in order to basically suggest that anyone who doesn't like favored leftist policies is in fact a racist.
	That's what they mean by anti-racism.
	We'll get to that.
	We'll also get to COVID where, again, the gap continues to increase between The number of identified cases and the number of deaths in the United States on a day-on-day level, the number of deaths by COVID in the United States continues to decline or at least remain steady.
	The idea that we are seeing this massive increase in death so far is just not true.
	It is possible that that death increase will happen.
	But one of the reasons for this, the vast proportion of people who are getting COVID at this point are people who are young and those people are not dying of COVID.
	The hospitalization rates are rising.
	They're not rising so dramatically that they have overwhelmed the system.
	You would have expected, given the positivity rates that we've been seeing in states like California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, the systems already would have been swamped.
	That, in fact, is not what is happening.
	What is happening instead is that a huge number of people are asymptomatic.
	It is also possible a lot of people who are coming in for hospitalizations for other reasons are being identified with COVID.
	Meaning that they're not coming in necessarily for COVID, but you're being identified as somebody with COVID because you came in for another reason.
	And so you're hospitalized with COVID, even if you're not ICU.
	The real question is not really hospitalizations so much as it is ICUs.
	We are not at the state where we believe that the ICUs are going to be overwhelmed in any of the states thus far.
	So we'll get to that in just a little bit.
	First, we begin with Chief Justice John Roberts.
	You know, I hate saying I told you so, except that I love saying I told you so.
	I only hate saying I told you so when the thing that I told you so turns out to be bad for the country.
	That thing I told you so about Chief Justice John Roberts.
	So all the way back, all the way back, long ago in the hazy memory of yesteryear, back in 2005.
	When John Roberts was elected to the Supreme Court, I, and perhaps only I, said Chief Justice John Roberts would not be a good justice.
	There was no evidence he was going to be a good justice.
	He had no record of textualist or originalist jurisprudence.
	He was basically just a guy.
	He was a guy recommended by some people over at Federalist Society.
	And my view on judges is very simple.
	If they do not have a long, clear record of originalism, then they should not be put on the Supreme Court.
	Now, the left has a very easy test of its own, which is they just ask straight out how their judges are going to vote on things.
	They will just ask straight out if their judge is going to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade or is going to overturn Heller v. D.C.
	They'll just ask these people straight up because the left is honest about its own justices and what they want from them.
	They don't want any sort of interpretation.
	They just want the leftist policy point.
	People on the right, however, play this game where we can't ask those questions.
	It's just not civil.
	It's just not good.
	And if we ask those questions, then maybe Democrats will get mad.
	Well, I mean, that does show the bad faith of Democrats, because the simple fact of the matter is that people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg fly through the Senate, even though it is perfectly obvious she's going to be a wild leftist judge.
	Same thing with Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
	Same thing with Elena Kagan.
	It's perfectly obvious that these people are going to be wildly to the left.
	And Republicans will say, OK, yeah, but they're qualified, so we'll vote for them anyway.
	Whereas if a Republican, if a justice who's appointed by a Republican were to say, yes, I think Roe versus Wade is a badly decided case.
	Immediately done, right?
	Immediately toast.
	So what you end up with is a bunch of quote-unquote stealth candidates from Republicans.
	How many Republican justices have turned out to be failures on behalf of conservatism or originalism or textualism?
	A lot, right?
	John Roberts would be one.
	Too early to say on Neil Gorsuch.
	Neil Gorsuch has largely been good, but he was very, very bad on that Civil Rights Act case, which he just rewrote this year.
	We have seen Justice John Paul Stevens.
	We have seen Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
	We have seen a bevy of justices.
	We've seen A serious number of justices, who's the one I'm thinking of, who was appointed by, it was Stevens and Souter, Justice David Souter, appointed by George H.W.
	Bush.
	There's a whole list of Republicans who have been appointing justices and the justices turn out to be just nebbishes.
	Democrats hit 100% of the time.
	When is the last time a Democrat appointed a justice and the justice ended up being center-right?
	Never.
	The answer is never.
	It never happened, ever.
	It has never happened.
	It will never happen.
	And the reason for that is the institutional pressures are very much for justices to be the people who reshape the country from the top down.
	There's a lot of pressure to do that.
	So unless you are somebody like Clarence Thomas, who's already been through the wars, there's a good shot that you're going to move.
	Well, that's what has happened to Chief Justice John Roberts.
	So yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts, in an almost unthinkably stupid decision, voted with the left of the court to rule that a law requiring the doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights.
	Okay, now, there was a case just four years ago that was basically on the same topic, right, back in 2016.
	There is a case in which Texas had a law.
	The law was that if you're an abortion clinic, you have to have admitting privileges at a hospital.
	The reason for that is you're doing an abortion, something goes wrong.
	If you don't have admitting privileges at a hospital, it really gums up the works.
	If you have some sort of emergency and you have to rush the person to a hospital.
	So the rule in Texas was that within a certain radius, you had to have admitting privileges at that hospital.
	People who are anti the law said, well, this hurts abortion clinics because abortion clinics very often can't get admitting privileges at hospitals nearby, and therefore the abortion clinic would be put out of business.
	In Louisiana, there's basically apparently one major abortion clinic, and the one major abortion clinic did not have admitting privileges at any of the hospitals in a 30-mile radius, and so they challenged the law.
	Now, here's the thing.
	Every surgery center in Louisiana, every surgery center in Texas, has to have admitting privileges at the local hospital.
	So this would exempt abortion, basically, from a rule that applies to all other surgery centers.
	And let's be real about this, a DNC, which is an early to mid-stage abortion, as opposed to an extraction and dilation, which is a late-stage abortion.
	Those sorts of surgeries are surgeries.
	They are surgeries.
	And so having admitting privileges is a good thing.
	The notion that this law is patently on its face a violation of the state's ability to restrict how medical procedures are done is, of course, very, very silly.
	Okay, so, you know who used to feel this way?
	Chief Justice John Roberts.
	Back in 2016, he voted the other way on the Texas law.
	So there's a 5-4 decision in that case in favor of striking down the Texas law.
	He wrote a dissent in that case.
	He sided with the dissenters in that case.
	He said, no, no, no, that law from Texas, that's perfectly legal.
	Four years later, the exact same law comes up, and Chief Justice John Roberts decides, you know what?
	On behalf of stare decisis, I'm just going to go along with this thing.
	Now, stare decisis is the idea that a case has been settled.
