All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:47
“Global Warming Will Kill Us All, So Give Us Ultimate Power” | Ep. 1650
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The World Economic Forum crisis mongers to justify an international power grab.
The movement to crack down on free speech online continues apace.
And the Biden family's corruption problems aren't really quite over.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Bench Bureau Show.
This show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
It's time to stand up against big tech.
Protect your data at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Well, Davos continues.
It's an almost endless series of foolish statements by people who really should know better, but have decided that the most important thing for them is to centralize power of policymaking, power of government, power of money to themselves.
And so the only way that the elitists at Davos at the World Economic Forum can actually justify the kind of power grabs that they want to make here, the power grab that suggests that they get to restructure the entire world economy, or they get to restructure energy markets, they get to regulate how you live your life.
The only way they can justify that is with absolute crisis mongering.
And so half of Davos is about trying to explain to the rest of the world that we are on the precipice of the global end, that essentially They are like Jor-El at the beginning of Superman the movie, explaining that Krypton is about to be eaten by the red sun over here.
And so we really need to do something about that.
You need to give me ultimate power.
They're really more like General Zod, right?
They're trying to take total power in order to achieve a goal.
Because after all, the crisis is afoot.
And that is really ugly stuff.
It also happens to be incredibly stupid stuff.
So to take an example, Vanessa Kerry is John Kerry's daughter.
John Kerry is the American climate envoy.
To the rest of the world.
So his daughter is also at the World Economic Forum.
Nepotism, man.
It's a drug.
In any case, she shows up at the World Economic Forum and she proceeds to explain that right now, one quarter of global deaths are from preventable environmental causes.
Now, no.
I mean, no.
Let's hear her out.
When you think about what most people's main assets are, it's their ability to work.
And if you're sick, you can't work, you can't participate in markets, GDPs don't grow.
And so we have a real opportunity to address this.
A quarter of the world's deaths currently are from preventable environmental causes.
So we're just, if we don't tackle this issue in this nexus, we're really setting ourselves up for a much harder pathway.
A quarter of the world's deaths are from preventable environmental causes?
I'm pretty sure that, like, virtually all deaths are from health issues in the West.
They're generally from health issues of old age.
I mean, I'm not sure exactly what she's trying to say here.
Maybe she's trying to say that a quarter of the world's preventable deaths are from preventable environmental causes.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who are dying in the West in an old age home at the age of 87 are not dying from a preventable environmental cause.
OK, but but even if we correct her statement, we say what she really means is that a quarter of preventable deaths are from preventable environmental causes.
That's not really even true because here is the thing.
She's assuming that a preventable environmental cause would be, for example, global warming, right?
If we could stop global warming, then the amount of preventable death would decline.
There's only one problem with that, which is that way more people die on a yearly basis because things are cold and because things are hot.
Bjorn Lomberg over at the Copenhagen Institute, he put out a graphic recently showing this, demonstrating how this works.
The number of cold deaths has actually decreased since 2000 by 0.51 percent.
The number of heat deaths has increased by 0.21 percent.
But there's a problem.
The problem is that if you look at that on an absolute death level, what you see is that higher temperatures have actually decreased the amount of cold death by 283,000 cold deaths over that course of time.
And higher temperatures have increased heat deaths by about 116,000 deaths, which means that the net amount of death avoided is actually higher because of global warming.
If you're talking about the directly impacted people from global warming, a few more people have died because of heat, but a lot less people, a lot fewer people have died because it's cold because it's warm now, right?
So what she's saying is actively untrue.
But the crisis mongering has to continue.
And this is why you will hear people say there are billions of people homeless, billions of people crossing borders.
What you're going to say is mass death, catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, the end of the world.
This is the shtick.
Because if you claim that this is the shtick, this allows you to grab and wield unseemly power.
Another Davos speaker at the World Economic Forum, Professor Joyita Gupta, says that by 2070, 3 billion people will live in uninhabitable zones.
A forbidden zone from Planet of the Apes or something.
Here we go.
This uninhabitable zone is increasing.
If we continue with our greenhouse gas emissions, then by 2070, as many as 3 billion people will live in uninhabitable zones.
