Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 17, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:03:48

Do You Speak Woke? | Ep. 1159

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Democrats continue to foster the creation of a woke elite class.
	AOC says Pelosi and Schumer should go.
	And Fauci cancels Christmas.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Stand up for your digital rights.
	Take action at expressvpn.com.
	We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
	First, you are spending way too much on your cell phone bill.
	I know because if you're spending with one of the big companies, by necessity, you are spending too much on your cell phone bills.
	Why?
	Because they are not clear about what you are actually getting for your money.
	When you ask them, they're not going to be completely transparent about what it is that you get.
	They'll tell you things like unlimited talk, unlimited text, and unlimited data.
	But do you actually need unlimited data?
	The answer is you probably do not.
	What you actually need is unlimited talk, text, and 2 gigs of data for just $20 a month.
	Your family could be saving over $800 a year just by switching to Pure Talk USA.
	You don't have to sacrifice coverage to do this, by the way.
	Pure Talk has the same coverage, same bars, as one of the big carriers, but they will charge you half.
	So, right now, grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro to get started on saving money on your cell phone bill.
	Again, same coverage as one of the big carriers, and you're spending like...
	A lot less money.
	Go check them out right now.
	And when you do, when you dial pound 250 and say my name, Ben Shapiro, you save 50% off your first month.
	Again, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro.
	Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
	You're paying for what you need instead of paying for a bunch of stuff you don't need, and you're saving yourself a bunch of money.
	Go check them out right now.
	Dial pound 250, say keyword Ben Shapiro.
	Get 50% off your first month of Pure Talk USA.
	Okay, so there's an ongoing problem in the country.
	It's something I've been talking about for a while.
	That problem is, of course, political division, political polarization.
	And some of that is rooted in the fact that there are real serious disagreements about the future of the country.
	As I talk about in my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, there are real divisions about what people think about the history of the United States, what people think about the philosophy of the United States, what people think about the culture of the United States, like real divisions on where we want to go.
	Some people want to end up in Denmark.
	They mistakenly believe that if we apply Denmark's policies in the United States, we'll end up with Denmark's results.
	That is not accurate.
	There are some people who wish to preserve traditional American liberties in the face of communalistic enterprises.
	These are very, very different visions, but it used to be that thanks to the federalist structure, thanks to the localism of the United States government, thanks to the fact that the federal government was not in charge of everything, and we had a system of checks and balances that prevented mob rule and pure majoritarian cram downs, that because of that, we were all able to live in a country together.
	You could live in California and live like a Californian and you didn't have to live like a Floridian or a Texan or an Alabamian and the same thing the other way around.
	You could live in a town where people agreed with you and the next town over people would disagree with you and you know what?
	Y'all shared the same country because you shared the same fundamental basic precepts.
	A lot of that seems to have been lost and that is being exacerbated right now by the creation of what Charles Murray called in his great book, Coming Apart, he called the new elite class, the new upper class is what he termed them.
	They really are the new ruling class.
	And if you trace the origins of those terms, what you really get to is something called the managerial elite.
	There was an author named James Burnham, famous conservative author who sort of started off as Marxist.
	And he suggested back in the 1940s that capitalism was creating a new managerial elite, meaning a group of people who had graduated from college who were in charge of managing the economy, who thought they were smarter than everybody else.
	They spoke their own language.
	They created their own cadre.
	And this has burst into full flower because right now what we have in the country Are a new managerial elite, a new ruling class, a new upper class, and they stand at the top of our institutions.
	They stand at the top of the Hollywood infrastructure.
	They stand at the top of our mainstream media.
	They stand at the top levels of administrative government.
	They stand at the top levels of sports, right?
	Every area of American life where institutions have power, with possibly the exception of some churches, All of those institutions are rife with a managerial elite, a new elite class.
	Now, when I say elite, I don't mean that these people are better than you in any real sense, or better than me in any real sense.
	What I mean is that they are deemed elite because of credentialism, because they can point to their degrees, they can point to the fact they went to really good schools.
	But there's something else that has happened.
	And it's not just that the meritocracy has produced people who went to colleges and now are in charge of things because they went to colleges.
	In fact, the truth is that so much of the credentialism that happens in our culture is a lie and stupid.
	The fact is that if you graduate top of your high school class and you don't go to college, you're going to perform at least as well as the person who graduated middle of the high school class and went to college and graduated in the bottom 50% of their class in college.
	So college is really not the dividing line.
	It's just that companies People around the country typically use colleges as a sort of way of rating IQ.
	We don't have these sort of broad IQ tests.
	So instead, what we have is people looking at your degree and then thinking you're smarter because you went to college than if you didn't go to college, which is a really blunt instrument and very often untrue.
	It's one of the reasons why we here at Daily Wire actually do not require a college degree in order to apply for our jobs.
	And we'd be hypocrites if we did, considering that two out of the three people who are at the top of the company are not college graduates.
	I'm the only college graduate at the top of our company.
	And the other two people who help run the company, Jeremy Boring and Caleb Robinson, they're very smart guys.
	Neither one of them graduated from college.
	I went to Harvard Law School.
	Does that mean that I'm superior to them in any real way?
	No, of course not.
	Of course not.
	Okay, so first of all, the credentialism is really bad.
	But there's something else that has happened here.
	And I could talk about the problems of credentialism and the breakdown in America between sort of the college-educated quote-unquote elite and everybody else.
	You could talk about that all day long because it has created tremendous pressures in the job market, particularly for non-college graduates.
	It has led to the rise of people putting in job requirements, college admission, Even though they don't really need it, right?
	If you're an administrative assistant, you really shouldn't have to have a college degree in order to get that.
	But now, because 36% of Americans have gone to college, as opposed to back in 1960, when like 5% of Americans went to college, it has become the de rigueur job requirement, even though a degree in gender studies is not gonna make you a better administrative assistant, for example.
	Okay, in any case, there's a bigger problem than that.
	Okay, a bigger problem than just the divide between college educated and non-college educated.
	That is the creation of a language.
	That is the creation of an actual language that has happened inside the new elite ruling class.
	So there's a process in evolutionary biology that is called signaling.
	Signaling happens in a wide variety of contexts.
	So signaling in evolutionary biology happens with regard to reproduction.
	You will see that certain birds, for example, have certain plumage, and this signifies that they are ready to reproduce.
	Okay, in evolutionary biology terms, signaling is a way of increasing your productive fitness.
	Signaling is also a way of increasing group productive fitness.
	So what I mean by that is that if you want your group to be more efficient, Then you can't afford to have kind of long conversations about who is in the group and who is out of the group.
	Instead, you look for simple signifiers.
	And the most simple signifiers are going to be things like the garb you wear.
	You can tell by how somebody dresses what they do.
	I can tell if somebody walks into a room wearing a white coat, there's a good shot that they're a medical doctor.
	If there's somebody who walks into a room wearing a police uniform, that is a signifier.
	These are all signifiers.
	But it is not merely You know, dress that is a signifier.
	It is also the activities that you take.
	So in religious communities, they're signifiers.
	So if you're an Orthodox Jew, you wear a yarmulke.
	This is a signifier to the other Jews that you're an Orthodox Jew, and it comes along with a whole bevy of practices.
	The practices themselves could be seen in evolutionary biology terms as signifiers, right?
	They could be seen as things that show solidarity with other people who practice these things, as well as a gateway into the mind of the person who's doing it, right?
	Because you've sacrificed things in order to do this sort of signaling.
	And the signal is an establishment of social capital with other people who share that signal.
	So this is why Thomas Sowell has talked about minority middlemen in various cultures, right?
	It's not just Orthodox Jews in the diamond industry in New York, right?
	who don't actually have to sign contracts because they have this sort of shared background, they have this shared social capital.
	But for example, you will see, for example, Chinese expatriates in certain parts of Southeast Asia, and they have created very solid social capital connections where they can trade more easily, they can do more things in terms of commerce than they could do outside the group because they know and trust the people that they are working with.