	That we have sort of a bizarre system in the United States, where we have a common law system in the judiciary, where the judiciary develops basically its own set of codes and its own set of laws, and it develops over time.
	The most famous common law system is of course the British system, because the British don't really have a constitution per se, and so it really is a body of law made by judges.
	The United States has a constitution, but then it also has a common law system derived from that constitution via the justices of the Supreme Court who have created their own corpus of law.
	Okay, so the idea there is that stare decisis, the idea that a case has been decided, that's what stare decisis means, it has been decided.
	That you don't re-litigate cases that have already been litigated.
	Now, the problem, of course, is that nobody actually holds by stare decisis.
	A stare decisis is basically just an excuse to hold how you want to hold.
	This is what Justice Thomas has said.
	That is why I've always said that I like Justice Thomas's jurisprudence better than I like Justice Scalia's jurisprudence.
	Justice Scalia paid a lot of lip service to stare decisis.
	Justice Thomas is like, nope.
	If the case is wrong, the case is wrong.
	I don't care if it was decided five years ago or 50 years ago.
	The idea that we're supposed to uphold the case simply because the case has been embedded in our national culture is very stupid.
	And Justice Thomas is right.
	If stare decisis held, then we'd still be operating under the rule of Flessy versus Ferguson.
	If stare decisis held, then we could have never overturned any of the bad cases in American history, including Dred Scott.
	The idea that stare decisis is the deciding factor is obviously very silly.
	And in fact, Justice Roberts doesn't even believe in stare decisis, depending on the case.
	He has been on the majority side of overturning several long-standing precedents in the United States while he's been on the court.
	It's a stare decisis saying, well, it's already been decided.
	That would only apply if you were actually consistent in your application of stare decisis, but Justice Roberts is purely not.
	So basically he just decided, you know what?
	I don't want to have a big abortion fight, so I'm going to go along with the left.
	And that is the guiding theme.
	Every justice sort of has a guiding theme.
	The guiding theme to Justice Roberts is, I don't want controversy, but I'm going to create it accidentally because I don't want controversy.
	That is nearly every Justice Roberts decision.
	And nearly every major on Obamacare.
	I don't want controversy over striking down Obamacare.
	I don't want to be responsible for striking down what is clearly an unconstitutional law.
	So instead, I'm just going to say that it is kind of unconstitutional, but I'll rewrite the law.
	So now it's magically constitutional to avoid controversy.
	And of course, now he's plunged face first into controversy.
	He did the same thing yesterday on a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau case where he could have struck down the entire Consumer Finance Protection Bureau as an unconstitutional scheme, which it is.
	I'll explain in a minute.
	Okay, but he didn't.
	Instead, he split the baby.
	He's like, okay, well, there's part of it that's unconstitutional, but we'll just rewrite the law so now it's constitutional.
	And plunged himself face first into controversy.
	This is what he's constantly doing.
	He's constantly doing things.
	He voted the wrong way on the Civil Rights Act case, suggesting that transgender identity and sexual orientation are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when clearly they are not.
	He voted with the majority in that case.
	The only time he ever votes With his supposed principles is when he's in the minority.
	I've yet to see Justice Roberts side with a controversial majority decision.
	It really does not happen where he's the swing vote.
	The guiding light is he will always take the side of the left in order to create institutional stability.
	But institutional stability inherently means cave to the left.
	When four of the members of the court are on the left, and he votes with the left.
	And we're gonna get to more of this in just a second.
	He's just a terrible justice.
	He truly is.
	I mean, what a botchery by the Bush administration in picking him in the first place.
	Okay, so Chief Justice John Roberts obviously writes idiotically in this case.
	I mean, it really is incredible.
	It really is incredible how dumb this particular decision is from Justice Roberts.
	So as Dan McLaughlin properly writes in National Review, Chief Justice John Roberts' lack of courage is damaging the Supreme Court.
	He says, there are times when it is hard to stand up for your principles, to stand against your own party, or both.
	From judges, we are told, the important thing is to follow, not lead, to have the ascetic self-discipline to apply the constitution and laws as written, not to put your own policy preferences above the letter of the law.
	The right ideas and the right priorities matter more than character.
	A good brain beats a good heart.
	The conservative legal establishment has long been particularly enamored of this ideal, the umpire calling balls and strikes, which is important, but this is not the first virtue.
	An umpire who can be cowed by the crowd will not call the same strike zone for both teams.
	And that is exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts did.
	There were two decisions that came down yesterday.
	One is in a case called June Medical, and the other...
	is in a case called Celia Law.
	The June medical case is the abortion case.
	And again, this is unthinkably stupid, what he did here.
	He voted the other way on the same case four years ago, and now he is saying that because this case was decided four years ago, it has become part and parcel of the American jurisprudence and cannot be overturned.
	Now, the basic rule, by the way, on stare decisis is the longer it's been in place, the more you don't want to overturn it because there's so many institutions then built on the decision.
	Now, that does not stop the court from stepping in and overturning hundreds of years of precedence in America when they have felt the necessity to do so.
	I mean, you'll recall that just a few years ago, the Supreme Court decided on the basis of no history whatsoever that same-sex marriage was mandated by the Constitution, right?
	I mean, overturning literally not just centuries of law, but millennia of Western canon.
	You know, stare decisis only matters when the Supreme Court says it matters.
	As Dan McLaughlin says, in June, Medical Services LLC versus Rousseau, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch would have upheld that Louisiana law.
	Chief Justice Roberts sided with the court's four liberals, claiming his hands were tied by precedent.
	In the 2016 case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, the court ruled 5-3 against a Texas abortion law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
	States routinely impose such requirements on the practice of medicine, especially invasive or surgical procedures.
	As Justice Gorsuch observed in that case, the Louisiana law, or in this case, tracks long-standing state laws governing physicians who perform relatively low-risk procedures like colonoscopies, LASIK eye surgeries, and steroid injections at ambulatory surgical centers.
	The court in both of these cases, the 2016 case on the Texas law and the case yesterday on Louisiana law ruled, quote, an unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.
	But what the court defines is an unnecessary requirement would be uncontroversially legal for any other medical procedure under the sun.
	And of course, there is no constitutional right to abortion.
	It just doesn't exist.
	Now normally, if you vote one case four years ago, one way, you don't switch and vote the other way in the exact same case four years later.
	But Justice Roberts gave the liberals the deference they would not apply themselves.
	Writing, I joined the dissent in Whole Women's Health and continue to believe the case was wrongly decided.
	The question today is not whether Whole Women's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it.
