All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
58:50
CNN Wants Fox News Destroyed | Ep. 1185
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
CNN openly calls for a social crackdown on Fox News.
Team Biden gets more and more radical.
And Trump's impeachment team falls apart.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Why haven't you gotten a VPN yet?
Visit expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Speaking of which, you know I've been talking about ExpressVPN on this show for months.
So seriously, why have you not just gone and gotten ExpressVPN yet?
I will tell you this, there's never been a more important time to protect your digital rights.
You can see the big tech bros, they are all over you.
I don't like you very much.
You should be protecting your data from them.
You should be protecting your data from hackers.
There are a lot of people sitting home right now.
A lot more people working online.
That means a lot more fertile ground for hackers to mine.
Instead, why not protect your data with ExpressVPN?
Did you believe a VPN isn't for you because you can use the internet just fine without a VPN?
Well, anytime you go online, your internet service provider can see every single site you're visiting.
Are you confused about how it works?
Don't be.
ExpressVPN is an app for computers and smartphones.
It encrypts your network data and reroutes it through a secure server.
That means you can use the internet more anonymously without having your activity tracked.
Do you think VPNs are complex only for tech experts?
Take it from me, they're not.
With ExpressVPN, you launch the app, you tap just one button to protect yourself.
It really is that simple.
I trust ExpressVPN to protect my online data because they're rated number one by CNET and Wired and they stand for my values.
Now is the time the time for you to take a stance. Head on over to expressvpn.com slash ben, take back your privacy and get three extra months free on a one year package when you use expressvpn.com slash ben. That's expressvpn.com slash ben. Again, three extra months for free. Again, visit expressvpn.com slash ben. Right this very instant.
Okay, so we are watching as the left basically uses its newfound power in order to call for crackdowns on everybody And they're telling you that it's not important, you know, because everybody that they disagree with, they'll still have outlets.
It's fine.
They'll still have places that they can go.
And then the next step is once they have essentially forced everybody into an ideological silo, then they blow up the silo.
And this is what we saw with Parler from the left.
You know, you don't like how Twitter handles its business?
Well, just go have your own social media platform.
So a bunch of conservatives said, all right, sounds good, bunch of libertarians, and they formed Parler.
And then the next move was, well, you know, they're a little too open over there.
What if you just de-platform them?
And we see this routinely throughout the media.
The first move is, you know, you conservatives, why can't you make it on the left wing?
Why can't you just join up with left-wing outlets?
And then conservatives try and they say, no, no, you can't come in here because, see, you're conservative.
That means you're bad.
They say, OK, you know what?
We're going to go form our own outlets and we're going to use the normal methods of distribution in order to achieve a market share.
And then the same people who ousted them, who threw them outside of the house, they say, OK, well, now you guys are so bad that you really shouldn't have access to the market at all.
You can see this happening in real time.
And it's been happening for a while, but really it's coming to a head right now because every crisis is an opportunity for the left.
I said the day that January 6th took place, the day that the violation of the Capitol took place, I said that that act of evil was going to have tremendous repercussions.
It was going to be used by the hard left as an excuse to basically censor everybody they didn't like.
And they weren't going to restrict that to people who actually engaged in criminal activity.
They weren't even going to restrict that to arguments that may have fostered the criminal activity.
Instead, they were going to use that to go after everybody they don't like.
Because let's face it, folks in the media purvey things that are not true a lot.
They do it a lot.
It depends on the narrative.
How many members of the CNN staff spent months claiming that Jacob Blake was an unarmed black man who'd been shot by white police officers for no reason?
Pretty much all of them.
How many members of the CNN staff, how many of their big anchors claimed that Andrew Cuomo was the greatest governor in all the land for months at a time while Rhonda Sanderson in Florida was a scourge Virtually all of them.
They propel whatever narrative they want to propel at any given time, and they will fib to do it, or they'll twist the facts to do it, or ignore countervailing facts in order to do that.
But the thing is that if those countervailing facts are brought to light by anybody else, or if there's a narrative that they see from the other side that they don't like very much, then that other side must be silenced.
So, Brian Stelter.
Who is a sort of bellwether for the woke left infusing itself into mainstream media.
Stelter didn't used to be quite as radical as he has become.
I was on his show just a few years ago and he said, you know, you have your outlet, Daily Wire, why don't people like you, why don't conservatives try to go into mainstream media?
And I literally said to him, anybody at CNN going to try and hire me?
You think, Brian?
And the answer, of course, was no.
Well, now, Brian Stelter has gotten to the point where he is openly calling for a crackdown on Fox News.
He's openly calling for a crackdown on people who disagree or on people he believes are purveying false information.
Now, here is the thing.
You've seen a shift in the language being used by folks when it comes to what sort of information should be given a platform and which sort of information should receive distribution.
They shifted.
It's a subtle linguistic shift.
There are a couple of major subtle linguistic shifts that are happening right now as we speak, and we're going to elucidate them on today's show.
One is the shift from misinformation Okay, so it was misinformation and disinformation.
So disinformation campaigns really were a, the idea was those were a foreign weapon.
It was foreign propaganda.
So a disinformation campaign was the Soviets putting out false information that they hoped would be eaten up by the left in the United States and then propagated to a wider audience.
That was disinformation, right?
Disinformation means actual lies, things that are not true.
Then there's quote-unquote misinformation.
Misinformation, which is the term that is now being used in the media all the time, is a term that means stuff I don't like.
Maybe some of it is not true.
Maybe some of it is true, but I just don't like the narrative.
So the shift from disinformation, which is the idea that it is being propagated by a foreign power in order to push a particular agenda that is anti-American in scope.
The shift from disinformation, deliberate attempts to falsify, to misinformation, meaning information that I disagree with, or information that I think is wrong.
That shift is pretty subtle, but it's being used.
at an extraordinarily rapid clip is being adopted by members of the mainstream media as an excuse to shut down competitors.
And not only that, if you have ever uttered something that they say was not true, then the idea is that you must be shut down as a human being.
So it doesn't matter that again, CNN has propagated absolute untruths and CNN propagated lies about Covington Catholic.
CNN propagated lies about Black Lives Matter.
CNN propagated lies about Trump.
CNN propagated lies about Bush.
CNN propagates lies sometimes.
Does that mean that CNN should be de-platformed?
That they should lose their ability to distribute information?
Of course not.
But that is where Brian Stelter is going to go.
So now, Brian Stelter says, you know what?
We should reduce the reach of people that I disagree with, basically.
The people who are on the other side of the aisle.
Because it's not as though they have a consistent standard of truth.
It's not like, okay, here are the people who lie all the time, and then here are the people who tell the truth all the time.
It is just that they believe that people who are of their opinion are pure as the driven snow, and people who are not of their opinion, if you can find any hook upon which to hang their banning, you just go for it.
So here is Brian Stelter on Reliable Sources over the weekend.
Big tech platforms say they are removing lies about vaccines and stamping out Stop the Steal BS and QAnon cult content.
Now, do these private companies have too much power?
Sure.