	Okay, so the United States used to have a set of shared signals, right?
	All of us had a set of shared signals.
	Those signals, and these are very important, are things like the flag.
	Right?
	The American flag.
	I may disagree with you on tax rates, but we agree that the flag stands for something good.
	Right?
	You and I, we can disagree on a lot of things, but we agree that the military is good.
	We agree that the founding fathers of the United States did something incredible.
	We agree on the Declaration.
	We agree on the Constitution.
	All of these things are signaling.
	Fourth of July parades are signaling.
	Fireworks are signaling.
	All of these things are signaling, and they are designed to create in-group cohesion, so that we all share something.
	And they are designed to also identify people who are not going to share that in-group cohesion as people you quote-unquote don't trust.
	What has happened in the United States right now is the creation of a new elite class who speaks a different signaling language.
	They speak their own language.
	And you can see the signals everywhere.
	Once you see they're speaking their own language, you understand so much of what's going on in American politics.
	We'll get to what exactly that language is in just one second, because it really is fascinating.
	And we're watching it happen in real time.
	And if you're wondering why there's this political polarization, it's because there's been the creation of a language that allows you access to the highest halls of power.
	It opens any door.
	It's like the shave and a haircut, shave and a haircut, two bits knock, right?
	That gets you into the secret club of the ruling classes.
	And it isn't that secret a language, right?
	You can learn it.
	But it's a really ugly language, and it's a bad language, and it has nothing to do with reality.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that you've had a lot to deal with this year.
	I think we've all had a lot to deal with this year.
	Don't overthink those holiday gifts.
	Since we've all been living in sweatpants anyway, give your loved ones some pro-level Tommy John loungewear.
	I'm talking, this is like the most comfortable stuff you're going to own.
	It is my go-to Shabbat wear when I am not in synagogue.
	This holiday season, Tommy John is making sure you can give the gift of comfort to everyone on your list and yourself with Tommy John Men's and Women's Loungewear.
	Say goodbye to old, stained sweatpants.
	Tommy John Loungewear is luxuriously soft, guaranteed to fit perfectly, with the same level of comfort and innovation that goes into everything Tommy John makes.
	Plus, Tommy John's loungewear, pajamas, underwear, come in limited edition sets perfect for gifting, but they sell out quickly.
	Tommy John.
	Go check them out right now.
	There's no risk.
	With Tommy John's Best Pair You'll Ever Wear, or it's free, guaranteed.
	They have great stuff for men.
	They have great stuff for women.
	My wife loves Tommy John products.
	Order now.
	Go to TommyJohn.com slash Ben for up to $30 off site-wide.
	And get last-minute holiday deals for a limited time only.
	Again, get up to $30 off for a limited time at TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	The best loungewear, underwear, their clothes are just fantastic.
	Tommyjohn.com, slash Ben, they grace this magnificent tuchus this very instant.
	Tommyjohn.com, slash Ben, to get up to $30 off.
	Okay, so, when we talk about signaling, the creation of the new upper class, the new elite, right, the new managerial class, it is not merely that they are united by their college degree.
	That is not enough of a signal.
	It is that they've created their own language, and that language requires you to speak A particular brand of jargon that most people find off-putting and also confusing because it is both off-putting and confusing.
	It is not meant to convey information.
	It is meant to do the opposite.
	It is not meant to clarify.
	It is meant to obscure.
	It is not meant to make yourself understood.
	It is meant to obfuscate because everybody is speaking in code.
	And if you speak to code, this means you're a good person.
	And if you don't speak to code, this means that you are a bad person.
	So Thomas Edsel, he's on the left, but he writes a really interesting column for the New York Times.
	It's kind of statistically based.
	He has a piece today in the New York Times titled, America, we have a problem.
	The rise of political sectarianism is putting us all in danger.
	And of course he says that that is the Republicans, right, who are engaged in political sectarianism based on many Republicans' refusal to accept the outcome of the election.
	Okay, but the reality is that what he's about to describe is a phenomenon that started on the left and then there has been a sort of a reverse sectarianism that has cropped up because people have been reacting to the fact that they've been excluded from the party.
	So there was a group of people in the United States, they decided that everybody else who was not in that group was bad.
	And then the people outside the party, they're like, you know what, you're bad.
	That is the story of America over the last 10, 15, 20 years.
	And so here is what Edsel says.
	He says, on October 30th, a group of 15 eminent scholars, several of whom I also got a chance to talk to, published an essay, Political Sectarianism in America, arguing that the antagonism between left and right The author's right.
	that words and phrases like effective polarization and tribalism were no longer sufficient to capture the level of partisan hostility.
	The severity of political conflict has grown increasingly divorced from the magnitude of policy disagreement, the authors write.
	So what they're saying is that people hate each other more than you would really think they should, given how our divides work in terms of philosophical questions.
	They say that this would require the development of a superordinate construct, political sectarianism, the tendency to adopt a moralized identification with one political group and against another.
	Political sectarianism, they argue, quote, consists of three core ingredients.
	Othering, the tendency to view opposing partisans as essentially different or alien to oneself.
	Aversion.
	Tendency to dislike and distrust opposing partisans.
	And moralization.
	The tendency to view opposing partisans as iniquitous.
	It is the confluence of these ingredients that makes sectarianism so corrosive in the political sphere.
	What does this do?
	Well, according to the authors, this incentivizes politicians to adopt anti-democratic tactics when pursuing electoral or political victories, since their supporters will justify such norm violation because, quote, the consequences of having the vile opposition win the election are catastrophic.
	Okay, so I agree with a lot of this analysis.
	I also think that we know who started this.
	Okay, the fact is that for decades, people who are on the political right have been castigated as immoral.
	People who are on the political left have been castigated by the right generally as misguided.
	People on the left see people on the right as evil and terrible.
	And this has been true my entire life.
	There's a view on the political left that people on the right are bad human beings who ought not be in public company.
	It's something I've noted on a personal level many times.
	I've invited a thousand different people on the left onto the show.
	Very few of them actually have the balls to appear on the show.
	And I'm talking about for like a cordial conversation on the Sunday special.
	And if you've ever watched the Sunday special, you understand it's not me grilling people.
	It's an actual just conversation.
	There are too many incidents like this to recall.
	People rejecting invites just to have a normal conversation.
	Not even a debate, just a normal conversation.
	I remember one time I was with one of the top podcasters, if not the top podcaster on the left, and I said, we should do a crossover election special.
	He said, your people would be fine with it, my people would kill me.
	That is the general phenomenon I'm talking about.
	I'm talking about what I've termed the happy birthday problem, which is even folks on the left, with whom I am friendly, will text me happy birthday, but they will never publicly say happy birthday on Twitter, lest they acknowledge that I was born of woman and am thus a human being.
	That sort of thing is not actually uncommon when it comes to the left-right divide.
	So let's go back to those ingredients for a second.
	Othering, the tendency to view opposing partisans as essentially different or alien to oneself.
	Do you get that more from the right or do you get that more from the left?
	It certainly started on the left.
	There was this view that Republicans were, in the words of Barack Obama, bitter clingers who were clinging to God and guns and xenophobia.
	In the words of Hillary Clinton, if you were deplorable, you're a person who believed in religion and that belief in religion had to be rethought.
	Okay, aversion, the tendency to dislike and distrust opposing partisans.
	Okay, I mean, just in the last two days, General Malley Dillon, who's gonna be one of the top staffers in the Biden team, right?
	She came out and she said that Republicans were effers.
	And so aversion is definitely a strong reaction.
	It is the reaction that people on the left have to people on the right.
	People on the right do not have that same strong aversion to people on the left.
	It's just not something I've seen.
	If they do, it is a minority phenomenon and it is a very recent phenomenon, more importantly.
	For as long as I have been alive, people on the right have been treated as though they are social lepers in the context of being in liberal environments.