	The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.
	Except for the fact that the Whole Women's Health decision overturned a prior decision that had already said the opposite.
	The four liberals allowed a do-over in the Whole Woman's Health case.
	Justice Alito pointed out that the Whole Woman's Health decision disregarded basic rules that apply in all other cases.
	Stare decisis is supposed to promote stability in law by adhering to consistent and predictable rules, but the opinion striking down the Louisiana law didn't do any of that stuff.
	Roberts didn't join the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Breyer, but by joining its outcome, he prevented the court's conservatives from doing anything to keep the court from constantly rewriting its own rules.
	This is the point that is being made here.
	I mean, I'm not kidding.
	in a national review.
	Abortion law is governed by a 1992 decision called Planned Parenthood versus Casey, one of the worst cases in Supreme Court history in which the court declared that people have a right to define the world and the universe for themselves.
	I mean, I'm not kidding.
	That's actually the language of the decision.
	As Roberts noted, Casey asked whether an abortion law imposed an undue burden, but the court in Whole Woman's Health and the plurality today changed the rule to make it a balancing test that reviews the pros and cons of the law.
	Roberts reiterated that Whole Woman's Health therefore departs from Casey and asks the court to apply a test they are not competent to administer.
	This is again in Roberts' opinion.
	In this context, courts applying a balancing test would be asked, in essence, to weigh the state's interests in protecting the potentiality of human life and the health of the woman on one hand, against the woman's liberty interest in defining her own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life on the other.
	That quote is from Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	That's what I was referring to, which is just idiotic.
	There's no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them, if there were.
	Attempting to do so would be like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy.
	That's what Justice Antonin Scalia said in Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	Pretending we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges.
	We have explained the traditional rule that state and federal legislatures have wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty is consistent with Casey, right?
	That last line is pretty poignant.
	Okay, but Roberts joined the majority opinion.
	He joined the majority opinion, which is insane.
	So he basically demolished the majority opinion and then he joined the majority opinion.
	Which is crazy, which is crazy towns.
	Okay, that is one thing that Robert said yesterday.
	He ruled in a second case in which he saved the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
	So for those who don't know, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a piece of government machinery created independent of the executive branch of the government.
	The head of the CFPB could not be fired.
	Their basic idea, they were empowered with overwhelming powers, incredible powers.
	I've talked about it on the program before.
	Incredible powers to oversee business in the United States and find businesses and investigate businesses.
	And the head of it was not answerable to the executive branch.
	Which means that it violates the separation of powers, because you either work for the legislature, or you work for the executive, or you work for the judiciary.
	There is no unaccountable fourth branch of government.
	The CFPB set up the head of the CFPB so the person could not be fired.
	Okay, so, this comes up before the court, and what does the court do?
	They uphold the presence of the CFPB by basically saying, okay, you know what, we understand that the head can't be fired, but just because the head can't be fired doesn't mean that we can't make him fireable by the president, so we're just gonna rewrite the law wholesale.
	So basically the same thing that Roberts did in Obamacare, where he declared that a fee was actually a tax.
	He just rewrote the law in order to save the law.
	So he did the exact same thing yesterday, joining a 5-4 majority.
	As Dan McLaughlin says, in the second case, Celia Law versus Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Chief Justice wrote the court's opinion, declaring that Congress in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act had violated the separation of powers by placing the CFPB's head beyond the reach of presidents to remove at will.
	It's an epic embarrassment for Elizabeth Warren, who designed the CFPB, and for President Obama.
	But Roberts pulled up short of concluding that an agency created in violation of the Constitution lacked the power to compel the citizenry, so they could go ahead and continue operating as normal.
	We're just going to make the person fireable by the President.
	If Congress passes an unconstitutional statute, generally, you strike it down unless there's a severability provision, right?
	Severability provision is a provision in the law that says, you can carve off this portion of the law and you can declare it invalid, and if you do that, then here's our backup plan.
	Congress didn't do any of that.
	So Roberts just did it for them.
	Roberts just said, okay, fine.
	You know what?
	We're just gonna make this person fireable by the president, and then we'll just preserve the law.
	So Roberts is just doing the work of the left at this point.
	Now Dan McLaughlin is more charitable.
	He says it's a mistake to compare Roberts to past Republican appointees because unlike William Brennan or John Paul Stevens or Souter or Earl Warren Burger or O'Connor, he actually is good at his job, he's just weak.
	But I don't actually buy that.
	Week is still left, okay?
	If you vote with the left, you're with the left, okay?
	There is no kind of halfway point here.
	So once again, what this demonstrates is that if you are relying on the Republican Party to save you by appointing Supreme Court justices who are on the right, Supreme Court justices can help a little bit, but can they overwhelmingly preserve your rights?
	No.
	And Republicans are simply not willing to appoint the kind of people who will preserve your rights by asking them the honest and open questions they need to be asked before they are appointed to the Supreme Court.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, Let's talk about the fact that the Second Amendment, pretty important right now, so we've got an entire class of people in the United States who have decided that it's time to defund the police, and then they've also decided that it's time for you not to have a gun, only the police should have guns.
	Well, that seems like a very, very terrible idea.
	There's a reason that shootings are spiking in major cities around the United States, and that's a pretty damned good reason for you to be armed.
	You know who believes in that?
	Bravo Company USA.
	Bravo Company Manufacturing builds a professional-grade product built to combat standards.
	That's because BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless if they're a private citizen or a professional.
	The people of BCM assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
	And with that in mind, every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans.
	The people at BCM feel it is their moral responsibility as Americans to provide the tools that will not fail the end-user when it's not just a paper target, but somebody coming to do them harm.
	BCM also knows that making reliable, life-saving tools is only half the story.
	The company also works with leading instructors of marksmanship from top levels of America's Special Ops Forces, from Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance to U.S.
	Army Special Operation Forces, connecting them with other Americans.
	These top instructors will teach you the skills necessary to defend yourself, your family, or others.
	If you're trying to protect yourself, having a gun that works is definitely a really important, important thing protecting your rights.
	Learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing today.
	Head on over to my friends at BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	You can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
	That is BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	And if you want to see even more about them, check them out at YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
	Macho dudes standing up for American rights.
	Go check them out.
	Bravo Company USA.
	Go check them out.
	Right now.
	BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	Okay, so, bottom line is, with Justice Roberts, like so much of the rest of the court, if you're unwilling to stand up for the right principles, then those principles will be pulled away right in front of you.
	And it does underscore.