Many people would say yes, of course they do.
But reducing a liar's reach is not the same as censoring freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is different than freedom of reach.
And algorithmic reach is part of the problem.
Okay, so he then extended that over to Fox News.
He basically suggested that Fox News itself should have its freedom of reach Withdrawn.
And when he says that it is not a First Amendment violation to restrict people's reach, what he's really talking about here are places like Daily Wire or places like The Federalist or anything that is right of center on Facebook, right?
When he says that, what he means, that freedom of reach is not the same as freedom of speech, he's basically saying that what we need is for unofficial social media censors to stop the distribution of information.
And he's saying that's not the government.
He's right.
It's not the government, but it is just as damaging as the government.
When the town square is Facebook, right?
Facebook is not like the comment section over at Daily Wire, because Daily Wire is in fact a publication, right?
We have a particular point of view.
It is open and obvious what our point of view is.
Facebook is much more like a town square.
It was designed to be a town square.
When they decide that they are going to censor particular points of view, and they are going to do so basically with the permission of the government, because the government has given them these carve-outs under Section 230, then they are violating their core tenet.
Okay, the freedom of speech does not cease to apply as a principle in places where it's supposed to be the chief functioning principle.
So, members of the left are playing this little game here.
And again, I'm libertarian on a lot of this stuff.
I think that private companies should have an awful lot of freedom to do what it is that they want.
I also think that rival public companies should also be able to—private companies should also be able to do what they want.
I think that Parler should exist and Twitter should exist.
I don't think that people should be deplatforming them.
When you have neutral service providers that are denying service to one side or the other based purely on politics, which is what this is, Then things are getting really, really ugly, really, really fast.
And the only answer is going to be either a rewriting of Section 230 or a reinterpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which we'll get to in just a second.
But it's the principle that's amazing here.
So you have reliable sources, right?
There's supposed to be a free speech program saying, freedom of speech is really important, but what we would love is for private companies to restrict that freedom of speech.
Private companies need to stop people from seeing information that I don't like.
And so you've had members of the CNN crews suggest that, for example, Comcast should simply get rid of the ability to distribute Fox News.
You've had anchors on CNN claim the same thing.
I've never seen anything from Fox News along these lines about CNN or MSNBC, by the way.
For all the talk about how Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, look at these, look at these opinion hosts with their strong viewpoints.
Not one of them, so far as I'm aware, has ever called on Comcast to de-platform CNN or MSNBC.
But CNN and MSNBC are calling for this sort of stuff and they're calling for it pretty regularly.
Joe Scarborough called for it last week on MSNBC, so did Mika Brzezinski.
You're seeing Stelter call for it now.
When they say that freedom of reach is not the same as freedom of speech, that's sort of like the argument that freedom of religion should basically be restricted to inside your house.
You should only be free to practice your religion inside your house.
If you go outside your house and you're acting as you would in the business world and you're making decisions in your business based on your religious precepts, well, now that's not freedom of religion anymore because, after all, you're acting in the public.
Okay, well, if you restrict somebody's freedom of reach to essentially zero, then of what value is their freedom of speech at that point?
Then you've got a real problem on your hands.
But again, the goal here is not an exchange of decent ideas or even an Overton window that is better policed.
The idea is that people I disagree with should be silenced.
So Oliver Darcy, a nice guy, but Oliver Darcy, he was on CNN and he says, you know, we have to stop comparing Fox and MSNBC.
We have to stop comparing that because Fox should basically be deplatformed while MSNBC should not.
Here's Oliver Darcy on CNN making claims about rival networks.
It's an amazing thing.
To equate what MSNBC does or some of these other outlets do with what Fox does is nonsensical.
There are outlets that have opinion hosts, but they're playing in the real world, in the world of facts and reality.
And Fox is spinning its own reality.
And to suggest that there's an equivalence between the two, I think is not accurate and something we should really be careful to avoid.
Oh really?
It's not accurate?
I'm old enough to remember when, during the Michael Brown protests, An entire panel of people on CNN held up signs that said, hands up, don't shoot.
And commentators like Sally Cohen were actually doing the hands up, don't shoot thing, which is a total fraudulent lie.
It was a fabrication top to bottom.
And he's saying that on CNN, the network of Covington Catholic, right?
They had to pay a settlement to Nick Sandman for slandering him.
They're not the same.
No, they are the same.
They're exactly the same.
It's just that you like the views on MSNBC and CNN, and you don't like the views on Fox News.
And so that has to be silenced.
Hey, over at the Washington Post, they're doing the same thing.
So Margaret Sullivan is the media columnist over at the Washington Post.
She has a piece today basically saying that everybody that she doesn't like should be silenced and that's not cancel culture.
So the left likes to play this game where they like to cancel people and then claim the cancel culture does not exist, which always makes it kind of fun and karmic when they themselves are canceled, which almost inevitably happens within about six months of saying cancel culture doesn't exist.
You'll see there's this hilarious pattern in which folks on the left say, cancel culture is not real.
And then five months later, somebody unearthed an old tweet that was bad, and suddenly they're canceled by the same left that they were cheering on a moment ago.
Because the mob loves you until the mob doesn't love you anymore.
So Margaret Sullivan has this piece over at the Washington Post.
And her idea is the same as Stelter's, which is, we should just withdraw the means of distribution from people I don't like.
And that's going to have no consequences whatsoever for the American body politic other than good.
So here's what she writes.
According to Washington examiners, Eddie Scarry, nothing less than a social justice mob, descended on Politico after it gave a guest editing slot to right-wing flamethrower Ben Shapiro.
First of all, cool nickname.
Really, thank you for that.
Also, have you listened to five minutes of this show?
Of course not.
Of course not.
These people do this all the time.
Rush Limbaugh's a racist.
They don't listen to five seconds of Rush Limbaugh.
They've never even heard anything Rush Limbaugh's ever said.
By the way, that was actually the first conversation I ever had with Elizabeth Warren, long before she was a senator.
She was a professor at Harvard Law School, and I met her at the top of the W Hotel when I was being recruited for Harvard Law, and she and I kind of...
Met and she said, oh yeah, you're the one who wrote that book, because I'd written a book already about bias on college campuses.
And she started talking about Rush Limbaugh and I said, have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh?
And she was like, no.
I said, so why are you talking about Rush Limbaugh?
But that's the perspective here.
I'm a right-wing flamethrower because Margaret Sullivan, who I'm sure has never listened to anything I've ever said, calls me a right-wing flamethrower.
And the goal of calling me a right-wing flamethrower, of course, is the idea that I should be deplatformed.
So she says, scary mocked those, including many of Politico's employees, who thought Shapiro never should have been in charge of the site's popular playbook newsletter, even for a day.
Such objections are an effort to silence conservative voices, Scaria claims in another piece.
liberal journalists quote, believe one side of the political spectrum to be legitimate, and the other should be given as few opportunities to have their opinions heard as possible.
In other words, it's all part of a cancel culture, the catchphrase for how the masses supposedly gang up to silence provocative voices.