	And finally, moralization, the tendency to view opposing partisans as iniquitous.
	So basically, we are talking here about what almost seems to be a religious worldview, which is why the authors of this study are using the term sectarianism.
	Normally, when you use the term sectarianism, you're not talking about politics, you're talking about religion.
	You're talking about Shia versus Sunni or Catholic versus Protestant before the Peace of Westphalia.
	You're talking about sects that fight each other because they have mutually exclusive views of the world.
	So how do those sects connect with one another?
	How do you determine who is in what sect?
	And here is where the signaling that I'm talking about comes in.
	That signaling, again, has nothing to do with an actual cohesive political point of view.
	It has to do with signaling to other people that you are part of the in-group.
	And you can see it in how folks on the left now approach language.
	I can see it clearly over and over and over again.
	This is not meant... The linguistic tricks that the left likes to play are not meant to make politics more clear.
	They are meant to be a screen, right?
	They are essentially just a sifter to make sure that people who don't speak the language don't get through.
	We'll get to what exactly that language looks like in just one second because the signifiers are everywhere around you.
	And if you've been wondering what the hell people are talking about, They're just speaking in pig Latin, right?
	It's pig Latin.
	It's just a way for them and their friends to know what exactly they are talking about.
	That they are part of the same in-group.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First...
	Let us talk about the fact that your business, you've had to get flexible.
	You've had to be fast acting during this pandemic.
	Well, this is why you need ZipRecruiter.
	Businesses have had to be flexible this year from working remotely to pivoting their business models for long-term survival and growth.
	If you're in charge of hiring for your business, these pivots have made your job even more challenging, especially if you have to hire for brand new roles.
	Thankfully, There's one place you can always count on to make hiring faster and easier.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	When you post a job on ZipRecruiter, it gets sent out to over 100 top job boards with one click.
	Then, ZipRecruiter's powerful technology finds people with the right skills and experience for your job and actively invites them to apply.
	It's no wonder.
	Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	See for yourself.
	Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E DailyWire.com ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is how you're gonna get that special deal.
	Let ZipRecruiter take hiring off your plate.
	You can focus on growing your business, get the best possible employees.
	And by the way, if you are a prospective employee, you can hook up with employers really quickly and easily.
	Head on over to ZipRecruiter.com.
	Slash daily wires.
	A broker is indeed.
	The smartest way to hire.
	Okay, so the code that has been created is not a code that unifies members across classes.
	It is, in fact, a class-based code.
	In order to understand it, you have to have gone to a university, and you have to have studied inside the sort of intersectional philosophy of universities.
	You have to get woke.
	You have to understand that all the structures that surround you are simply structures of oppression and power.
	This is a language.
	It's not a philosophy as much as it is.
	A language.
	And it alienates everybody.
	The folks on the left who push this sort of stuff are the sort of folks who insist on terms.
	And you can see, again, here's the code, okay?
	If somebody uses the word latinx, they are part of this.
	If somebody uses the word latinx, it's because they are signaling to their other members of the left that they are a member of their sect.
	And that you are not a member of the sect.
	They speak the lingo.
	This is why, by the way, Trump won a larger share of Hispanics than in the past.
	Because many Latinos do not actually speak this language.
	Many Latinos look at this language and say, what the hell are you talking about?
	That's not how we talk about ourselves.
	But if you're on the left, understand it is not about reaching out to Latinos by using the term latinxes.
	The reason they are using latinx is because this is part of gender theory, right?
	The basic idea is that the term Latino is male.
	There are such things as female Latinas.
	And so, since you are saying Latinos, and the plural encompasses Latinas as well, instead they just say Latinxs.
	Okay, you know how many people who are Latino care about this?
	Particularly women who are Latino?
	Zero.
	Zero.
	It's like, they've taken polls of this.
	Latinos do not want to call themselves Latinxs because it's bullcrap.
	It's nonsense.
	They understand how their own language works.
	They understand how gendered terminology works.
	Okay, but it's not about reaching out to Latinos.
	It's about reaching out to fellow members of the intellectual elite.
	It is about reaching out to other members of the ruling class.
	Here's another way that you can tell, right?
	Here's more of the signaling.
	And again, it's about in-group signaling.
	It's about creation of a hard uppercast caste who are not going to accept you into their realm unless you speak, unless you abide by their language.
	So here's another example.
	Anybody who puts their gender pronouns in their Twitter profile or in the bottom header of their email is part of this.
	I'm not saying this is a conspiracy.
	It's not a conspiracy.
	We all do this sort of soft signaling every day, where we all use signals that generate commonalities between us and other people.
	We do it all the time.
	But this is its own language and it's developing into its own.
	It's got its own lexicon.
	It's got its own jargon.
	It is connected to some deeper philosophical roots, springing all the way back to deconstructionism.
	Spring back to Jacques Derrida and folks like Michel Foucault.
	They're actual deep roots.
	To get into those deep philosophical roots would take a little bit of time.
	The basic synopsis is this.
	The deconstructionist movement believed that there is no such thing as objective truth, that everything is shaped by the language we speak, and therefore that all language is representative of structures of power.
	Okay, the left has taken that up, and they have grafted onto it identity politics.
	So deconstructionists would have said that race itself is a social construct.
	Many of the gender and identity politics folks will say simultaneously that race and gender are social constructs, but also that they are deeply important for understanding how the world works in terms of its systems of power.
	These are mutually exclusive propositions.
	None of that matters.
	Because most people who speak this language don't even understand the philosophical roots of their language.
	It's all about the signaling.
	So, here's some of the signaling.
	If you are using ji and zhe, And they and them, to refer to an individual human being.
	This is because you're signaling in-group solidarity.
	This is why, like, everyone could just assume that if you are a female who identifies as a female, that we're going to use she and her.
	But you see people who are putting this in their Twitter profile, not out of solidarity with the transgender community, but because they wish to show that they are part of the woke.
	They are part of the enlightened.
	So now we have this, but, and the people who do this are at the tops of our institutional culture.
	This is why you have Cartoon Network, which, it's a cartoon network.
	Yes, they have Adult Swim, but it is a network that is meant for children.
	Now attempting to indoctrinate children in this particular lexicon, because it's not enough that they speak this language, it's that you have to speak the language too.
	In a sectarian war, you have to make sure that people know the rights.
	And people know the rituals, and this is part of the rights and rituals, is adopting this sort of bizarre language and this bizarre philosophy of gender that nobody actually understands because it is utterly, internally incoherent.
	So Cartoon Network put out a tweet yesterday.
	Here's to not only normalizing gender pronouns, but respecting them too.
	Whether you use he, she, them, or something else, we acknowledge and love you.
	Right?
	Because this is all the things, right?
	This is the elements that were just mentioned in that Edsel column.
	That tweet signifies all of them, right?
	It's othering.
	If you don't agree with us, then you are a member of an outgroup.
	It is treating people as though they are bizarre and exterior, and it is moralizing.
	You are not loving and you are not good unless you use the sort of language that we want you to use, even if that language is actually counter to reality, counter to biology, and counter to the ability to communicate clear ideas.
	So they put out this tweet and it has several graphics of cartoon characters.
	One cartoon character says gender pronouns describe a person's gender identity.
	Another one says examples of pronouns are she her, they them, and she's her.
	A third character says a lot of people are learning about gender.
	If you're comfortable, you can share your own gender pronouns.
	And then it says underneath, gender pronouns.
	We can't tell someone's gender just by looking at them and shouldn't assume we know.
	There are many gender identities beyond girl or boy.
	Some people don't identify as any gender.
	Okay, this is just indoctrination into nonsense because there is no biological basis to this.
	It is just semantic game playing, but it's not about actually making the world a better place.
	It's about in-group signaling that you are a member of the loving woke.
	Hey, that's what Cartoon Network is doing right there.
	And if you refuse to speak the language, then you are cast out into the outer darkness.