	There's something I talk about.
	I have a brand new book coming out called How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	And I talk about a couple of different things in the book.
	I talk about our philosophy of rights.
	The philosophy that springs from the Declaration of Independence and is encoded in the Constitution.
	I talk about that, but I say it's not enough to have a philosophy of rights because the fact is you can't rely on legality to save you.
	It's important that a country have a culture of rights.
	What I mean by that is that we all in our daily lives rely on each other to respect our rights to do things, right?
	We have to have enough.
	We have to have enough respect for our neighbors that we allow our neighbors to do things that are within their rights, even if we disagree with them.
	And that is something that is falling away incredibly quickly in the United States.
	And here's the thing.
	The Supreme Court and the law tend to follow the culture.
	So, if the culture becomes incredibly censorious, if the culture decides that certain types of speech are no longer allowed, it is only a matter of time before there are justices on the Supreme Court appointed presumably by a Democrat or a weak-kneed Republican.
	And those justices start maintaining that, for example, hate speech regulations don't violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
	It's only a matter of time until that happens.
	And it's going to be called wild and crazy to say such things, but the reality is we've had such laws promulgated in states across the United States on college campuses.
	There are all sorts of regulations on college campuses that patently offend the First Amendment and that have been at the very least sort of overlooked by court systems.
	In foreign countries like the UK or Canada, there are hate speech regulations on the books.
	And you are seeing increasingly a push for such sort of regulations in the United States.
	Now that will follow a cultural push to cast out everybody who disagrees with you.
	Now, the entire model of free speech, of liberal free speech, I mean classical liberal free speech, is the idea that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing.
	That typically, you want people to be able to speak their minds even if what they are saying offends you, even if what they are saying is wrong or incorrect.
	Better too much speech than too little speech.
	That is the culture of rights I'm talking about.
	The recognition, the ACLU's old recognition, that I hate what you're saying, but I will fight and die for your right to say it.
	Is there anybody who believes that members of the Democratic Party would do that today?
	Is there anybody who believes that members of today's culture, today's censorious culture, would fight and die for the right of somebody else to say something with which they disagree?
	More likely, they would kill somebody who is disagreeing, at least figuratively speaking.
	At least they would excise them from the American body politic.
	The culture of rights is falling away.
	And it's falling away in a variety of ways.
	It's falling away particularly when it comes to the consumption of products.
	It's really interesting to see which avenues the fight against a culture of free speech rights is moving.
	So, they're going at the most vulnerable targets.
	The hard left that is seeking to restrict the ability to perform free speech in America is going after the most vulnerable targets.
	You wonder why they go after college campuses.
	Where, by the way, there is less offensive speech on college campuses than anywhere else in American life, at least if you're on the American left.
	If you're on the American left, These are safe spaces for you.
	The idea that you're experiencing massive, overwhelming discrimination, racism, brutal right-wing bigotry on college campuses is insane.
	But those are always ground zero for these sorts of controversies.
	Why?
	Because you push where there's mush, in the words of Stalin, right?
	You always make sure that you're going to find the people who are most likely to cave to you, and that's the people you target.
	So, where does this manifest first?
	It manifests first on college campuses.
	Where hate speech regulations are promulgated and where you see college administrators bowing to the whims of a mob and declaring that people who say perfectly inoffensive things ought to be cast out of their jobs.
	This is how you get Brett Weinstein getting tossed out of his job over at Evergreen State College for the great crime of saying, I'm not going to stop teaching today just because of the color of my skin.
	That's literally a thing that happened at Evergreen State College.
	So it starts at college campuses.
	It then moves into the media because all of these college graduates then go work at the New York Times.
	And then they get the op-ed editor of the New York Times thrown out of his job for the grave sin of running an editorial from a sitting United States senator suggesting that perhaps federal troops might have to be used if ongoing rights in American cities are not quelled, which is a majority proposition in the United States.
	But the idea is that's threatening and it's bad.
	So all of the, and the media, because the media are left and apologetic about America's culture of rights, because America's culture of rights, according to the American left, rests on a fundamental basis of bigotry and evil.
	Because of all of that, that culture of rights has to be done away with.
	The only way we can achieve true equality is by quashing the culture of rights and replacing it with a culture of mandatory tolerance and acceptance of one type of point of view.
	A repressive tolerance, as Herbert Marcuse suggested in the 1960s.
	A tolerance of only certain points of view that forward the left-wing perspective on what utopia should look like.
	So it starts on college campuses, and then it moves over to the media.
	And now it's moving into the corporate world.
	I'm gonna explain that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the simple fact that if you run a business, if you own a business, you gotta know your numbers.
	I mean, right now, with the economy as volatile as it is with the economy all over the place, it is incredibly important that you know in granular detail every aspect of your business.
	You gotta be on top of your data.
	What do you need to make that happen?
	An integrated business solution.
	That integrated business solution, NetSuite by Oracle.
	It's the world's number one cloud business system.
	Finance, HR, inventory, e-commerce, everything you need, all in one place, so you save time, you save money, you save headaches.
	Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite will give you visibility and control, so you can manage every penny with precision.
	Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence.
	NetSuite surveyed hundreds of business leaders and assembled a playbook of the top strategies they are using as America reopens for business.
	Receive your free guide, seven actions businesses need to take right now.
	Schedule your free product tour at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, that's netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
	Get that free guide.
	Schedule your free product tour right now at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
	N-E-T-S-U-I-T-E dot com slash Shapiro.
	Integrate all that business data.
	Make sure that you're on top of everything you need to know about your business to keep it running and functioning at full force.
	Netsuite.com slash Shapiro for that free guide and the free product tour right now.
	So, the left's push against our cultural rights, not just the push against legal rights, which will come later, the push against the culture of rights, turning institutions into batons to wield against political opponents, and casting out political opponents who are well within their rights in speaking out.
	Right, that culture is important.
	Culture matters.
	Okay, the idea that the only things that matter... You hear this from the left very often.
	Why are you conservatives complaining so much about private institutions doing what they're doing?
	Okay, number one, they have a right to do it, and number two, they could be very wrong, and it can be very dangerous when all the institutions start to mirror an anti-freedom point of view.
	That is a dangerous thing.
	It is a bad thing.
	It doesn't mean that these institutions should be regulated by the government.
	That's an imposition on freedom, too.
	But you can also be contributing to the decline of a certain level of understanding that there will be differing points of view in American public life, and that's horrible for the culture.
	And the culture absolutely matters.