Well, I mean, the truth is that people right now live in heretofore uninhabitable zones.
As technology gets better, people are very, very good at adapting.
People are living in areas that are way too hot to really sustain human life, but we have air conditioning, for example.
We're able to move water to places where there is no water.
It used to be, if you go back 10,000 years, that people tended to live by rivers and lakes because this is where the water supply was.
They at least tended to live where the water table was relatively low because this meant that you were able to dig a well.
Now, because of the extraordinary technology that we've been able to bring to bear, you can build a city in the middle of the desert in Las Vegas, for example.
Okay, so there's that.
But put that aside.
Do you really think that all those people are just going to sit there while it gets really hot and not move?
Do you think that's what's going to happen over the course of the next 50 years?
This is a point that I've made before and people have Have intentionally misconstrued it because this is what we do on the internet is we tend to take people's arguments and then we pretend that they don't know exactly what they're saying or we take them in the stupidest possible way.
What I've said is that over the course of the century, people adapt, people move.
As the water levels rise, nobody is going to stand there as the water level approaches their ankles and then their knees and then their chest and then their nose and then they drown.
That's not how any of this works.
But if you can promote the notion that crisis is right at our doorstep, and it's a preventable crisis, we can do something about it, this allows you to grab ultimate power.
The alarmism here is extraordinary.
The UNICEF executive director Catherine Russell over at Davos did the same thing.
She says the climate crisis is a child health crisis.
Why can't you just say it's getting warmer and we have to adapt?
Or it's getting warmer and we might be able to stop or lower the amount of warming that is happening and that the costs of doing so are outweighed by the benefits.
That would be a normal argument.
Instead, it's like every crisis is a climate crisis.
You're having a bad day?
It's because of the climate.
You're going crazy?
You're having a mental health problem?
It's because of the climate.
Here we go.
You know, we're seeing so many children who have no idea where their next meal is coming from.
I saw it again in Yemen, you know, where children are just literally so vulnerable and all of these climate threats, everything that happens in the world, every bad thing that happens is a little bit worse for children.
And that's what we're seeing.
So we see the climate crisis as really a child health crisis.
Okay, I'm sorry, but this notion that kids are dying en masse because of starvation because of global warming is rebutted by the simple fact that there has been a massive decline in hunger in the developing world since essentially 1990.
There's been a decline of about 20% of people in the developing world who are starving to A little bit over 12% by say 2014.
And that decline has continued to pace.
Because it turns out that people are really good at shipping things places.
And that additional trade is helpful.
And that hunger has declined.
But you're not allowed to hear the good news.
The bad news is what allows them to grab power.
And then the best part of this is that the people who understand this the best are the people who actively are the poorest.
The people who are the poorest are saying, you know what I don't need?
I don't need you telling me I need to build a solar panel on my corrugated iron shack.
That's what I don't need you doing.
What I need you doing is making sure that I get the cheap energy that is necessary to power my life and develop my economy.
What I need from you is a stable set of governance rules that can be implemented by my government so that I can own my own property.
So that all of the locked up capital in the land that I'm sitting on, but it's not legally owned by me because of this bad property system, can be unlocked.
This is Hernando de Soto, the Latin American economist who won the Nobel Prize.
He has suggested that one of the big problems in the developing world, in the underdeveloped world, is that they don't have actual regulatory consistency.
So you don't know if you own a piece of land when you sit on that land for 20 years, for example.
There are a bunch of things we can do for the developing world.
Stable governance is one of those things.
Cheap energy is another one of those things.
The problem is that cheap energy comes in the form of carbon-based fossil fuels because that is the cheapest and most effective form of energy currently known to man.
And so this creates a problem for the elitists because they say, we're doing this on behalf of the poor, don't you see?
We're doing all, we need power so we can help the poor people, which sounds great.
We need power to help the people who are the most, the most hurt by climate change.
We need the power to help the people who are starving because there's only one problem.
If you ask those people, would you like cheap gas or these morons over here flying private jets and talking about solar panels, they're going to say, give us the cheap gas.
Give us the coal.
A huge percentage of the world's population, by the way, would kill for natural gas and oil.