	And this sort of language characterizes everything that is happening in our politics right now.
	Gavin Newsom, yesterday, he was tweeting out about the Trump administration saying it would be cutting $200 million in federal health care funding to California because the state requires insurance providers to cover abortions, right?
	Which is a normal political issue.
	You'll see Democrats attempt to hold back funds based on pro-life positions.
	You'll see Republicans attempt to hold back funds based on anti-life positions.
	Here's Gavin Newsom's tweet.
	That is in-group signaling.
	like the pro-life party eliminating healthcare during a global pandemic.
	California will survive without this dollars for now, but their frail, pathetic, patriarchal system, they are so desperate to protect won't.
	Right, that is in-group signaling.
	When he uses the word patriarchal, you might say to yourself, wait, Gavin Newsom is a dude, isn't he?
	Yes, he is.
	You might say, isn't he the governor of California?
	You know, the head of that system?
	Yes, he is.
	You might say, well, isn't that system, well, wasn't that created by men?
	The one that he's taking advantage of?
	Yes, it is.
	It's not about that.
	It's about signaling to everybody else, he speaks the lingo.
	The lingo, again, that secret knock, the lingo is terms like patriarchal, terms like systemic injustice, terms like, je jeur, zay, zam, whom, him, femme, plume.
	All of this crap is designed for one thing and one thing only, and that is to create a secret handshake of the upper crust.
	That's what that is.
	We'll get to more of this in a second because you see how this is both driving a backlash and also how this has infused every aspect of the Democratic agenda.
	This language is more important than the actual policy.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, what do millions of Americans and three former U.S.
	presidents have in common?
	Well, they all agree that Bull & Branch Sheets are the softest, most comfortable, pure organic cotton sheets on Earth.
	We've all been spending a lot of time at home.
	You haven't really thought about the sheets on your bed.
	You really should, because it makes a big difference.
	You're spending hours and hours every night upon those sheets.
	Bull & Branch Cotton.
	It's rain-fed, pesticide-free, carries the highest organic certification.
	That's why it's so soft.
	Because they work with family-owned mills all over the world to expertly weave every set of Bull & Branch Sheets with the highest level of craftsmanship.
	It's quality you can feel the moment you open the box.
	And since they sell direct to you, Bull and Branch sheets start at just $160.
	They are $1,000 quality for a fraction of the price.
	Plus, you can sleep on them for a month, risk-free, so you can try them out.
	Bull and Branch sheets, by the way, they're so good that when I got them, we literally had to throw out all of our other sheets.
	Like, they just were not up to snuff.
	That's how good Bull and Branch is.
	They ruined other sheets for us.
	Right now, you'll get $50 off any sheet set at bullandbranch.com with promo code Ben Shapiro.
	Makes a great holiday gift.
	It is spelled B-O-L-L and branch.com.
	Promo code Ben Shapiro for 50 bucks off.
	Bull and branch.com.
	Promo code Ben Shapiro.
	Restrictions may apply.
	$200 order minimum.
	See bullandbranch.com for details.
	Alrighty, so the sort of in-group woke signaling does drive a reverse signaling on the part of the right.
	But that signaling used to be stuff that people sort of considered rote and uncontroversial.
	So for example, the left is very angry today because David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both the senators from Georgia, who are in very competitive runoff races right now, opposed renaming the Atlanta Braves.
	And people are like, why are they even commenting on this?
	The answer is because this is also a form of in-group signaling.
	This is signaling to their own constituents that they are not a member of the woke elite class.
	They are not going to speak that language.
	So a counter language has formed in rejection of this language.
	Now, I'm not saying they're wrong, because they're not.
	I totally agree with them.
	I don't think that the Atlanta Braves is an insulting name.
	I don't think the Cleveland Indians was an insulting name.
	I mean, even if you want to make the case that the Washington Redskins was an insulting name, which, again, is controversial and I don't really agree with, even if you want to make that case, there's a world of separation between using the term Redskin and using the term Indians, Braves, or like Kansas City Chiefs, right?
	You can see the difference on its face.
	Three of those terms cannot have even been construed as derogatory toward a particular group of people.
	Okay, but the idea here from Leffler and Perdue is this is again a form of in-group social signaling.
	It is saying that the wokes should not be able to take away sort of common items that we used to hold in common.
	So, Leffler and Perdue released a joint statement on Monday.
	They said not only are the Braves a Georgian institution, with a history spanning 54 years in Atlanta, they're an American institution.
	The Braves name honors our nation's Native American heritage, which should not be erased.
	Under no circumstances should one of the most celebrated teams in sports cave to the demands of the cancel culture and the radical left.
	Only 20% of Georgia voters surveyed said they believe that the baseball team needs to change its name.
	More than 70% of voters say the name should be kept.
	That is one of the reasons why they are making that move.
	That's one of the reasons they're saying this sort of stuff.
	Because so much of our culture war is reliant on this linguistic semantic war.
	The language is reflective of a deeper culture war that is taking place.
	And now, you can see in the Biden team, the adoption of this language.
	You can see it everywhere in the adoption of the language of the radical upper class elite.
	So Joe Biden, he comes into office January 20th, the Electoral College has voted, and he's going to be speaking this language nonstop.
	Now, he's going to lie.
	He's going to say that he is a unifier, that if you speak this language, it is essentially a disunifying language.
	It is the language that suggests the inferiority of your political opponents.
	So, Biden has decided on a few of his appointments that are worthy of note.
	So, his first appointment that was getting all sorts of play is, of course, Pete Buttigieg.
	So, Pete Buttigieg was nominated as Secretary of Transportation, or he will be nominated as Secretary of Transportation when they have the ability to do so.
	And the media, of course, are slobbering all over themselves that Pete Buttigieg will be nominated as Secretary of Transportation.
	So, here is Jeff Bennett on MSNBC reporting.
	This really is the culmination of Pete Buttigieg's meteoric rise in national politics over the last two years.
	It is nothing short of remarkable that a president-elect would elevate someone to run an agency, a $90 billion agency with some 50,000 employees, and the person he's elevating has never worked in Washington politics and has never run any part of a federal bureaucracy.
	But Joe Biden believes that Pete Buttigieg is a special case.
	Okay, so I love how MSNBC is reporting this, right?
	It's with a smile on their face, right?
	Sure, Pete Buttigieg doesn't know the first thing about transportation policy.
	Sure, he didn't even fill the potholes in South Bend, real story.
	Domino's Pizza had to donate money to fill potholes in South Bend while he was mayor.
	But he's a unique case.
	So what makes him a unique case?
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	What could make Pete Buttigieg a unique case?
	What makes him so unique?
	Well, why don't you let the media tell you?
	By the way, everything they're about to say here is false.
	Rick Grenell was the first cabinet-level official who was openly gay under Trump, who was the acting DNI Director of National Intelligence for a period.
	Anyway, here is the entire media suggesting what is actually special about Pete Buttigieg, and that is, of course, his identity as a gay man.
	Buttigieg would become the first openly gay cabinet secretary confirmed by the U.S.
	Senate.
	In nominating Pete Buttigieg, he is nominating someone who would be the youngest cabinet secretary ever.
	Also the first openly gay cabinet secretary in American history.
	Buttigieg would be the first openly gay cabinet secretary in U.S.
	history.
	Former mayor of South Bend, Indiana would be one of the youngest cabinet members since Alexander Hamilton and the first openly gay cabinet secretary.
	Pete Buttigieg, if confirmed, would also be the first openly gay member of Mr. Biden's cabinet.
	So many historic firsts, I guess, as well.
	Okay, so that's all that matters, right?
	It doesn't matter whether he's qualified for the position.
	And unless you feel that this is a very important thing, that somebody who is openly gay becomes the second.
	Second.
	person to serve in a cabinet, right?
	You heard that the first person actually said one thing that you hear them qualifying it, right?
	Some of them will say, well, he'll be the first openly gay cabinet secretary approved by the Senate, right?