I happen to think that the Politico staffers were right to oppose their news organization, granting it's imprimatur to someone with Shapiro's history of performative bigotry.
Ah, yes.
That is my history.
Performative bigotry.
It doesn't matter that I've given full speeches ripping the alt-right.
It does not matter that I oppose the so-called Muslim... None of that matters, right?
Because she doesn't know any of that.
Doesn't care.
She doesn't care.
By the way, breaking news to Margaret Sullivan.
She writes for the Washington Post.
She doesn't like that outlets granted their imprimatur to me.
In 2016, I wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, Margaret.
So you might want to talk with your editors over there.
In any case, she says, And in defense of the idea that I should be banned, she cites a tweet from 2010.
It is now 2021.
Okay, just checking your calendar.
One tweet from 11 years ago that I've explained 1,000 times about the Israeli-Arab conflict.
She cites that.
Literally, I have a piece on the website of Daily Wire, something no journalist I'm aware of or opinion journalist I'm aware of has ever done.
I've posted every single bad thing I think I have ever said and then either explained it Or apologized for it, like, in writing.
Okay, so she cites that.
This is always their go-to, is they find a tweet from 2010.
Right?
Like, that's nuts, okay?
And then another tweet in 2019.
It wasn't even a tweet.
It was a statement on this show in which I was talking about Beto O'Rourke's view that he would be able to essentially get rid of religion in public life.
Beto O'Rourke said that he wanted to remove all non-profit statuses from any church or synagogue.
That did not go along with his woke social justice nonsense.
And I made an argument that Beto O'Rourke was going to go after religious schools, remove their non-profit status, go after churches, remove their non-profit status, and then the left's next move would be to declare that if you did not educate your child in the ways they wanted to educate your child, they would come to your front door.
And I said, anybody who tries to take my kid away from me on the basis of teaching my kid values that I don't want to talk to my kids, I will meet them at the door at the gun.
Okay, I don't disagree with that sentiment.
I fully agree with me.
I was right.
Okay, so she cites that as reason why I should not write for Politico.
She says, in America, all these people get to talk.
Because of the First Amendment, the government won't shut them down.
That doesn't mean they're immune to other forms of accountability, though.
And here's where we get into the fun part for folks on the left.
They are the accountability.
They grab control of the institutions, then they bar you from the institutions, then when you build alternative institutions, they air raid them.
That is the pattern that we are seeing over and over in American society.
And then, if you complain about it, then you're whining.
Then you are part of a victimhood culture.
Hilariously enough, there was a piece over at Axios about this by Jim Vandahay the other day, where he cited me, he cited Tucker Carlson, about the new right-wing talking point, that the right is under assault from the institutional centers of American culture.
The right wing had centralized around this talking point.
And I emailed, I emailed the folks at Axios, I was like, Jim VandeHei, the guy who wrote this piece, three weeks ago, three weeks ago, you wrote a piece in which you said, blue America is a sentence in every institutional area of America, and it was going to mean a rethinking of thought and speech in the United States.
And then you wonder why we're a little paranoid.
Just because we're paranoid does not mean you're not out to get us.
Because you guys are.
And you're saying it every day.
The sort of gaslighting where it's like, we're gonna destroy your career.
We're going to de-platform you.
Why are you so whiny about it?
It's like, well, that's not whining.
That's us sensing a threat.
And we're gonna, we here at The Daily Wire and other conservative places, we are going to mobilize to fight against that threat.
And we are going to use every market possibility to fight against that threat.
We're gonna build alternative institutions.
We are going to make way for thoughts that you guys do not want propagated.
Tough bleep.
You're gonna get some more of this in just one second.
First, let us talk about the fact that you don't want to be spending time in line at an auto shop right now.
An auto parts shop.
Like, you don't.
By the way, you don't ever.
You go over to the local auto parts shop and then you wait in line, you get to the front of the line, they have to order the part anyway, they charge you too much for it.
Instead, why not just use the same thing you use for everything else right now?
Use the interwebs.
rockauto.com.
It is much easier than walking into a store and someone demanding quick answers to complex questions about your car.
And then usually they just order the part anyway.
Instead, head on over to rockauto.com at your desk and in your pocket.
rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear like airlines do.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same part?
You can get at Rock Auto, for example.
Let's say, for example, you needed the Delphi FG 1456 fuel pump assembly for a 2005 to 2010 Honda Odyssey.
That'll cost you like $354 at a big chain store.
At rockauto.com, that'll cost you $217.
They're a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Great catalog.
They make it easy to order.
Head on over to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
Again, that is rockauto.com.
Write Shapiro in that How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
Okay, so Margaret Sullivan continues along these lines.
She says that it does not cancel culture if we cancel you.
She says, night after night, Fox News offers primetime viewers its leftist gestalt on speech show.
Josh Hawley, who needed only a few days to find a new publisher for his book, subsequently blasted the muzzling of America in an opinion piece in the widely read New York Post.
Have any of these people been silenced?
Hardly.
And then, Margaret Sullivan, hilariously enough, quotes Parker Malloy of Media Matters, Yes, there's an objective, an objective, non-partisan, non-silencing site.
Media Matters exists only to silence voices it does not like.
All Media Matters does, every day, each day, they hire people to just watch shows like this one, clip them out of context, and then attack our advertisers and our subscribers.
That's all they do, all day.
So she quotes them as a source for why cancel culture doesn't exist.
I mean, my goodness, why don't you just quote OJ Simpson on why murder never happens?
Like, really.
As Parker Malloy puts it, despite getting a spot on the front page of the fourth largest newspaper in the U.S., coverage across the entire Fox News lineup, a new book deal, an audience of more than half a million followers on Twitter, and a lengthy list of credits on IMDb, Howley would like you to believe he is a man without a voice.
Okay, so the goal here, but here's the thing.
You guys want to take away all of those things.
All of those things.
It's not as though you're saying, yeah, you know, Josh Hawley, he, you know, if he loses his Simon & Schuster book contract, I'm glad that there are other publishers out there willing to pick up Josh Hawley's book contract.
You are sad about this.
You are angry.
You don't want Regnery to exist.
You don't want Fox News to exist.
You don't want Daily Wire to exist.
Quoting the person from Media Matters to the effect that Josh Hawley is not being silenced.
All Media Matters does all day long is attempt to silence people they don't like.
Okay, so here's what Margaret Sullivan concludes.
I talked to the leading First Amendment lawyer and scholar, Jamil Jaffer, about all this last week.
Jaffer thinks a lot of these complaints are misguided.
They spring, he said, from a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about.
The point of the First Amendment is to take these kinds of debates out of the hands of government and put them in the hands of private citizens, says Jaffer, a Columbia University law professor and director of the Knight First Amendment Institute.
It's not subverting the First Amendment to criticize a politician or a cable news host or a right-wing provocateur.
That's the whole point of a First Amendment.
Nor is it a subversion of free speech values for news organizations to make editing decisions or for social media platforms to make and enforce rules.
There's the jump.
I love that part.
So, I agree.