	The same left that claims that the right can't care about the culture cares almost nothing about the law and everything about the culture.
	They spend all day trying to pervert the instruments of culture to their political point of view.
	It's why the left is so focused on painting Black Lives Matter on the side of the NBA basketball court.
	Because the culture matters, right?
	They're attempting to change hearts and minds on a particular issue.
	Well, when you have entire systems in America, institutions in America, that are now dedicated to the proposition that certain types of speech should not be allowed, well, that's going to have a pretty predictable impact on how Americans see the institution of free speech on a legal level, and also just on a general level.
	Because if you can't tolerate your neighbor saying something you disagree with, we can't be friends anymore.
	This is what the left is pushing, by the way.
	You can't speak to your parents unless they mouth the words, Black Lives Matter, with just the precise amount of authenticity.
	Well then, that's a culture war that actually has dramatic impact for how people live.
	It's not just the law, it's the culture that matters in the United States.
	I mean, this is why I talk about, again, three things in America that you actually need to be unified and how to destroy America in three easy steps.
	Philosophy, and history, a shared history, and a shared culture.
	And all three are under attack right now.
	The philosophy is under attack.
	Because the idea is the Declaration is bad, and the Constitution is bad, and founded in racism, steeped in evil.
	The culture is bad, because again, the culture is drawn from a well of quote-unquote white supremacy.
	And the history is bad because the history is replete with discrimination and bias and bigotry and evil, right?
	That is the case of the left.
	And that results in an anti-freedom culture.
	That is what the left is pushing right now, all in the name of tolerance and acceptance.
	That is what the left is pushing very hard right now.
	And so they started off, as I've said, they started off on college campuses.
	Pushing the administrations on college campuses to shut down people's ability to speak freely, and declaring that we'd have free speech zones, and that we would ensure that everybody was ensured their safe space where they were free from microaggressions, and we'll teach all the white students about the fact that they're not allowed to say things like, I am colorblind, because that in and of itself is racist.
	You're not allowed to ask where somebody is from because that could be microaggressive.
	All that started on college campuses.
	Then it moved into the halls of the media because the media is a very left institution and the heads of the media are just ashamed enough of America.
	They're more ashamed of America and America's history and America's philosophy.
	They're more ashamed of that than they are attached to the notion of everybody should be speaking freely and more speech is better speech.
	They're more attached to certain principles than other principles.
	And now it has moved on to corporate America.
	And the reason it's moved on to corporate America is because, again, corporate America is a soft target.
	You're running a corporation.
	The corporation has one goal, to sell Coke.
	You're the head of the Coca-Cola Corporation.
	All you do all day is figure out how to sell Coke to people.
	And normally you just advertise where the people are.
	There are a bunch of different platforms.
	There are a bunch of different places that you can advertise.
	And frankly, you don't really care, right?
	You're putting up billboards.
	You just want to see what the ROI is.
	What is the return on investment?
	Well, let's say that you're getting a pretty solid return on investment by advertising, for example, on Facebook.
	And then let's say that there are a loud coterie of people who say, we are going to launch a campaign against you, Coca-Cola, for the crime of, for the great evil of having advertised on Facebook.
	And we're going to launch a boycott against Coca-Cola now.
	You have two choices.
	One is you can say, OK, go for it.
	Enjoy.
	Because it turns out the benefit we get from advertising on Facebook outweighs the downside of you guys being angry at us for advertising on Facebook.
	Now, in reality, that is the reality.
	The reality is boycotts barely ever, virtually never work.
	Boycotts are usually ineffective.
	But, right now, the people at Coca-Cola are thinking, okay, well we have a second front battle.
	It is not merely a calculation of, do we get more out of advertising on Facebook than we get a downside from people yelling at us.
	It is, we have a bunch of staffers, and our staffers are yelling at us internally.
	And our staffers are telling us that we're racist if we don't take our stuff down from Facebook.
	Now, we haven't advertised on anything racist.
	We have not gone out and advertised in Louis Farrakhan's Trumpet Call or whatever the hell his stupid newspaper is.
	We've not advertised with David Duke.
	We're advertising on a social media platform with billions of people on it.
	That's literally all we're doing, but it doesn't matter.
	Because the idea is, I can find other alternative ways of advertising that appeal to the woke base inside our own company, and don't offend the media, and don't give us $10 million with bad media coverage.
	It makes my job easier, makes my days easier.
	All I have to do is click this button.
	If I click this button right here, and I temporarily suspend ads from Facebook, how much coke are we really selling off of Facebook anyway?
	Is it worth the hassle?
	Maybe we can find other ways of doing this.
	Maybe we can find other ways of doing this that adhere to the anti-rights culture that is being promulgated by the left.
	Because remember, when people advertise on Facebook, this is actually what's happening right now.
	When people advertise on Facebook, or Twitter, or any of the other social media platforms, they are not endorsing the messages that are there.
	This is incredibly silly.
	Everybody knows this, by the way.
	When people advertise on Fox News, they're not endorsing everything on Fox News any more than if they advertise on MSNBC, they're endorsing everything on MSNBC.
	When products advertise themselves, typically they're advertising because they wish to reach the audience, not because they subsidized Tucker Carlson's script that day.
	None of them are privy to Tucker Carlson's script that day.
	What the left is attempting to do right now is basically remove all profit incentive for corporations to back free speech.
	And therefore to remove the profit incentive for an entire free speech industry that exists to provide opposing points of view.
	And then the only points of view that will be left are the points of view that preceded this brand new era of internet freedom.
	Because what the internet really did is it decentralized the power mechanisms for dissemination of information.
	That's what the internet did.
	And Matt Drudge was very instrumental in this.
	When Matt Drudge created Drudge Report, and suddenly people were flocking to Drudge Report to get reporting from an institution outside the mainstream media, it broke the media's monopoly on this.
	So many members of the media, people at the New York Times, will cheer on the demonetization of free speech content over on Facebook.
	They will cheer on Facebook as Facebook restricts material or his Twitter restricts material.
	Facebook's been better than the others, by the way.
	Facebook's been way better than the others because at least Zuckerberg has a baseline adherence to the levels of belief in free speech, according to his own speeches at Georgetown.
	But there are lots of other places that are saying, okay, well, we'll just go.
	Listen, we can still put out the New York Times.
	Basically, here's what happened.
	The New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, all the mainstream media outlets used to have a monopoly.
	The monopoly was broken by the internet.
	And advertisers recognized that there were big audiences that cropped up for these alternative mechanisms.