I mean, literally kill for it because they are burning wood and dung for fuel.
You want to talk about, you want to talk about death, you know, needless death that is being caused right now by environmental hazard.
Try burning wood and dung in your corrugated iron shack for fuel and see how that goes for you in terms of your health.
By the way, the carbon emissions from that are pretty extraordinary.
So there's one additional element here that the Davos crowd has to do.
And that is we have to say that what we really have to do is we have to convince these poor people that they are ignorant and stupid.
They need to give us the power also.
You need to give us the power to help the poor people and the poor people don't want us to have that power.
Well, we need to convince those poor people that they should give us the power as well, because of course they're stupid.
I mean, they're stupid and they're poor.
So if we just explain to them that we need to put the solar power on their iron shacks, then probably that'll solve the problem.
So here is climate negotiator Nam Gage Hoden explaining just that.
I heard this amazing phrase yesterday where a friend of mine said that there are doors that we can walk through, but it's important that you hold that door so that someone less privileged than you can walk through it.
So something that you can think about is what are you doing in your position of privilege to make the conversation on climate more accessible to somebody who may not know about it or for someone who lives in a different part of the world where this conversation is not a possibility.
Maybe the reason that the conversation isn't a possibility is not because of government crackdowns.
Maybe the conversation isn't the possibility because people are too busy worrying about being able to eat and have enough heat to survive cold.
Maybe that's one of the problems.
We'll get to more on this in just one second.
First, I want to talk to you about Daily Wire's most trusted privacy partner and a premier sponsor of this show, ExpressVPN.
Using the internet without ExpressVPN is like checking in your baggage at the airport without a lock.
You think your stuff is kept private, but you never know who exactly is going through your personal items.
When you go online without a VPN, ISPs can see every single website you visit.
They can legally sell that information to ad companies and tech giants who then use it to target with their advertisements.
When you use ExpressVPN, ISPs can't see your online activity.
Your identity is anonymized by a secure VPN server.
Your data is also encrypted for maximum protection.
If that sounds confusing, it's not.
It really isn't.
All you have to do is fire up the app, click on a button.
It's really easy to do.
ExpressVPN works on all devices.
Phones, laptops, even routers.
So everyone who shares your Wi-Fi can be protected as well.
Go check out ExpressVPN right now.
Protect yourself the same way that I do online.
Check out ExpressVPN.com slash Ben today.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Ben.
You can get an extra three months for free when you do.
ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
No reason to give anyone else access to your online activity.
It is your data.
Keep it your own.
Check out ExpressVPN.com slash Ben today.
Also, it's the start of a brand new year, and this year, invest in your spiritual health.
With Hallow, it's the number one Christian prayer app in the United States.
It is the number one Catholic app in the world.
I'm a big advocate of Christians performing their religion and acting in accordance with their religion.
It's great for you.
It is great for your soul.
Just like physical exercise, daily spiritual exercise is critical to your well-being, especially in a world where attacks on faith and religion happen all around us.
Hallow helps you maintain a daily prayer routine.
It is filled with studies, meditations, and reflections rooted in Christian prayer practices.
Start the new year with daily Bible readings and reflections from the number one Christian podcast, The Bible in a Year, or pray alongside Mark Wahlberg or world-class athletes who will help inspire and motivate you to work toward your true purpose in life and in accordance with God's will.
Halo has over 6,000 prayers, meditations, and peaceful music playlists to choose from and can help you sustain your spiritual practice throughout your entire day.
It is filled with studies, meditations, and reflections, including that number one Christian podcast, The Bible in a Year.
Try Halo for three months free at halo.com slash Shapiro.
That's H-A-L-O-W.com slash Shapiro to get started.
But all of this is the predicate to the power grab.
So the UN Secretary General, he says it's time to move beyond fossil fuels.
That's what we have to do.
That's the really important thing.
We have to move on climate, right?
We have this climate crisis, and if we don't actively act on the crisis, then we're all going to die.
Now, whenever somebody declares a world-ending crisis, Without the evidence to actually show it, you can typically guarantee that it's about the power.