You can criticize me as much as you want.
Nobody's saying Margaret Sullivan should lose her spot over at the Washington Post for being the world's crappiest columnist.
I'm not saying she should.
I think she should keep that.
I think they should keep paying her to write pap.
Everybody has to make a living in this country.
Okay, but I love that she says it's not even a subversion of, not the First Amendment, free speech values.
It's not a subversion of free speech values for social media platforms to make and enforce rules.
Amazing.
She says, these nuanced views don't get much airtime in the outrage factories of cable news and talk radio.
Jaffer said, it's important we should tolerate diverse views.
We benefit from a public square that includes ideas for making us uncomfortable.
Oh, but she doesn't want that, does she?
She doesn't at all.
She says, it would help if journalists push back more effectively.
CNN's Pamela Brown gave a masterclass in her devastating interview with Madison Cawthorn.
Even if that sort of pushback becomes the norm, news organizations should be wary of handing these charlatans a megaphone.
So instead of just rebutting people you don't like, instead, you should just not let them on the air.
She says, you can call that cancel culture if you want.
I call it responsibility.
Ah yes, responsibility is making sure you never have to hear an opposing point of view or rebut it.
You can just ban them outright.
Excellent job.
I definitely trust these people.
Why in the world would people on the right be paranoid that you guys are trying to ruin our lives?
Okay, so here's the thing.
It really isn't even about Margaret Sullivan going after me or about CNN going after Fox News.
The thing is, everybody knows this bleeds down to the common person.
This bleeds down to people who are not in media.
See, I do have an outlet.
We've spent millions of dollars building this outlet.
The outlet that we have is a very powerful outlet.
It is still reliant on social media platforms to allow us to exist.
Right?
It's possible that you are listening to the show right now on Apple.
It is possible that you are listening to the show right now or watching it over at YouTube.
It is possible that you're watching it over at Facebook, right?
All of those are platforms.
All of those platforms.
started off as places that pledged themselves to open an honest debate, we are still reliant on them.
But here's the thing.
We still have our own platform.
We still have the ability for you to subscribe.
This is why I've been encouraging everybody.
If you're on the conservative side of the aisle, you need to go and pay direct for the stuff you like, because the left is going to try and take it away on all the other mechanisms of distribution.
But put us aside, because we in the media, it's our job to find a way to get our information to you.
And in a free country, which the United States, thank God, still is, at least in most ways, we are going to find a way to get you that information with your help.
But what this really is about is not about me or about Tucker or about any of the people who are in the media sphere.
What this really is about is about you.
It's about you working your day job at a normal corporation.
It is you working your day job at a school.
It's about you working your day job Not being a politically volatile person, just posting on Facebook every once in a while, living in fear that your corporation is going to crack down on you for saying the wrong thing at work.
That somebody at work is going to find out that you voted for Trump or went to a Trump rally.
That somebody at work is going to find out that you listen to this show, so you make sure that you listen to it during your off hours.
This is about you worrying that your friends and neighbors are going to treat you as a leper, a social leper.
You happen to have different points of view.
See, in order for the First Amendment protections to abide, in order for the legal protections of government not to get involved in your free speech to continue, you need an attitude that is pro-free speech.
You see how Margaret Sullivan conflates the First Amendment legally with free speech as a value?
Those are not the same thing.
Free speech as a value is a commitment by the common person, by corporations, by your boss, to the idea that there can be some dissent in the workplace, to the idea that there can be open conversation, that they're not gonna fire you for something that has nothing to do with your ability to do your job.
It means that you, among your friends, you're not going to attempt to cancel people in your social circle just because you have disagreements about tax rates.
Or because they voted for somebody that you don't like, right?
It takes commitment by everybody to this certain level of diversity of values, right?
It does.
There have to be certain baseline because that diversity of value stands atop a broader universal value, right?
About which there can be no diversity.
And that is a value that free speech matters, that in a free society, we should be able to treat each other decently and still disagree about things.
That's the thing.
You got Margaret Sullivan calling me a right-wing flamethrower.
You know how many people I've had on this show who disagree with me?
Tons and tons and tons.
The Sunday special?
Nearly every week, somebody who disagrees with me in some way.
Margaret Sullivan is calling me the right-wing flamethrower.
I'm not the one who's shutting the window.
I'm not the one who's welding closed the door.
It's Margaret Sullivan doing that.
And praising herself for doing that.
And it's happening every day around the water cooler.
People are self-censoring.
People are silencing themselves.
It is bad for the country.
The left is happy about it because they feel as though they are in control.
And they are in control.
There was a Pew poll that was taken last year.
You know what it showed?
It showed that a plurality of every group politically in the United States, outside of woke progressives, believes they have to self-censor.
Every single one.
Liberals, moderate liberals, say that they have to self-censor what they believe at work because they are afraid of the repercussions.
The only people who never have to self-censor are the most radical leftists.
Those people can say whatever the hell they want.
They can say whatever they want.
And that is going to destroy the country.
It truly is.
Okay, so here is how this manifests for the media.
So what the media love to do in order to make this happen, everybody understands this is a really ugly thing that is happening right now.
Even people who are sort of mainstream liberals understand that this is an ugly thing.
That's why you had the Harper's Weekly letter last year, about 150 academics on the left, all of whom voted for Biden, I'm sure.
Not a single Trump voter among them.
wrote a letter to cry and cancel culture and the left went after them.
All of those people are being lumped in now with people on the right and all those people are being lumped in with the worst offenders of people who violate sort of norms of decency.
Because the goal here is to shut the Overton window so small that no one fits in it except for the wokest of everybody on a social level.
So if you have the right political values, by the way, then you have a free pass to do whatever you want.
And if you don't have the right political values, then you have a free pass to do nothing.
And we will dig up everything you wrote back in 2002, and we will use it to ruin you.
So, let's take a couple of examples.
So, right now, in politics, there are two stories.
One is going to receive significant media attention.
One is not going to receive significant media attention, at least not in the long haul.
Again, the one that's not gonna receive significant attention in the long haul, it's a story right now, so it's gotten a little bit of mainstream media attention, to be fair.
It's not gonna receive any over the course of the next two weeks.
The co-founder of the Lincoln Project, right?
The Lincoln Project is a bunch of supposedly ex-Republicans who went Democrat, wasted tens of millions of bucks targeting particular Republicans across the country, and then claimed victory after the last election cycle.
And it's sort of the most, not only never Trump and anti-Trump, but anti-Republican.
They were going after people like Susan Collins in Maine.
And so it turns out that the Lincoln Project, which is basically a bunch of grifters who suggested that they were going to say nasty things about Republicans and raise lots of money to do it.
It turns out that the co-founder, John Weaver, has now been condemned by the Lincoln Project in the wake of allegations that the longtime GOP strategist made unsolicited sexual overtures to several young men, including one who was 14 years old at the time he received sexual messages from Weaver.
The group, finally, after, I mean, there are reports about this for months, by the way.
Finally, the group put out a statement on Sunday when it became clear they couldn't keep running away from the story, saying, John Weaver led a secret life that was built on a foundation of deception at every level.