	And so they started advertising on those mechanisms.
	And so the media, the old world media, the mainstream media, in combination with a censorious left, decided they were going to re-establish the monopoly by basically taking all these social media mechanisms and having those social media mechanisms become merely loudspeakers for the mainstream media while banning everybody else.
	That's the actual goal here.
	And all they have to do is intimidate the corporations into stopping their advertisements on these social media platforms.
	That's all they have to do.
	Remove the profit margin for all of these smaller publishers.
	All they have to do is make sure that views they don't like are taken out of the realm of commerce.
	And corporations think to themselves, okay, do I really want this fight?
	If you're a corporate middle manager in marketing, do you really want to spend your day being inundated with emails from supposedly angry people who are on a listserv?
	Is that something that you want to do?
	Do you want to find yourself cancelled tomorrow?
	Because remember, all of these corporations are made up of individuals.
	And you're the middle manager who's approving the Facebook ad buy.
	And suddenly, somebody is resurfacing a tweet that you wrote 25 years ago.
	Or on Facebook, some post on social media, your high school yearbook is coming out.
	You don't want to be on the front lines of that thing.
	You'd prefer to have an easy life where you can be left alone.
	The left knows this, and so the left is attacking the culture of rights by going after the corporations.
	So it went colleges, then it went media, and now it's going corporations.
	And so what this means is that you are seeing, for example, Starbucks being the latest company to posit advertising across social media platforms, across all of them.
	Coke said it would pause advertising on all social media platforms globally.
	Unilever is halting advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter in the United States through December 31st.
	According to Starbucks, we believe in bringing communities together, both in person and online, and we stand against hate speech.
	Now, nobody suggested that Starbucks stood in favor of hate speech.
	But who the hell is Starbucks to determine what a social media platform should be?
	They're not advertising on any of the hate speech stuff.
	And if they found out they were, they would pull their advertising from that stuff.
	But instead of saying, okay, YouTube or Facebook, you know, there's some bad stuff there and we don't want to be associated with that bad stuff.
	They say, we're just not going to be involved in free speech at all.
	And until Facebook only has content that we feel comfortable advertising on, Then we are not going to be on Facebook.
	In other words, we, who are run by the woke, so the woke now run the Outlook on Rights at the corporations, and then the Outlook on Rights at the corporations dictates their spending, which dictates their attempting, dictates the rules at these social media companies.
	That is the chain of logic here, and it's really, really dangerous.
	The company said, we believe in bringing communities online.
	We stand against hate speech.
	We believe more must be done to create welcoming and inclusive online communities.
	We believe both business leaders and policymakers need to come together to effect real change.
	Okay, so the reason that all of these places are doing this, and again, it is Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, it's basically all of them, they said they're not going to include YouTube.
	Starbucks.
	Why aren't they going to include YouTube?
	The reason they're not going to include YouTube is because they decided it's too lucrative to advertise on YouTube.
	That's the reality, right?
	Starbucks decided that, sure, we're against all this hate speech stuff, and yeah, but, and sure, there's a lot of bad videos on YouTube, but, you know what, I mean, really, we still make more money on YouTube, so we're just gonna, we're gonna stick with this whole YouTube thing.
	Starbucks said, though, is pausing advertising.
	It isn't joining the Stop Hate for Profit boycott campaign, which kicked off earlier this month.
	After a group of organizations called on Facebook advertisers to pause their ad spend during July, more than 100 marketers, including Levi's Patagonia, REI, Lending Club, and North Face have announced their intentions to join.
	According to a running list from Sleeping Giants, which is one of the worst groups on the internet, Sleeping Giants is basically just a boycott group directed against the right.
	And it's not just the radical right.
	It's like everybody on the right.
	If you are to the right of Karl Marx, sleeping giants would love to see you demonetized, right?
	That is their goal.
	The group of organizations includes Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, which is like almost a radical socialist group, Free Press, and Common Sense.
	Again, the idea here is they're going to create a lot of ad press for corporations.
	So corporations cave, and then social media companies cave.
	And then when social media companies cave, and they start banning people left and right in order to get the money back, then what happens is when you have institutional capture, when corporations are captured by the woke left, The impact is going to be social media companies end up being captured by the woke left.
	When the social media companies are captured by the woke left, then presumably, there will be basically no method for dissemination of information that counters the prevailing left-wing narrative in the culture.
	This is dangerous stuff.
	It is bad for the country.
	And it leads, by the way, to exactly the silos and echo chambers the left is constantly whining about.
	It's constantly saying, well, you know, there's Daily Wire, and that's mostly right-wing people who watch that.
	I mean, that's a silo.
	It's a silo of information.
	They don't believe what we believe.
	Who do you think created those silos?
	Who do you think is exacerbating those silos?
	And I'm perfectly willing, on my Sunday special, to have on anybody from the left.
	The number of people on the left who have invited me on their podcast for a nice, genuine conversation can be numbered on one hand.
	They literally will not do it.
	And they will not do it because they're afraid of blowback from their own community.
	I've had conversations with the biggest podcasters on the left.
	Literally the biggest.
	And I've said, why don't we have a crossover podcast?
	Nope, can't do it.
	Our people would kill us.
	Right?
	This is the culture of rights that is being destroyed right now.
	And it is being destroyed on the basis of a lie.
	And that lie is that rights are an outgrowth of evil.
	Rights are an outgrowth of white supremacy.
	We're going to get to that argument, which is now being made by none other than Elizabeth Warren, possible VP pick for Joe Biden.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	First, what do millions of Americans and three former U.S.
	presidents have in common?
	They all agree that Boleyn brand sheets are the softest, most comfortable, pure organic cotton sheets on earth.
	By the way, I agree also.
	These sheets are unbelievable.
	They are so comfortable, you're never going to be able to sleep on other sheets again.
	I mean, that's how good they are.
	Yeah, they are not going to cost you $20 at the local retail outlet store, because the stuff you get for $20 at the local retail outlet store sucks.
	It's a tarp, okay?
	The stuff that you're getting from Bowling Branch is the highest quality.
	It's amazing.
	It's rain-fed, pesticide-free.
	The cotton carries the highest organic certification, which is why it's so soft.
	Because they work with family-owned mills all over the world to expertly weave every set of Boleyn brand sheets, with the highest level of craftsmanship, it is quality you can feel the moment you open the box.
	And you're spending hours every day on those sheets, and they are just, you want them to be great.
	Boleyn brand sheets, again, they're so good, I literally cannot sleep on non-Boleyn brand sheets.