	Because Rick Grinnell was not approved by the Senate.
	He was he was an interim replacement as acting director of national intelligence, which honestly, now you're having to really stretch.
	Now you're like, well, look at that.
	You know, this person was the first person to the Chinese were the first people to land on the moon, that side of the moon.
	Okay, I mean, true as far as it goes, you might be missing some things in that particular story.
	In any case, the real reason that Pete Buttigieg is beloved of the left is because he speaks the language of the left.
	So here was Pete Buttigieg yesterday talking about transportation, and he's about to drop just a hot bevy of At its best, transportation makes the American dream possible.
	Getting people and goods to where they need to be.
	people to judge doing some in-group signaling about the power of transportation to shape and then insert woke buzzword. Here we go. At its best, transportation makes the American dream possible, getting people and goods to where they need to be, directly and indirectly creating good paying jobs. At its worst, misguided policies and missed opportunities can reinforce racial, economic and environmental injustice.
	This administration can deliver policies and resources that will create jobs, rise to the climate challenge, And equitably serve all Americans.
	Okay, so you can hear the lingo, right?
	Equitably, right?
	Not serve all Americans, you know, with regard to equal rights, but equitably, right?
	It can change economic injustice.
	What the hell is economic injustice?
	And normally when you speak about justice, that's a term everybody understands.
	People get what they deserve.
	Economic injustice suggests that in a free market, he should be using the power of the roads, redistributing income, or environmental justice.
	What does that mean?
	Like justice for the earth?
	No, it means that the entire system is, of course, broken and you need the government to come in and fix the system, right?
	These are all buzzwords, right?
	He's speaking of the lingo.
	That is the important thing about Pete Buttigieg, which is one of the reasons why he... Pete Buttigieg shares a position as a member of the new ruling class with the members of the media who also speak this language.
	They use exactly the same kind of buzzwords in their reporting.
	Like, exactly the same kind of buzzwords in their reporting.
	All the time.
	Okay, so they and Buttigieg have more in common than you and the media.
	The media have nothing in common with you.
	You don't speak the language they're speaking, but they speak the language he is speaking.
	They may as well be speaking Norwegian with each other, while you and the media just are speaking completely different languages.
	This is why there's this wide disconnect that is opening, and this is why the media will just look the other way at the fact that Buttigieg has no qualifications whatsoever to be Secretary of Transportation.
	I remember when Dr. Ben Carson was nominated the head of housing and urban development, a pick that even I thought was somewhat bizarre since he had no actual expertise in housing or urban development.
	The media went nuts on that, and I thought, okay, well, you know, that's kind of true.
	I mean, Dr. Carson was a neuroscientist, like, he was a neurosurgeon.
	But I hold the same standard.
	Pete Buttigieg has no expertise on this sort of stuff.
	Doesn't matter.
	The media are just in love with him.
	By the way, what is Pete Buttigieg's actual claim to be qualified for this position?
	Here was his actual claim to be qualified for this position.
	I've also had a personal love of transportation ever since childhood.
	More than once as a college student, I would convince a friend to travel nearly a thousand miles back to Indiana with me on Amtrak.
	Though I know that in this administration, I will at best aspire to be the second biggest train enthusiast around.
	I spent a spring break in graduate school aboard a cargo ship, studying there.
	Travel, in my mind, is synonymous with growth, with adventure, even love.
	So much so that I proposed to my husband, Chasten, in an airport terminal.
	So, he should be Secretary of Transportation because he loves choo-choo trains.
	And has loved choo-choo trains since he was a child.
	By which metric, my four-year-old son should be Secretary of Transportation?
	Also, I gotta say, if you think that airport terminals are like a really romantic place, I suggest you visit Newark, sir.
	Yes, nothing says romance quite like being in a place filled with people who are farting and taking off their shoes.
	That is the essence of romance to me as well.
	It is the peculiar grime of LAX that really gets my heart aflutter.
	Also, by the way, even if you love airport terminals, I mean, and you really have to love airport terminals, then I'm wondering how that makes you qualified to be Secretary of Transportation.
	Like, I proposed to my wife, for the record, in her college residential dorm, and that would not qualify me to either be Secretary of Education or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
	So that's a weird take, but the media are just going to look right past that.
	None of that matters because he speaks the language.
	He speaks the language.
	And we're going to speak in a second about people who Biden nominated who didn't quite speak the language.
	And now he's going to have to replace those people because they didn't speak the language.
	We'll get to this in just one second.
	First.
	Let us talk about the fact that you are making a large mistake if you are not protecting yourself against malware and ransomware.
	If you ever had ransomware hit your computer, it is a bad, bad thing.
	Or malware, my goodness.
	That hits your computer and you're basically screwed for like a month.
	They take your computer away and then they have to clean it.
	They set it back to factory settings.
	That's like best case scenario.
	So what should you be doing?
	Well, you should head out and get PCmatic right now.
	It's a next generation antivirus designed to stop modern threats like ransomware.
	Independent testing firm AV-Test just named PCmatic as a top performer in the cybersecurity industry, giving it the best performance award for 2019.
	Only PCmatic has American research, development, and support.
	PCmatic's competition is foreign-made, often in countries where malware originates.
	PCmatic will block annoying and malicious ads for hassle-free web browsing, makes your computer faster and more reliable even after years of use.
	PCmatic protects Windows computers, including XP Vista Windows 7, 8, and 10, Windows Server's Mac, MacBooks, Android phones, and tablets.
	It's just 50 bucks for five devices for one year, full 30-day money-back guarantee.
	If you act right now, PCmatic has offered my listeners a free month of security protection with the purchase of that annual license.
	To access the offer, go to PCmatic.com slash Ben, protect your computer.
	Go do it right now.
	Get world-class security that keeps your computer running great.
	Go to PCmatic.com slash Ben.
	We're gonna get to more of this in just one second.
	The determination.
	By Biden and by the Democrats to stack the top levels of power with people who speak the lingo.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, on Monday, December 21st, the historical docuseries of Apollo 11, What We Saw, will soon be available exclusively at DailyWire.com.
	Originally released as an audio podcast for Apple and Spotify, What We Saw will be available to watch as well as listen.
	On dailywire apple tv or roku app or at dailywire.com.
	That docu-series takes a detailed look at the Apollo 11 mission to land a man on the moon.
	It was the culmination of a heated decades-long space race between Cold War rivals the U.S.
	and the Soviet Union.
	The podcast explores one of America's greatest accomplishments through the eyes of the millions of Americans who lived through it.
	It's a dramatically inspiring story.
	Apollo 11.
	What we saw.
	Go check it out right now.
	Right now you get it for 20% off with code WATCH When you become an insider or above member at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	By the way, when you become an insider member or above at dailywire, you get all sorts of goodies.
	I mean, we're talking about like all access live, we're talking about your ability to have your question read in the mailbag, like all sorts of good stuff happening.
	Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	Get 20% off your membership with code WATCH and access to all of our new and existing content.
	Also, Make sure to tune in to Daily Wire's Backstage this Monday, the 21st, 8 p.m.
	Eastern, 5 p.m.
	Pacific, for a special December Christmas episode.
	Backstage, if you've never seen it because it's been a while, is where all of the hosts get together and we all hang out with one another and they drink manly drinks and I drink margaritas and cold...
	Good-tasting, slushy, girly drinks, and it's fantastic.
	You'll enjoy it more than I will, probably, because I have to be on set with these guys, but it is really a lot of fun.
	You'll enjoy it.
	Go check it out right now.
	become a subscriber at dailywire.com slash subscribe code watch for 20% off your listening to the largest, fastest growing podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So if you don't speak the upper crust lingo, it doesn't matter if you're even a political leftist.
	It means that you are out on your butt.
	Here's a great example.
	So according to the New York Times, claims of a bleak environmental justice record appear to fell a Biden favorite.
	Now, you're a normal human and you say, what the hell is environmental justice?