He's a predator, a liar, and an abuser.
We extend our deepest sympathies to those who are targeted by his deplorable and predatory behavior.
The Lincoln Project rose to prominence last year as they campaigned against Trump and others who supported him.
Weaver 61 helped co-found the group.
He had previously worked on the presidential campaigns for John McCain and John Kasich.
The New York Times published a report Sunday morning based on interviews with 21 men who alleged Weaver sent them unwanted provocative messages or solicited them for sex, often in exchange for the promise of professional help.
The New York Times story followed reports about Weaver's behavior from earlier this month, including one by the American conservatives Ryan Gerdersky on January 11th, and by Axios on January 15th.
His original response, Weaver's, was that he was a gay man, which is the get-out-of-jail-free card of sexual abuse, at least for a couple of weeks, right?
Is that if you're a straight guy, supposedly, who engages in predatory behavior, claiming you're gay is somehow supposed to give you cover.
Most gay men are not predators.
When I say most, I mean nearly all gay men are not predators.
So, that's a pretty pathetic defense there by Weaver.
So, on Sunday, the Lincoln Project noted, Weaver was never around the other members.
He said, we are grateful beyond words that in no time was John Weaver in the physical presence of any other member of the Lincoln Project.
Okay, fine.
So, this will be out of the news, I promise, within three days.
And the Lincoln Project will continue as though nothing ever happened.
Because they have issued the denunciation of their co-founder, and they will move on.
Okay, maybe that's right.
Maybe that's right.
Maybe they never knew.
Seriously, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe they never knew any of this stuff was true.
Maybe they never knew that any of the rumors were true.
Fine.
Okay, do you think that the right is going to- if they were a right-wing group, do you really think that that would be let go within the next few days?
Watch.
Watch the news.
You will see.
The mentions of Lincoln Project in the news will go like this.
Right?
They're just going to crater.
Meanwhile, every Republican in America will be asked about the crazy person Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Every single Republican for the next couple of years will be asked every time Marjorie Taylor Greene says a crazy thing to denounce Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Because that's the way this game works.
Is that if there is somebody on the right who's crazy, and you need somebody crazy you can focus in on so that you can slander the entire Republican Party and every conservative with that person, you just keep focusing in on that person.
Right?
John Weaver will not be in the news two days from now.
Marjorie Taylor Greene will be in the news for the next couple of years at minimum, no matter how many times people say that she's a crazy person.
Because by the way, she's a crazy person.
We'll get to this in just one second.
First, Let us talk about a big thing that you can do this year.
A big, important thing.
You can get life insurance.
You need to do it.
Are you a responsible human?
If you're a responsible human, make sure that you get the life insurance your family requires.
Policy Genius can help you check off two big items with ease.
Compare life insurance rates and save 50% or more in the process.
That means more cash to put toward the things you care about.
Plus, there's absolutely no hassle.
They're licensed experts who work for you, not the insurance companies, so they can offer unbiased advice when you need it.
Here's how it works.
You head on over to PolicyGenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need and compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price.
PolicyGenius will then compare policies starting at as little as a buck a day.
You might even be eligible to skip that in-person medical exam.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team handles all the paperwork and the red tape.
If you hit any speed bumps during the application process, they'll take care of everything for you.
That kind of service has earned PolicyGenius a five-star rating across over 1,600 reviews on Trustpilot and Google.
So if you're worried that March is just around the corner and you've barely gotten anything done, take a deep breath.
Policy Genius will help you make the most of this short month in minutes.
Just go save 50% or more by comparing quotes.
Policygenius.com.
Get the life insurance you and your family require.
Alrighty, we're gonna be getting into more of the contrast between The material used to slander the left and the material used to slander the right, not quite the same.
We'll get to that in a second.
First, Daily Wire, as you know, I keep saying, we have to push into the culture.
We need to fight back on every front.
One of the ways we are doing that is we are getting involved in entertainment content.
That is why we put out our first film, Run, Hide, Fight, exclusively for Daily Wire members.
You can catch that over on dailywire.com, on our mobile app, on our streaming apps at Apple TV and Roku.
If you're not a Daily Wire member yet, use promo code RHF to get 25% off.
That is RHF for Run, Hide, Fight, for 25% off.
I've been hearing from tons of members of the audience they love the film because it's really good.
It's a really, really good film.
And the critics don't like it, which is the kind of stuff we want to make.
Stuff the critics aren't going to love, but you will.
You can catch it over on DailyWare.com, on our mobile app, on our streaming apps at Apple TV and Roku.
If you're not a DailyWare member yet, use promo code RHF to get 25% off.
That is RHF or 25% off.
and off you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
♪♪ All righty, so here is the thing.
You've got the entire left basically saying that everybody on the right has to answer for its worst members.
Meanwhile, the rule on the left is that you never have to answer for any of your worst members.
It's pretty amazing, actually.
I've been hearing from folks on the left, why don't you guys on the right, why don't you just get rid of your worst folks?
And I say, well, you know, when Steve King said his white supremacy defense comment, right, when he said that thing, Some of us went full out for his opponent in a primary.
He got primary, he lost.
That seat now belongs to Feenstra in that same district.
So...
I'm just gonna note, you guys had Nancy Pelosi on the cover of magazines with Ilhan Omar.
Ilhan Omar is an open anti-Semite.
So is Rashida Tlaib.
They're both openly anti-Semitic.
Like, repeatedly and openly.
You couldn't even get a censure vote against those Congress people.
And the head of your caucus did magazine covers with those people.
And they are cheered wildly by the people in the media.
Constantly.
Okay, Marjorie Taylor Greene does not have a fan base outside of her immediate constituency in Georgia.
Okay, I'm wondering who exactly is the giant fan base for Marjorie Taylor Greene, and yet Marjorie Taylor Greene is being treated as though she is sort of the heroine of the Republican Party these days.
I don't know where, I mean, I do know where this is coming from.
It's coming from a motivated media line of thought that says Republicans are their worst members and Democrats don't have bad members.
They don't exist.
So, for example, You are seeing this.
Barbara Lee is Democrat, of course.
And Barbara Lee, she says on CNN, of course, that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a danger.
She shouldn't serve in any legislative body.
And it's just indicative of how bad the Republicans are that she's being allowed to serve.
Now, a couple of things.
One, she's an elected congressperson.
I don't believe that you can eject an elected congressperson based on comments made before they were a congressperson.
Once they're a congressperson, you can eject them based on comments that they make.
But if you dig up something they said a year ago, presumably the people spoke based on that information.
Here's Barbara Lee making this particular case.
She is a danger.
She's a threat.
She refuses to wear a mask.
Now, of course, we see, which is to be expected, the support of Donald Trump, who incited violence, who promoted the attempted coup on January 6th, and five people died.
And so she, based on who she is, her behavior, what she has said, She's a danger and should not serve in any legislative body.
So I agree she never should have been elected to Congress.
I totally agree.