Whether you're talking about people who were claiming that they should have ultimate power to decide literally everything in your life based on COVID, or whether you're talking about the UN Secretary General saying that climate change, the change of the climate over the course of a hundred years, and now you have to give me ultimate power.
Maybe they just want the ultimate power.
So here is the UN Secretary General saying it's time to move beyond fossil fuels.
This is not a decision that you get to make.
The real world still exists.
In the real world, solar panels are not nearly as effective as gas, natural gas, oil, even coal.
Here we go.
What can the UN do about it?
The UN is making a number of proposals.
Our proposal is to have a global stimulus.
A global stimulus able to redress the economies and a global stimulus able to address the challenges of the poorest in the world.
And at the same time, to create the funds that are necessary for a just transition in relation to climate change.
We need to move from a dominance of fossil fuels to a dominance of renewables, but we need to do that in a just way.
Okay, I love that they're talking about global redistributionism and a giant global stimulus, which means taxing you to have the governments of the world blow out their monetary supply, which is how we got an inflation spiral that we are currently in and trying to escape.
I love that they're doing this against the backdrop of beautiful mountains in Switzerland where rich people are skiing.
It's just, it's too much.
It's too much.
And this is the shtick.
This is constantly the shtick.
Give us more power to redistribute.
We'll sit here in our literal chalet, our ski chalet in Switzerland, and we will tell you why we need global redistributionism.
These people are Bond villains.
I have to say, God's casting process lately is just, it's broken.
God as casting director, as a big believer in the Almighty, I have to say that the Almighty casting process, it used to be a lot more subtle.
Now the Almighty is just typecasting at this point.
He's trotting out global supervillains like Klaus Schwab, who speaks in a German accent while explaining that you must give up your power.
You must give us the power!
Or you have this guy, the UN Secretary General, sitting there all fat-catted wearing a nice overcoat and a scarf at a ski chalet explaining why he needs more power.
Guys, something has happened.
God's casting process is off.
At least you ought to cast against type once in a while, God.
I mean, seriously.
You know, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor of Germany, he says, the fundamental task of our century is the transformation to a climate-neutral economy.
I feel like there are more fundamental tasks, actually, and that what you're actually talking about is we need innovation.
Well, congratulations.
Welcome to the world where innovation has always been necessary.
The fundamental task of our century is transformation to a climate-neutral economy.
Again, it's very reminiscent of the foolishness where Joe Biden will say, what we need is a cancer moonshot.
We need a cancer moonshot.
Yeah, it's bad.
I'll tell you a bad thing, guys.
Let me tell you some malarkey.
Cancer.
Cancer is a malarkey.
And to fight the cancer, we need some shampoo, and we also need a moonshot.
It's like, oh, you're right.
We haven't spent any money trying to cure cancer.
And it must be because of our insufficient commitment.
We haven't cured cancer.
So if we just think real hard and clap for Tinkerbell, cancer will be cured.
It's the same thing with these schmucks.
They're like, well, what we really need is a climate neutral economy.
And if we just think real hard about it and if we say over and over and over, that's what we need.
It will magically appear.
Magically, innovation will happen.
Or maybe that's not how innovation works.
Maybe you have posited no solutions that are actually sufficient to the problem you claim exists.
But at least you got people to cheer for you at the World Economic Forum, I suppose.
Our transformation toward a climate-neutral economy, the fundamental task of our century, is currently taking on an entirely new dynamic.
Not in spite of, but because of the Russian war and the resulting pressure on us Europeans to change.
Whether you are a business leader or a climate activist, a security policy specialist or an investor, it is now crystal clear to each and every one of us that the future belongs solely to renewables.
Wow, the future belongs solely to renewables.
Oh, I don't even know what that means.
The future belongs to, who decides this?
Doesn't the market typically decide who wins in the market?
And isn't all of Europe now essentially freezing because Russia turned off the oil and natural gas and now they're dependent on America shipping in a lot of that stuff?
It really is amazing stuff.
But again, the predicate is for a global redistributionist scheme.
Give us power for a global redistributionist scheme.
The person who makes this clearest is the Colombian president Gustavo Petro, who is in fact a socialist.