	Are we talking about, like, the sun has filed a lawsuit?
	Or the clean air or the water?
	No, that's not what it means, you big silly!
	What it actually means is that America's racist, systemically evil, and that even if you back anti-climate change policies like cap-and-trade policies or carbon regulations, that's not good enough because you have to redistribute income, you have to redistribute everything in order to wreck the system from the inside.
	And if you don't speak the language of environmental justice, even if you are a far leftist when it comes to climate change, that's not good enough.
	You don't speak the lingo.
	So just like a lot of other religions, the more devoted you are to the religion, the more ritual you have to perform.
	This is also true when it comes to woke signaling.
	According to Coral Davenport, when Joe Biden won the presidential election, his top candidate to lead the nation's most powerful environmental agency appeared clear.
	Mary Nichols, California's clean air regulator, arguably the country's most experienced climate change official.
	Again, this is all jargon.
	to run the EPA. Now Biden's team is scrambling to find somebody else, according to several people who have spoken with the presidential transition team. The chief reason, this month a group of more than 70 environmental justice groups wrote to the Biden transition, charging that Ms. Nichols has a bleak track record in addressing environmental racism.
	Ah, environmental race, again, this is all jargon. Environmental racism is an interior, it's an internally foolish concept.
	The environment applies to everyone equally, but, and we all share it, this is one of the problems, this is a tragedy of the commons, right?
	But what they mean by environmental racism is that the impact of particular environmental policy fall unequally on people, and therefore it is the job of the government to fix all of that.
	And this lady has not done enough to fix all of that, right?
	In other words, she has not connected her sort of Green New Deal ideas with a redistributionist far-left program the way that the AOC wing of the party would like.
	The environmental justice groups cited Nichols' role in pushing California's cap-and-trade program, which is designed to broadly reduce pollution of planet-warming greenhouse gases, but disproportionately does so at the expense, the group said, of communities of color by exposing them to more pollutants like smog and soot.
	The groups charged that Ms.
	Nichols had repeatedly disregarded or dismissed the concerns of those communities about the effects of the climate policies she enacted.
	The letter appears to have resonated.
	One of Biden's key campaign pledges was a promise to address environmental justice.
	Again, these are all buzzwords.
	Environmental justice, economic justice, systemic racism, right?
	All of this stuff is meant just to signal your allegiance to a particular viewpoint and to a belief that you are superior to everybody else within the political realm.
	And this is why you're starting to see somebody like a Brenda Mallory is going to be picked to run the White House Environment Office.
	Why?
	Here's the New York Times.
	The office, the Council on Environmental Quality is expected to have an expanded focus on environmental justice under Ms.
	Mallory.
	There it is.
	There's that signaling.
	The New York Times understands it.
	Biden understands it.
	His people understand it.
	You don't know what the hell they're talking about, but they know what they're talking about.
	And that's the important part.
	And if you don't understand what they're talking about, it's because you're a member of the unwashed.
	So keep your mouth shut or just say environmental justice over and over until Tinkerbell redistributes income all over the United States, thus creating environmental justice.
	Ms.
	Mallory, according to the New York Times, who serves as Director of the Regulatory Policy at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a watchdog group, has worked on both pollution and land conservation issues throughout her career, including helping to create new national monuments under the Obama administration and fighting the dismantlement of those monuments under the Trump administration.
	Biden has pledged to make addressing racial disparities in environmental policies a core part of his climate agenda.
	Again, when it comes to the woke language, all this stuff is lumped together, right?
	Environmental injustice, economic justice, racial injustice, all of this is just balled together so that the same policy solves all of it.
	Redistributionism.
	And if you don't repeat their nostrums, it can't be part of the cool kids crowd.
	So who is part of the cool kids crowd?
	Well, there are now a couple of people who Biden is considering for Secretary of Education, One is Leslie Fenwick, Dean Emeritus of the Howard University School of Education and Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership.
	Okay, so we know something about Fenwick.
	And the thing we know about Fenwick is that Fenwick is a person who speaks the lingo.
	We also know that Fenwick is diverse.
	As a candidate, Biden promised to choose a public school educator as secretary, raising expectations the nominee would come from K-12.
	He's also expected to name a person of color to the post.
	And most of the people considered have been Black and Latino.
	Or Latino.
	Fenwick is Black.
	Okay, so here is Fenwick speaking very recently.
	This is a video published in September.
	Talking about ideas to broaden educational opportunities for black students, like for-profit charter schools and taxpayer-funded private school vouchers, right?
	Things that allow school choice, particularly directed at inner cities, because kids in inner cities are stuck at their crappy public schools.
	And what does she say about it?
	She says they're bad.
	They're not just bad, by the way, they're evil, right?
	They are schemes, right?
	She's engaged in exactly the sort of sectarianism, political sectarianism, that Thomas Edsel was decrying in the New York Times.
	And she is being considered for the head of the Department of Education.
	Here she is declaring school choice to be a scheme rooted in a desire to segregate, which is a really weird take considering that school choice would specifically be designed at unsegregating informal segregation, right?
	It would allow people from the inner city to actually take their kids and put them in a school outside of their school district.
	Here she was using the lingo, and all that matters is the lingo.
	The courts have challenged vouchers, charters, the placement of teachers and training as teachers of record.
	So this disproportionate.
	Placement of non-certified teachers primarily in schools serving black, brown and poor children.
	And these schemes are often viewed as new and innovative.
	But when you look at the history of these schemes, and I use the word schemes purposely, you find that they are rooted in resistance to the brown legal decision.
	Uh, it's all, it's all about, again, it's all about trying to connect everything to this broader narrative.
	And you have to understand the narrative by speaking their magical language.
	The good news is that all of Hollywood speaks the language.
	So you have the entire educational infrastructure that speaks the language.
	In fact, much of this language was created inside our ivory tower.
	Members of the Democratic Party speak this language, and Hollywood, of course, speaks this language, which is why you are seeing folks like Bob Iger being considered for ambassador to China, which makes perfect sense.
	Disney was recently ripped, like, up and down this year because they filmed Mulan in Xinjiang province, which is the area where the Uyghurs are being kept in concentration camps.
	And ESPN has been ripped up and down for being pro-Chinese.
	So naturally, Biden's like, you know who we should make ambassador to China?
	The head of Disney, ESPN.
	Makes perfect sense.
	Makes perfect sense.
	Other people who are being considered and also speak the lingo, people like Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of DreamWorks.
	Other people?
	Susan Rice.
	She stepped down.
	She was on the board of Netflix.
	And she stepped down to join the White House Domestic Policy Council.
	Nicole Avant, former ambassador to the Bahamas during the Obama administration, wife of Netflix co-CEO and chief content officer Ted Sarandos, is seeking a return to diplomatic life.
	Yeah, I mean, if you made me ambassador to the Bahamas, I'd also love to be in diplomatic life.
	That sounds pretty spectacular.
	So good times all the way around.
	It's all about the creation of this specific elite cadre.
	That is what the entire thing is about.
	And you're not part of that cadre.
	You are not, because you don't speak the language or you refuse to speak the language.
	Now, the bad news is that inside the coalition of the new ruling class, the language is constantly shifting.
	You always have to go one level up, right?
	You thought that you were woke enough.
	You thought that you were social justice oriented enough, but now there's another level.
	All you have to do is pay the grifters a little bit more money so that you can learn the new language, and then you two will rise in esteem and you can maintain your membership.
	It's like an ongoing club membership.
	You have to just continue to use more and more bizarre language.
	And this is what the squad is doing.
	Because the squad are the most devout of the devout.
	They're like the most devout members of the sect, and they get to dictate the terms for the most devout.
	You want to be the interior core?
	What you really need to do is acquiesce to their use of language.
	Okay, and by the way, once you're in the club, you cannot be cast out of the club.
	This is the good news.
	Once you're in the club, so long as you don't piss off the other members of the club, no attack will have any impact on you.