By the way, the comments that she's referring to is that Marjorie Taylor Greene believes a bunch of crazy crap because she's kind of crazy.
Here's the stuff that she has said, according to the Sacramento Bee.
She suggested in a Facebook post that the wildfires in California She says there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires and pictures and videos.
And apparently these lasers are controlled by the Jews.
Which is interesting.
The Post claims involvement from investor Richard Blum, husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the banking firm Rothschild Inc.
So apparently, she says, if they are beaming the sun's energy back to Earth, I'm sure they would never miss a transmitter receiving station, right?
I mean, mistakes are never made when anything new is invented.
What would that look like anyway?
A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth, I guess?
Could that cause a fire?
Hmm, I don't know.
I hope not.
That sure wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild, Inc., Solarin, or Jerry Brown, who doesn't seem fond of PG&E.
She's also trafficking QAnon, which is crazy towns.
And she shared social media posts asserting in 2018 that the Parkland shooting was a false flag operation.
Okay, so she's a nut.
She's a nutty person who was elected to Congress because it was a small primary.
She's the only person who received any sort of funding or media attention.
And next time around, she should not be elected, right?
And if she says this sort of stuff while she's in Congress, then Congress has every ability to eject her from Congress, certainly to censure her.
With all of that said, the attempt to paint Marjorie Taylor Greene as the face of the Republican Party is pretty obvious by the media.
That is why there is all this oppo-focus on Marjorie Taylor Greene right now.
See, they can't do it for Trump anymore, right?
Trump's gone.
So now they have to find a new face of the Republican Party.
So are they going to pick one of the other faces of the Republican Party?
Are they going to pick, like, Dan Crenshaw?
No, of course not.
Instead, they're going to pick Marjorie Taylor Greene and attempt to claim the entire Republican Party is, in fact, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and suggest over and over that Republicans are more worried about the normies within the party than they are about the Marjorie Taylor Greene's within the party.
So that's what Chris Wallace was doing over the weekend on Fox News.
The Fox News, by the way, that Brian Stelter would like to ban.
Here's Chris Wallace saying that there is more focus on Lynne Cheney in the Republican Party than there is on Marjorie Taylor Greene, which I'm not sure how that is the case, considering that every single Republican member I have heard of has condemned Marjorie Taylor Greene's comments.
In any case, here's Chris Wallace.
You know, you've got a situation right now where there is more visible outrage inside the GOP over Liz Cheney, a member of leadership voting to impeach the president, over rather than some of these wild conspiracy theories being espoused by Marjorie Taylor Greene.
How serious is this for the GOP and what can they do about it?
I mean, take her off committees?
Expel her?
What are their options here?
So a couple of things.
Liz Cheney, with regard to impeachment, is obviously doing something that's kind of more important within the Republican Party than this fringe nut from Georgia who believes in Jewish Space Laser.
By the way, I can't tell you more about the Jewish Space Laser.
First rule of Jewish Space Laser is you never talk about Jewish Space Laser.
Second rule of Jewish Space Laser is that we never roll on Shabbos.
Those are the two rules of Jewish Space Laser.
But aside from that, But the reason that Republicans are maybe focused on the controversy surrounding Liz Cheney is because impeachment is kind of a big thing, and Liz Cheney is the number three Republican in the House, whereas this lady is a first-term backbencher from Georgia who probably won't win re-election in her district.
So maybe that is more of an issue in the immediate term for the Republican Party.
But the goal here, of course, is that every Republican is going to be smeared with With Marjorie Taylor Greene in the same way that every Republican a few years back was smeared with Todd Akin.
That is the way this works.
You're going to hear MTG, Marjorie Taylor Greene, repeated over and over and over again.
And by the way, because the left does this, this is what they do.
Because the left is going to spend an inordinate amount of time, the mainstream media, on this person, that is going to drive people into the arms of this person.
Because then people will be like, why is this person being unfairly attacked?
Why are they constantly talking about her?
Okay, she's gonna end up with a larger following, which of course is exactly what a lot of people want.
A lot of people, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, I would assume, love that media attention.
Because the media focusing on that means a lot of people in reactionary fashion will then go and defend Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Now, two things can be true at once.
One, she shouldn't be in Congress.
She believes a lot of crazy crap, crazy crap.
And two, she is not a mainstream Republican voice.
She is not the leader of any movement.
She is not an important person in the Republican caucus.
And she should be primaried next time around by a well-funded opponent.
Okay, but that's not what the media's design here is to do.
The media's design is to create this supposed imbalance between craziness on the right and craziness on the left.
Reality check.
There's craziness on both sides.
The crazy people on both sides need to be condemned.
I see actually more condemnation from it very often on the right than I do from people on the left.
Again, the left just wants to pretend away the idea that there is any sort of similarity between the craziness.
Okay, the craziness extends across the aisle.
I saw an entire Democratic Party look the other way or cheer while cities burned during the summer.
And then, when the Capitol riots happened, they're like, why are you guys on the right not condemning the violence more strenuously?
Some of us condemn the violence both times, guys.
Some of us thought it was evil, both times.
Some of you are just full of crap.
And when you do the same thing with Marjorie Taylor Greene while you wrap your large-scale democratic embrace around Ilhan Omar and pretend that she's a leading figure in your movement?
I'm gonna say that you guys don't have a leg to stand on when you talk about anti-Semitism in your own party.
Especially given the fact that your entire critical race theory nonsense is rooted in anti-Semitic perceptions about how Jews are not actually a victimized people.
Jews are actually just successful white people.
Now Asians are turning into white people thanks to critical race theory.
So yeah, I don't buy any of your phony insanity about this rando, weirdo, crazy person.
I think that it's a little bit convenient that you've decided to elevate Marjorie Taylor Greene to the leadership of the Republican Party based on zero evidence that she's a member of the leadership of the Republican Party.
That is the goal here.
Fringe everybody by pointing at this one person.
Then that allows you to basically silence anybody.
This is the part that's amazing.
To be mildly self-centered here for a second.
When Politico, when people say I shouldn't have written for Politico because I'm a right-wing firebrand.
Okay, let me just point out, I'm maybe the only person on the right who said from the get-go that Trump didn't have evidence that he'd won the election.
Okay, so, but that's, there's nobody moderate enough for these folks.
That's the point.
If you disagree with them, you are by nature immoderate.
That's the whole goal.
Everybody is in the same boat, including the person who's not even political, who just wants to go to work and be left alone and go home and then believe what they want about politics.
They're not going to be allowed to do any of that.
Okay, meanwhile, I will say that the kind of nuttiness within the Republican Party needs to be stopped and it needs to be condemned.
I think overall it has been, but I think that it needs more, always more.
From both sides would be great.
But I'm a conservative, so I would like to see it in the Republican Party as well.
So Doug Ducey, the excellent governor of Arizona, he was censured by the state Republican Party for no reason at all because Kelly Ward is the head of the state Republican Party, which is very foolish.
The state party chairman instead has been condemning Ducey.