	That's how good they are.
	Bull and Branch sheets start at just $160.
	Plus, they are $1,000 quality for a fraction of the price.
	I mean, they really are.
	You can sleep on them for a month risk-free, so if you don't even like them, you can send them back.
	Right now, you get $50 off any sheet set at bullandbranch.com with promo code BENSHAPIRO.
	It's spelled B-O-L-L and branch.com.
	Promo code BENSHAPIRO for $50 off.
	Bullandbranch.com.
	Promo code BENSHAPIRO.
	Restrictions may apply.
	See bullandbranch.com for details.
	Go check them out.
	Right now.
	Okay, we're gonna get to the censorious culture and the outcome of this and where it is coming from, right?
	What is the new philosophy that is backing the culture of censorship that is now being caved into by corporations?
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, if you're not already a DailyWire member, you should consider getting a reader's pass to dailywire.com.
	It is a great value for only three bucks a month.
	When you sign up, you get that first month for only 99 cents.
	You also get access to our mobile app, articles ad free, access to exclusive editorials, like a really important one I've got out right now, Over at DailyWire, 11 leftist myths about American history.
	You can go check that out, but only if you're a subscriber.
	If you haven't checked out the Reader's Pass already, head on over to dailywire.com.
	Sign up for just a dollar.
	And again, make sure that you go pick up a copy of the book that I've been talking about.
	It's not coming out.
	Till July 21st.
	So you still have a little bit of time to pre-order, but it is flying.
	I mean, it is flying.
	I mean, let's just say that this book is going to sell.
	It's going to sell out very, very quickly.
	Go check out dailywire.com slash Ben to pre-order my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, which is the topic of the day.
	I mean, that is what is happening.
	Go check it out right now.
	Dailywire.com slash Ben.
	Ben, you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So as I say, the so-called free speech platforms are now banning all outlandish speech, all outlying speech.
	Reddit is going to ban the Donald thread, which is one of the bigger threads on Reddit.
	It really is a huge thread on Reddit.
	And then, just to make it fair, they're also banning Chapo Trap House.
	Which is the socialist kind of mud bros over there.
	I mean, they're really, they get in the mud and they're really gross and they're really ugly.
	But, you know, they have a right to free speech too.
	Something they would never say about me.
	But, Chapo Trap House has a right to basically say what they want.
	But apparently, their threat has been shut down too.
	They shut down 2,000 communities today after updating their content policy to more explicitly ban hate speech.
	The policy update came three weeks after Black Lives Matter protests led several popular Reddit forums to go dark temporarily in protest of what they called the company's lax policies around hosting and promoting racist content.
	So now Reddit has decided that they are going to continue to crack down on the ability of others to speak.
	I mean, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman said, quote, I have to admit, I've struggled about balancing my values as an American and around free speech and free expression with my values and the company's values around common human decency.
	So this is where the rubber meets the road.
	Here's the reality.
	There is an Overton window, right?
	These corporations are not the government.
	They are allowed to have certain limits as to what they will allow.
	But if your belief in common decency is basically you just agree with the policy preferences of the left, if common decency means you agree with the left, and that is what is coming into conflict with free speech and free expression, then free speech and free expression are no longer existent.
	Again, the rule should be, unless it is something that violates... I mean, if I were running a corporation here, like a free speech corporation, not an ideologically driven one that is purely mine, like Daily Wire.
	If I were running a platform like Reddit, my rule would be, unless you are violative of law, unless you are violative of open, straight abuse, Then you get to stay on.
	And you can say ugly things, you can say terrible things.
	Because guess what?
	That is the world we live in.
	And you have to trust at some point that people are going to rise above that, even if they see that content.
	There's also this basic notion out there that if you ever see a bad piece of content on the internet, you are forever scarred.
	It's absolute crap, okay?
	I've seen more bad content about me and my family on the internet than probably any living human being.
	And I can promise you, you're not permanently scarred by this stuff.
	You're fine.
	You're going to be okay.
	Generally speaking, you will be okay.
	Speaking as somebody who, again, has received probably more hatred online than nearly any other living human being on planet Earth.
	But that statement says it all.
	So the question, of course, is how do you define your common human decency?
	And for the left, common human decency means agree with us.
	So if it's agree with us and we have to balance agree with us and free speech, agree with us inherently says no free speech.
	Agree with us and you must agree with us is exactly the repressive tolerance.
	I've mentioned it earlier on the show.
	philosophy professor from the so-called Frankfurt School of Philosophy, sort of a Marxist school of belief named Herbert Marcuse, who's most famous for coining the phrase, make love, not war, back in the 1960s.
	But he was also very famous for an essay that he wrote called Repressive Tolerance, in which he suggested that true tolerance can only be achieved by preventing the full flowering of rights.
	That if there are too many rights, all that means that you're reinforcing hierarchies of power, because all you're doing is allowing people who are bad to speak.
	Those people who are bad are in charge of the system, and therefore you have to stop them from speaking in order that the system can be overturned.
	So you actually need is repressive tolerance, that is to say, tolerance of opinions from the left, but no tolerance of opinions from the right.
	And this is what's happening on social media platforms right now.
	And they're starting with people who are, who are by all rules bad.
	They're starting with people at YouTube, by the way.
	They just banned, for example, Richard Spencer.
	They're starting with people who everybody agrees are garbage.
	And then they're moving very quickly into the realm of people who are edgy, but not Richard Spencer.
	And that is where they are moving.
	So Reddit's new policy begins with the first rule that requires users to consider the human.
	It says, remember the human.
	Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people.
	Now, again, that is so vague, that is virtually meaningless, except it just means we now have an excuse to ban anyone we want.
	Because, what does it mean?
	They don't mean that you're going to say something overtly racist about black Americans, for example.
	Which, again, I understand that being banned.
	What they mean is that if you say anything, like, there's a person who's just banned on Twitter for saying men are not women.
	That's the second person I know who's been banned for saying men are not women.
	Well, I hate to break it to you, but men are not women.
	Is that attacking a marginalized or vulnerable group of people saying men are not women?
	The vagueness of the policy is where the death of free speech lies.
	At least in the culture.
	At least in the culture.
	And again, I'm perfectly happy to make the distinction between the culture and the legal.
	But as I say, the culture predates the legal.
	And as the culture degrades, the legal will quickly follow.
	So what is the latest excuse for this?
	Why is this all happening right now?
	It's been on the way for a while, right?