	So you can be Eric Swalwell.
	In all likelihood, having sex with a Chinese spy.
	And you will still maintain your position on the Intelligence Committee because you are a member of the club.
	You speak the language.
	Here's Hakeem Jeffries, one of the higher-ups in the Democratic Congress, saying that Eric Swalwell would... Why would we take him off the Intel Committee?
	I mean, he was only probably effing a Chinese spy.
	Why would we... You think that jeopardizes national security?
	I mean, hell, it's not like... It's not like he had a phone call as the incoming national security advisor with the Russians or something.
	He was only having sex with a Chinese spy, in all likelihood.
	Here's Hakeem Jeffries.
	Well, I believe Speaker Pelosi has addressed this issue.
	She's got full confidence in Representative Swalwell.
	I have full confidence in Representative Swalwell.
	I served with him on the Judiciary Committee as well.
	He's been a tremendous member.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile, you've got Jon Ossoff, who's running for Georgia Senate right now, and he too is engaged in this sort of buzz wordification.
	Here he was saying that all the GOP attacks in Georgia I think that the GOP attacks at this point are garden variety, fear mongering, race baiting.
	Look, they've been lengthening my nose in their ads to remind everybody that I'm a Jew.
	They've been running racist attacks against Reverend Warnock.
	It sounds like you're saying the Republican attacks are functionally racist and potentially anti-Semitic.
	Well, when they're lengthening my nose in their ads, uh, and when they're, uh, calling Reverend Warnock dangerous, I mean, look, this is the playbook that they've run here since the 1970s.
	The GOP's southern strategy in the south is to divide people alon- I had no idea Asaf was Jewish.
	Like, really, like, no idea Asaf was Jewish.
	I'm not sure why I would care exactly, but as far as Warnock being dangerous, he is dangerous.
	He's a Marxist.
	That's kind of dangerous to have in the United States Senate.
	Now, the only good news for people who don't speak the lingo is that, again, the lingo gets more and more rigorous, which is why you have Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, Honorable Representative D-Twitch.
	Saying that it may be time to move on to the next generation of people who speak the new lingo because of course the dictionary of wokeism gets remade every few years.
	Here is Alexander Ocasio-Cortez saying it's time to move beyond the current democratic leadership into a new era of more woke language.
	I do think that we need new leadership in the Democratic Party.
	I think one of the things that I have struggled with, I think that a lot of people struggle with, is the internal dynamics of the House has made it such that there's very little option for succession, if you will, you know, and I think that one could just I think it's easy for someone to say, oh, well, you know, why don't you run?
	But the House is extraordinarily complex and I'm not ready.
	It can't be me.
	I know that I couldn't do that job.
	Oh, yeah.
	Until the next five minutes, when she declares that the old folks, I mean, she already did this, right?
	About a year ago, she suggested that she was going to turn the language woke on the Democratic leadership.
	So that's the only good news, is that the woke tend to eat their own if they don't move fast enough with them.
	Okay, so how do you reject all this?
	The way that you reject all of this is by rejecting the language of wokeism.
	The language of wokeism has to be rejected at every turn.
	Okay, meanwhile, let us talk about the latest developments with regard to COVID.
	So, Right now, a COVID relief bill is on the table.
	According to CNN, congressional leaders, after months of a bitter stalemate, and as millions of Americans have been eager for relief, are finally indicating they're nearing a deal on a new rescue package that could pass both chambers within days.
	And it's pretty obvious that Democrats were holding this thing up so they could blame Republicans.
	Nancy Pelosi said so openly.
	She said we weren't going to do this in the lead up to the election because now we've had an election and now things are magically different.
	And Mitch McConnell acknowledged the other day that Pelosi has basically succeeded in this because the media are her lapdogs and they will do whatever she wants them to do.
	And the media will simply suggest the Republicans held up a relief bill when they did not.
	They proposed a relief bill, what, four months ago?
	The Democrats have been holding up over and over and over.
	They wouldn't even allow a vote on it.
	Meanwhile, the Republicans have passed that relief bill a bunch of times in the Senate.
	But the media, because they lap up whatever the Democrats tell them and then vomit it out on the rug like a good dog, Or like a bad dog is the case, maybe.
	They have been able to promulgate the idea that Republicans are the obstructionists here.
	So this has pushed McConnell into a bit of an uncomfortable position where something has to get passed or presumably the Georgia Senate race starts to get dicier even than it already is for Republicans.
	According to CNN, the price tag for a stimulus deal could be close to $900 billion.
	The deal is expected to include a new round of stimulus checks at $600 per individual.
	No money for state and local aid.
	Democrats have pushed that.
	No lawsuit protections, which Republicans wanted.
	So it sounds like McConnell actually is going to get his way.
	He proposed this deal last week.
	Pelosi rejected the deal.
	That sounds like the deal that is going to go forward.
	The measure is also expected to include an additional $300 a week in jobless benefits.
	As well as up to $330 billion for small business loans and money for vaccine distribution, which means that, overall, you're talking about $600 per individual plus $300 a week in jobless benefits.
	So a minimum of $1,800 per individual to take you for, presumably, the next couple of months.
	That leaves aside the fact that, again, if it's $600 per individual, then there's usually more than one individual in the household.
	Senate Majority Whip John Thune told CNN that there may be a simple way that the Democrats are disguising money for state and local governments because Democrats are trying to push to include $90 billion in aid to states administered by the FEMA agency, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
	It's still uncertain when Congress is going to vote and whether they're going to tie that $900 billion relief plan to a massive $1.4 trillion spending bill Congress is trying to pass by the time the government runs out of money on Friday night.
	Because again, there's a budget issue that's also happening.
	Congress may have to pass another stopgap measure to keep agencies afloat.
	Mitch McConnell suggested that votes on final passage could slip into the weekend.
	If that happens, it's possible there could be a temporary government shutdown until final passage.
	That's gonna last for like five seconds.
	McConnell said in a floor speech on Wednesday, Hill leaders are making major headway.
	Again, this thing should have passed two months ago.
	The fact that the Democrats are calling for unending aid in the middle of a pandemic in which they are calling for basically total shutdown until the end of time is somewhat telling.
	There are a lot of people who are enjoying lockdown too much, and the people who are enjoying lockdown too much tend to be the people who don't have to work for a living.
	Those people seem to be enjoying lockdown an awful, awful lot.
	Or whoever is able to scam the government out of money.
	This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be careful in how we approach the pandemic, but the reality is that every business that operates is an essential business for the people who operate it and the people who work for it.
	And we have to find ways that those businesses can operate safely and securely.
	Speaking of which, the notion that lockdowns are a cure-all, I'm wondering why that is that California, then, is experiencing this massive, massive spike.
	According to the Washington Post, California is the new epicenter of America's coronavirus crisis, with unprecedented surges of seriously infected patients threatening to overwhelm hospitals and overflow morgues.
	The state is reporting unnerving numbers.
	California has set nationwide records for new cases again and again in the past week, most recently on Wednesday, when it posted more than 41,000 infections.
	You know why?
	Because people are not going to listen to blanket lockdowns.
	End of story.
	People are simply not, the tighter you grasp this thing, the more people are just going to avoid the grip.
	If you told people to be responsible, and they're responsible for their own health, and now you need to actually act reasonably to protect other people, I think most people do that.
	And the statistics show that people do mask up when they go into public areas, and people take seriously the pandemic when the pandemic starts to hit their area.
	But when you tell people they have to lock down until the end of time, and there is no future of openness in sight, And then when you add on top of that ridiculous statement, like was made by Dr. Gupta on MSNBC yesterday, in which he suggested that people are still going to be masking and social distancing through like 2022, or that after you have the virus, you still shouldn't travel.
	After you have the virus and you're okay, you shouldn't travel.
	Or after you have the vaccine, you shouldn't travel.
	Fauci said yesterday that we are not going to be able to stop the masking and the social distancing until like the end of 2021.