The state Republican Party has been on Twitter, you know, signaling loyalty to the idea that Trump won the election over and over or that there was fraud in the state of Arizona, which I don't believe was even alleged by the Trump campaign.
And then they tried to censure Ducey for not going along with attempts to overturn the election results.
So here is Ducey chiding the state Republican Party.
By the way, note to Arizona Republicans, if you want to make that state blue, please continue doing what you're doing.
If you would like the state to remain red, You need to stop going along with the people who are the fringiest of the fringe.
Passion does not mean strategic acumen.
Ducey happens to be an excellent Republican governor of a purple state.
You don't want that state to go blue?
Maybe you should listen to the guy who can actually win statewide.
This is an action of very little consequence.
The party in Arizona has had a long history of discontent.
This is just the latest example.
I think that the state party chairman should focus on winning races.
That should be a top priority.
I believe I was in good company in that cartoon.
And I also want to say I worked incredibly hard to deliver the state for Donald Trump and Red up through election day.
Okay, so, meanwhile, things are getting radical over on the Biden side of the aisle, and we're never going to talk about that.
Everything that Biden does is going to be treated as completely mainstream and decent in every possible way.
So let's talk about that for a second.
Every single day, the Democrats are rolling out more evidence that they are more and more radical, and the media are going to treat this as moderation.
They're going to just pretend that nothing bad is going on.
So Susan Rice, who's the domestic policy advisor, based on her vast experience lying to the American public about Benghazi, she is the domestic policy advisor to Joe Biden.
And she was explaining to Jonathan Capehart, who again is a far left guy.
He writes for the Washington Post.
He's over on MSNBC.
She was explaining to Jonathan Capehart that when the Biden administration says things like racial justice and racial equity, Then that is not divisive.
Now, here's the thing.
It's super divisive.
The reason it's divisive is because it is thinking of justice as a group thing.
Justice is not a group thing.
Justice is an individual thing.
The definition of justice is you get what you deserve, not you get what your group deserves, which is inherently racially bigoted.
The idea that you get what your group deserves, why?
Why?
Seriously.
But that is the case that is being made over and over by the Biden administration.
Here is Susan Rice saying that this is actually unifying.
This is the new unity, guys.
They're not radical.
This is all moderate.
Here is Susan Rice.
This is actually the opposite of dividing us.
This is about bringing everybody in and being inclusive.
It's a bit rich for the Republicans after the 44 years of the most divisive president ever, who use bigotry and hatred as a political strategy to accuse a new administration that is trying to include and lift up everybody.
It's literally not attempting to include and lift up everybody if you are saying that certain groups should be privileged above other groups.
That is the exact policy that is being proposed.
By the way, even Politico is noting this today.
I didn't write Politico, guys.
It's okay.
You don't have to get mad at Politico.
Okay?
Staffers at Politico.
So they have an entire piece in the fabled, untouchable, pristine Politico playbook.
Okay, about the equity versus equality routine that the Biden administration is doing.
They say this, they're all talking about equity, right?
This is the early buzzword of the Biden administration, popping up in nearly every policy proposal, executive order, and speech by the president and his top official so far.
They're all talking about equity, not to be confused with equality, the umbrella term that past administrations, including Barack Obama's, use to describe efforts to address racial and economic disparities.
So what's this all about?
The idea in a nutshell is this, Equality means every person is treated the same.
They get the same resources from the government and same access to services no matter what.
Well, no.
Equality generally means that every person is treated the same according to the rights that are accorded to them.
Equity is an attempt to account for differences in need among people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Even this is a bias, no.
Equity is an attempt to end with the same result for all groups.
That's the goal, right?
Whereas Kamala Harris put it two days before the election, equality suggests, oh, everyone should get the same amount.
The problem with that, not everybody's starting out from the same place, which sounds a lot like communism, right?
Everybody should end up with the same amount.
The distinction is more than a matter of semantics.
It is critical to understanding how the Biden agenda is taking shape and where it's heading in the months and years to come.
Already, equity is an organizing principle of every policy prescription Biden has put forward so far, from housing to climate change.
Don't worry, they're not radicals, guys.
It's totally fine.
Today, I wrote about another example in a story for Politico, say the editors of Playbook.
Black and brown people who are disproportionately affected by the coronavirus are also least likely to get vaccinated.
There are lots of reasons why, but access to the internet to sign up for shots, and access to pharmacies and hospitals to receive the shots, is a big one.
Simply giving all people access to vaccination isn't enough, Biden officials say.
It will likely require deploying mobile units to certain black and brown neighborhoods, among other targeted actions, to get the job done.
Okay, no, the actual critique of vaccine policy is not that in areas where there's literally no ability to get vaccine, we should make sure that people can get vaccine.
The critique is that the CDC policy... The critique is that the CDC policy originally recommended that we vaccinate young African-American people before 65-year-old white people, which is nuts.
Okay, that's crazy.
Now, says Politico, conservatives have taken notice of Biden's embrace of equity and are criticizing it as affirmative action by a different name.
That is what it is.
In push for woke equity, Biden abandons equality, read the headline of a New York Post editorial over the weekend.
The equity approach assumes that any outcome that doesn't meet inane racial quotas is the result of bias and in fact, systemically racist.
The newspaper opined.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas asked HUD Secretary-designate Marcia Fudge about the difference during her confirmation hearing on Thursday, seemingly trying to get her acknowledged that equity means treating people differently based on their race.
Fudge's response, quote, you know, if you say to me that I'm going to give you five bucks and you're going to give my friend five bucks, my five bucks is not necessarily going to go this far because my friend already has a mother and father who are wealthy.
Shortly after, Cotton sent out an email blast highlighting the exchange, signaling this could soon become ammunition in Washington's partisan warfare.
Oh, Republicans pounce.
That's the problem.
These Republicans, they won't accept the idea that we should basically segregate people according to group and then treat them according to group identity rather than individually.
By the way, even fudge is fudging there.
The truth is, in the United States, we already have means-based social welfare programs.
I do not receive any benefits from the federal government.
People who are very impoverished in the United States receive benefits from the federal government.
That's not what this is about.
When they say equity, what they mean is that they're going to judge you based on your race.
They're going to judge you based on your history of racial victimization, not personally, but as a group.
So Colin Powell's kid should receive five bucks, and my kid should not receive five bucks, even though both are growing up pretty wealthy.
Expect the debate, says Politico, to shape how some white Americans in the middle and on the right think about the Biden-Harris presidency.
The left has recently embraced the shift to equity, and black and brown people have been there for decades.
Will Biden try to sell it to the public?
Doesn't look like it.
So far, at least, administration officials are saying equity a lot, proposing policies they think reflect it, and hoping that it clicks.
Well, the reason that they are using the term equity, as opposed to something like affirmative action, or quote-unquote reparative justice, right, that's the other one they use, reparative justice, because it's a reparation, they don't want to use that language.
They say equity, hoping that your brain will think equality, and then you'll just let it go.
That's the goal here.
Just as they've shifted from disinformation to misinformation in the media so they can shut up people they don't like, now they're shifting from equality to equity in the hope that you don't know the difference between equality and equity because one has only one extra syllable, basically.