	I mean, I've been talking about this on college campuses since probably 10 years.
	I was doing speeches on the death of free speech on college campuses way back in 2015.
	But it's broken out on the surface again, obviously, because of the Black Lives Matter protests.
	So why?
	Why does Black Lives Matter have to be an attack?
	Why is that being used as a way to restructure America's culture of rights in a great variety of ways?
	The idea is that... Let's put it this way.
	Why is cancel culture rising at the same level as the adherence and attention to Black Lives Matter?
	These should not be apart from one another, right?
	I mean, you could separate them.
	You could separate those things.
	And that would be a worthwhile thing.
	You could take Black Lives Matter and also people are allowed to express their opinion.
	They don't have to be tied together in other words, but they are tied together.
	Why are they tied together?
	Because the idea is if you uphold the system of rights that allows for people to speak in ways you don't want, you're reinforcing hierarchies of power and therefore the rights have to be shut down.
	Parroting this message.
	In a rather sophisticated way, Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts.
	So, yesterday, Warren went to the well of the Senate, and she explained it was not enough to be not racist, you have to be anti-racist.
	I'm going to explain what she means by this, and why this sort of language is deliberately vague, and also, the meaning that it does carry is just wrong.
	It is morally wrong.
	Here is what Elizabeth Warren has to say about racism.
	Being race conscious is not enough.
	It never was.
	We must be anti-racists.
	Removing the names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederacy and anyone who voluntarily served it from military property is, in the broader scheme, only one step toward addressing systemic racism in our society.
	But it is an important step.
	Okay, so, what does she mean by anti-racist?
	Okay, this is a new language that we haven't heard until the past few years, right?
	It used to be that there was racist and there was not racist, because racist was a discrimination, was a point of view on human beings that was, you were either it or you were not, right?
	The idea was that you were racist if you believed that people were inherently inferior on the basis of race.
	That was the definition of racism.
	And then, you were not racist if you didn't believe that, in the same way that you were either religious or you're not religious.
	Right, there were three categories.
	Let's take religious as a good counterpoint.
	Okay, you're religious, you believe in God.
	And then there was not religious, which is, I don't really, I'm not, I don't believe in God, that's just not my thing.
	And then there was anti-religious, which is you spend all your time, you spend all your time fighting the religious, right?
	You're Richard Dawkins, you spend all your time fighting the religious.
	So there are three categories.
	Now the same thing could be true in terms of racism, right?
	You could be racist, which is evil.
	You could be not racist, in which case you don't believe in racism, you think that it is wrong.
	And then you could be quote-unquote anti-racist, and presumably that would be like professional activist.
	What members of the left have now done is they've collapsed the two categories.
	So instead of three, you now have two categories.
	The categories are you're either racist or you're anti-racist.
	There's no such thing as not racist, right?
	This is what Elizabeth Warren is saying.
	This comes really courtesy of an Imran Kendi.
	He's a very, very radical writer on these issues.
	He's redefined the term racism to really mean that if you believe that individual human action is not a reflection of systems, then you are a racist.
	And so you have to tear down the systems in order to affect the individual human action.
	And he actually says, I mean, he has made the contention effectively.
	I'm quoting Robin DiAngelo here.
	The author of the crappy book, White Fragility, she says that Kendi has argued that if we truly believe that all humans are equal, disparity in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination.
	So in other words, if there is one group of people and they are poorer than another group of people, the only possible reason that could happen, the only possible reason that could happen is because of discrimination.
	And in fact, if you see two individuals and one of those individuals makes a bad decision and does something wrong and has a worse life, and another person doesn't do that, It is not that they made individual bad decisions.
	They are both the products of the system.
	The system itself has been discriminatory in subtle and evil ways, and that is why they are not ending with equality of outcome.
	And Abraham Kennedy basically says this out loud, right?
	He says in his book, How to Be an Antiracist, which is basically the textbook from which Warren is quoting.
	He says, Now notice the false binary there.
	There is a third choice.
	Now notice the false binary there.
	There is a third choice.
	Problems are located in the individual, but individuals don't necessarily measure out equally across all various racial groups.
	Because if you took literally any group of people in a room and you drew a line down the middle of the group of people, forget about race, just statistically speaking, they would not be equal in outcome in any way.
	Any room in the world, you take a line, draw it randomly down the middle of the line, it will not be equal to people on the other sides of the room.
	Because again, when you aggregate individuals, there are always differences.
	This is just basic stats.
	Okay, this has nothing to do with race.
	But according to Ibram Kendi, if every individual does not end up with the same outcome, then you can blame the system.
	And the system is racist.
	And if you don't fight the system, you are not an anti-racist.
	So he says that either you believe that problems are rooted in individual behavior, which could be disproportionately affecting a group of people because of a culture that exists in a particular community.
	Culture doesn't matter here, right?
	Culture does not exist in this view of the world.
	Either it's groups of people, and so you're a racist because you believe groups of people are inferior, not the culture, not the people in a particular group disproportionately acting in a certain way because that happens statistically no matter which group you look at, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, right?
	It's either the groups or it's the system, and there is no third option.
	So you're either racist or you're anti-racist.
	And if you're anti-racist, you have to tear down the system from the inside.
	And if you have to tear down the system from the inside to be an anti-racist, that means shutting down all of the system's hallmarks.
	The culture of rights, free speech, free expression.
	These all must be torn down in the name of building a new, tolerant, better world.
	That is the goal here.
	That is what they're talking about.
	And as Kennedy says, one either allows racial inequities to persevere as a racist, or confronts racial inequities as an anti-racist.
	But he means racial inequalities.
	He means any inequality is an inequity.
	He openly says this.
	He says any inequality is a reflection of a racist system, and if you don't fight the system, then you are not anti-racist.
	And if you're not anti-racist, because you're not fighting the system, you are by definition racist.
	Because remember, there's a binary.
	There is no third category of not racist.
	It doesn't exist.
	That is what Elizabeth Warren is talking about.
	That is why the quote-unquote anti-racist movement driven by people like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi, that is why they're pushing for the destruction of the system, and it's why you are seeing the push for that movement existing at the same time as the push for more censorship.
	They don't have to be linked, but that is why they are linked.
	Okay, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content, including all the COVID stuff that I didn't get to and plenty of more material.
	Go check us out over at dailywire.com and go get a copy of my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps at dailywire.com slash Ben.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	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.
	Public health experts lock us down again, a wealthy couple brandishes guns against rioters, and the Supreme Court burns conservatives yet again.

▲