	You think people are going to pay attention to that?
	People are tired of this.
	We've been doing this since March.
	And guess what?
	What we are seeing is that in places that lockdown incredibly tight, like California, we are still seeing this rapid increase.
	Nonetheless, the push for more lockdowns continues.
	Joe Biden came out yesterday.
	He was asked about school reopenings.
	Here's how radical the Democratic Party is on this lockdown stuff.
	Here's what Joe Biden said, quote, This was his moderate position.
	He was on a call with 31 governors on Zoom.
	I know it's going to be controversial for some of you, but I'm going to ask that we're able to open schools at the end of 100 days.
	At the end of 100 days?
	The hell are you talking about?
	The end of 100 days after Inauguration Day?
	That would put you, like, the end of April.
	Okay, that means that the school year's over.
	You're already at the beginning of May.
	What are you even saying right now?
	The schools should be open today for elementary school students.
	Today!
	My kids have been in school since September.
	There hasn't been an outbreak because you can act responsibly and you can make sure the precautions are taken.
	The precautions at my kid's school involve that we have to actually sign a basically an affidavit every night saying that our kids aren't sick and they haven't been in contact with anybody with COVID.
	And the kids are wearing masks and there are plexiglass shields.
	And there are kids who, by statistics, are really not getting sick from this thing, and are also really not transmitting this thing in high numbers.
	And Joe Biden is saying maybe after—what bravery from Joe Biden?
	Moderate Joe Biden.
	Maybe we'll open the schools after 100 days.
	Maybe.
	By May.
	Yeah, no bleep, Sherlock.
	By that period, everybody's going to be vaccinated.
	That's something else Fauci said earlier this week.
	I get the feeling our public health officials are kind of full of crap.
	That's the impression that I'm just getting.
	And again, the catastrophic coverage by the media is driving people to ignore all the rules.
	Here's the way it works.
	When you set up rules that people find are unreasonable, they just say, screw all of your rules.
	So here's a piece from Natalie Compton in the Washington Post today.
	What do you mean, though?
	grapple with the CDC strong warning to stay at home this winter to stop the spread of COVID. Some are wondering if they're exempt from the recommendation if they've already recovered from the illness. People who had coronavirus can develop antibodies that circulate in the blood and can neutralize the pathogen.
	But questions around immunity still linger. The CDC says cases of reinfection have been reported but are rare. It hasn't stopped people from traveling though. What do you mean though? Of course it hasn't stopped people from traveling. The information on reinfection is extraordinarily scanty.
	There have been, as far as I'm aware, like double digit recorded cases all over the world of reinfection happening.
	And in some of those cases, there are people who are wondering if they had a false positive the first time.
	And if you believe that having this thing and getting over it does not provide immunity by the current data, you're operating against the science.
	And yet you're being told by the media that if you have already had this thing, you still should not travel.
	I mean, we're being told by the media that even after you've had the vaccine, you still may transmit it to people.
	Then what the hell are we talking about here?
	Nobody is going to abide by your dumb rules if you make your rules dumb.
	So make your rules not dumb.
	Say not dumb things.
	Go with the science instead of against the science.
	And by the way, trying to scare people into doing things is not going to work because eventually people are going to get bored with the scare tactics because either it materializes or it doesn't.
	Last month, the Icelandic government announced that visitors who have recovered from COVID can skip the country's new border measures when they arrive.
	Well, obviously the Icelanders are Trumpians.
	That's what's happened there.
	After recovering from COVID in March, travel blogger and author Matt Kepnes, 39, resumed traveling in the U.S.
	and Mexico, albeit with caution.
	But should you travel if you've already had COVID?
	The short answer is no.
	Is no, says the Washington Post.
	Eric Feigl-Ding, epidemiologist, senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, agrees.
	Early on in the pandemic, many scientists dismissed the threat of reinfection, he says.
	But we now know there are many cases of reinfection, including among patients in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.
	It's not a once-in-a-blue-moon kind of thing, he says.
	It's kind of like car crashes are still rare, but when they do happen, it's really bad.
	Okay, so, but, and then he says, that's why you should wear your seatbelt.
	Yes, but now you're telling people that they should just never drive.
	Or you're not telling people to wear a seatbelt.
	You're telling people, you're not saying you can travel, but wear a mask.
	You're saying don't drive at all.
	It's just, it's wild stuff.
	Meanwhile, Anthony Fauci has become the Grinch.
	He has canceled Christmas.
	He says you should not get together with your family.
	And I understand what he's doing.
	I understand that he is attempting to stop people who have COVID from traveling to areas that are unhit by COVID.
	But people are gonna do what they're gonna do, and he should be encouraging people to be reasonable.
	That's what he should be focusing on right now.
	And I'm not aware that travel is the chief vector of transmission for the virus.
	In fact, by statistics, we're pretty sure that it's not.
	It's internal households that are the chief vector of transmission.
	It is not restaurants.
	New York did contact tracing.
	It is not restaurants.
	It is not schools.
	It is not indoor or outdoor dining.
	It is people in homes with other people who live in their family.
	In any case, Fauci said, the Christmas holiday is a special holiday for us because Christmas Eve is my birthday.
	Christmas Day is Christmas Day.
	They're not gonna come home.
	That's painful.
	We don't like that.
	That's just one of the things you're gonna have to accept as we go through this unprecedented, challenging time.
	Yeah, good luck with that.
	We'll see how that works out.
	I have some doubts.
	And meanwhile, speaking of media bias, I just have to bring you this.
	Everything Trump does is bad, according to media, like every single thing, including things that are perfectly obvious.
	So according to the Washington Post, in its waning days, the Trump administration is proposing that employee performance be a top factor during federal layoffs.
	Now, I know what you're thinking.
	That sounds pretty obvious, right?
	Like, if you're gonna lay people off, you should do it by lack of performance?
	Wouldn't that be, like, the place to start?
	Well, apparently, according to the Washington Post, that's super bad.
	In the latest of a string of moves to put its stamp on federal workplace policies, the Trump administration is set to propose rules to make employees' performance ratings a top consideration in deciding who stays or goes during layoffs.
	I mean, that's evil, right?
	We're actually gonna decide how people perform before we fire them?
	As opposed to just saying the old guy gets to stay and the young guy gets fired?
	A proposal to be published Thursday by the Office of Personnel Management would elevate job ratings among the considerations during the process called reduction in force.
	The proposed rules come within a 30-day public comment period.
	It's uncertain whether the rules could be in place before the inauguration January 20th.
	The move reflects a provision in a 2018 executive order stating agencies should prioritize performance over length of service in determining who gets to keep their job.
	Following those orders, the already testy relations between the administration and employee unions and their democratic allies deteriorated further.
	The newly proposed regulations would affect procedures agencies use when cutting their workforces for reasons such as reorganizations or budget restrictions, basically creating a pecking order among employees.
	Under current procedures, employees first are divided according to whether they are in permanent jobs or those with time limits.
	Basically, seniority matters.
	The only exception is the Defense Department, where performance ratings have been the top consideration because it turns out that we have to have a functioning military.
	Jacques Simon, the public policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, criticized the proposal.
	There's nothing objective about performance ratings, she said.
	Performance ratings are highly subjective.
	Under Trump, they were highly politicized.
	And now this.
	And now this.
	So, good times.
	Apparently, the Democrats, when they gain power, plan to undo all of that and make it so that worse employees get to stay on government payrolls because, of course, unions.
	Good stuff all the way around.
	Okay, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.
	While you wait, head on over to The Michael Knowles Show right now, where we'll be discussing British scientists demanding that we postpone Christmas.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here later today.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
	Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Production Manager, Paweł Łajdowski.
	Our Associate Producers are Rebecca Doyle and Savannah Dominguez.
	The show is edited by Adam Ciejewicz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
	Production Assistant, Jessica Kranz.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright 2020.
	Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
	But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

▲