And this has become the talking point for every element of the Democratic agenda.
Over the weekend, National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, she said, the environment is a racial justice issue.
Everything is a racial justice issue.
Climate change is a racial justice issue because it exacerbates the challenges in the communities that have been left behind.
It goes after the very same communities that pollution has held back and racism has held back.
And it's our opportunity to serve those communities, to elevate them.
Okay, it's pretty amazing.
And by the way, the goal here, the goal here, that racial justice and climate justice are the same thing, the goal here is that if you then say you oppose their program, what are they going to call you?
You know where it's going.
I don't like your climate change program.
Oh, it's because you're a racist.
You're a racist, right?
It's because you're a white supremacist.
You're defending the white supremacist system.
This is why whenever you hear anybody on the left use the language anti-racist, there's so much semantic game playing here.
When people on the left use the language anti-racist, they do not mean opposes racism.
They mean opposes the, if you're anti-racist, it means opposes quote-unquote systems of racism.
Meaning any system that ends with a racially disparate outcome is a racist system.
And if you don't oppose that system, you are therefore complicit in that system.
That's the Ibram X. Kendi nonsense.
How radical is this?
It's so radical that over the weekend, Ibram Kendi was attacking John McWhorter.
Okay?
John McWhorter is not a conservative.
John McWhorter is like a middle-of-the-road liberal.
But now, Ibram Kendi is basically suggesting that John McWhorter needs to be run out of polite society because he opposes Ibram X. Kendi's anti-racist, fascistic nonsense.
And by the way, it is absolutely fascistic nonsense.
There's no question about it, right?
Ibram X. Kendi has specifically proposed, I am not kidding you, that there be a national department at the federal level in the executive branch, a national anti-racism department capable of striking down any state, local, or federal policy ending with disparate racial outcome.
Okay, with not an elected body, just a bunch of experts who basically rule in order to achieve a completely equitable arrangement at the top of politics.
Now, Kendi is going after John McWhorter, who is a black liberal.
Okay, like this is how far this is going.
So don't let them pretend that this is all about equality or it's about decency or it's about liberty.
It absolutely is not.
It absolutely is not.
Instead, it is about ousting people you disagree with, even if you disagree with them, kind of mildly on policy.
This prompted, by the way, John McWhorter over the weekend to tweet out, McWhorter has an excellent piece over at Substack all about this.
alone in finding his ideas primitive. Go with it and walk on. Maybe even tell your friends you don't get the hype. You'll likely find that they never did either.
McCorder has an excellent piece over at Substack all about this. He talked about, at Substack, the Kendi ideology and how it is infusing so many places all across the country. He says it's a great piece.
He says, in my Atlantic article about anti-racism manifestos that threaten to destroy institutions of basic missions as educational, I mentioned that the Dalton School in New York was considering transformative anti-racism measures.
However, I have it on good authority that, in fact, the damage was already done as of last semester.
Here are some snapshots from Dalton Fall 2020 from concerned parents who, because of they went public with their names, they would be pilloried as bigots nationwide, are staying anonymous.
Quote, Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, racist cop reenactments in science, de-centering whiteness in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class.
By the way, not rare at the Dalton School.
In California, I believe it was at Brentwood School, somebody sent an email to me that showed that parents are being separated by race for actual parent-teacher conferences.
They're having like a white parents' night and a black parents' night.
This is in line with equity.
It's all equity.
Honestly, the segregationists from 1955 are just clapping and gleeing their graves.
Now the elect, my term for the hyper works, woke, says John McWhorter, who are hijacking constructive leftist ideals in this nation, will claim that this sort of thing is exactly what education needs to be, and that white or white parents who object are displaying fragility.
However, we get that fragility notion from one of the worst books ever written, as I've argued.
What Dalton is doing is tragic and grisly.
By the way, I cannot resist noting that I hear on good authority that Professor Robin D'Angelo has claimed she is the Neil deGrasse Tyson to my astrologer.
I will only say that quite a few presented within the three of us would find me more akin, if only superficially, to Tyson for certain reasons.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is black.
McWhorter is black.
D'Angelo is white.
He says, in the Atlantic piece I wrote of how anti-racist protests shut down Bryn Mawr last semester.
The protests actually spread to allied schools Haverford and Swarthmore.
I have it on good authority that at Swarthmore, the president simply folded arms and said no to the protesters, upon which they basically folded in their tails and went away.
Why?
Because the president is a black woman, Valerie Smith.
The key is here.
This is the key.
She knew she could respond to melodramatic performance art with the refusal it deserved because no one could call her racist.
And this is the point that he's making, is that, again, the redefinition of racism, from has animus on the basis of race, to you don't agree with my agenda, that transformation is vile and dangerous.
He says, I don't mean that being against racism is BS, I mean that a certain strain of quote-unquote anti-racism these days is BS.
And that's right, for just saying this, Kendi wants basically McWhorter barred from the public conversation.
And that's the exact ideology that is now being embraced by the Biden administration.
Get ready for it.
This is the danger of the Biden administration.
Not specifically the policies they enact, which will be bad.
The stuff that's actually dangerous from the Biden administration is going to be the ideology they put forward.
It was an ideology first put forward during the Obama years.
It is being revivified much more deeply and in hyper-partisan fashion by the Biden administration.
By the way, if you think these people have the best, if you think these people have the best interest of all Americans at heart, remember Biden, you know, during his inaugural, he said, I'm here for unity, and I'm here because, you know, I want, I'm going to stand for all Americans, unity in all Americans, and all this stuff.
I don't think that his administration has all Americans in mind.
Just the latest indicator, Kamala Harris, the most wondrous of all vice presidents, right?
Just incredible at her job.
She did an interview over the weekend in which she has all Americans in mind.
She deeply cares about all Americans.
And the Biden administration's environmental plans are going to wreck a bunch of jobs in places like West Virginia because of their attempts to shut down carbon emissions.
Okay, here is Kamala Harris, who obviously cares about everyone, so caring, so knowledgeable, completely botching West Virginia mining policy.
You will hear her in this clip refer to abandoned mine lands as landmines because she is so knowledgeable and understanding and really takes all Americans' concerns seriously.
Job creation around, for example, all of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned landmines.
What we need to do around plugging leaks from oil and gas wells and transferring those important skills to the work that has yet to be done that needs to get done.
Oh, we do need those West Virginians out there ensuring that we, what?
Somehow failed to trigger the abandoned landmines.
It's like the demilitarized zone in Korea.
Well done there, Kamala Harris.
Only the experts, only the experts.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today for an additional hour of programming.
In the meantime, go check out the Michael Knowles Show.
He discusses Redditors buying a billboard in Times Square.
You can hear more details about that story over on Michael's show.
It's available everywhere right now.
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 Sajewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
Production Assistant, Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright 2021.
If you want to cut through the madness of our politics and culture and know what's really going on and what it really means, head on over to The Michael Knowles Show, where we can all bask in the simple joys of being right.
▲
Export Selection