All of Latin America is undergoing right now a pink wave or large swaths of Latin America are undergoing a pink wave in which quasi socialists or open socialists take over countries and or attempt to overthrow Actual democracies, which is what's happening in Peru right now, but the media doesn't care about that, right?
The media only cares when Bolsonarists attack government buildings in Brazil.
They don't care when dozens of people are being killed in the middle of an actual conflict in Peru because the people who are protesting and committing acts of violence against the government, those are left-wingers.
In any case, here is Colombian President Gustavo Petro saying that what needs to end, if you want to fight climate change, what really needs to end is capitalism.
Capitalism is the real problem.
This is the underlying message of the World Economic Forum.
They like to claim that they're in favor of liberalized economies, but the minute that the liberalized economy runs up against their particular mode of morality, which is top down control corporatism, then they immediately throw that out the window. So here's Gustavo Petro.
The capitalism that we know nowadays has a driving force and logic.
And that is to increase our profits in such a way. And that's how we talk about history to regulate everything without political or social boundaries.
And that's the one we have.
This has resulted in some sort of global anarchy.
That's global anarchy, is what capitalism creates.
So what we actually need is top-down control, right?
The opposite of anarchy is control.
We need more control.
Al Gore is making his big reappearance.
This is a dude who's earned tens of millions of dollars with climate alarmism that has largely been proved false over the course of the last 20 years or so.
Remember all the polar bears were going to be dead at this point and the ice caps are going to be completely melted?
Al Gore is still here talking about man, bear, pig.
So, Al Gore over at the World Economic Forum.
Again, God's casting process is broken.
He says, you know, one of the big problems is the head of the World Bank.
Because the head of the World Bank is not actively giving loans to useless projects that are unlikely to be successful.
And the reason for that is because he's a climate denier.
He's a bad guy.
We need control of the World Bank, says Al Gore.
Young people around the world are looking at what we're doing.
They look at the World Bank and they say, oh, you've got a climate denier in charge of the World Bank.
So why are you surprised that the World Bank is completely failing?
It's completely failing.
Man, bear, pig.
Half man, half bear, half pig.
Not only that, says Al Gore, if we don't stop this climate, if we don't stop this climate crisis, we're going to see billions of climate refugees.
Billions of them.
I don't believe you, sir.
Creating the droughts and melting the ice and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees predicted to reach 1 billion in this century.
Look at the xenophobia and political authoritarian trends that have come from just a few million refugees.
What about a billion?
We would lose our capacity for self-governance.
It seems like you want us to lose the capacity for self-governance now, I noticed.
You would like to be the person who governs.
This is the left's version of democracy.
The left's version of democracy is we control things.
And if we lose, democracy has been overthrown.
You see this everywhere.
Whether you're talking about Peru, or whether you're talking about Brazil, or whether you're talking about the United States, or whether you're talking about Israel, anytime the left loses, their immediate move is democracy is under threat.
See, when Joe Biden wins the presidency, I don't think democracy is under threat.
I think something terrible has happened in the country and he shouldn't be the president of the United States.
And the American body of politics should reject that and move forward to kick him out of office as soon as humanly possible.
But that's not the same thing as democracy.
But all of these people who want global control, they're constantly suggesting that if they don't get global control, then somehow democracy has been defeated.
It seems to me that you just mean, by democracy, stuff I like.
So if you don't get the stuff you like, then democracy is in danger.
What is this all leading up to?
It's leading up to John Kerry, who says we don't have time for business as usual on climate.
And what he means by business as usual, of course, of course, forever and always.
Business as usual is the business of governing.
We don't have time for that.
We don't have time for all of this.
This sticking and moving and negotiation and democratic inter- We don't have time for any of that!
Well, it's an emergency!
This is war, dammit!
And this is something that you hear very often from government advocates, is that everything is akin to a war.
Right?
Why?
Because in a war, you get to suspend all civil liberties, force people to live in barracks, draft human beings, put them in battle.
The left actually loves the morality of war and the ethic of war.
They just want to direct it at a bunch of other causes.
And they want to be able to essentially draft your bank account for their needs.
They want to be able to control your life in these ways.
Here's John Kerry said, we don't, the crisis is so large that we don't have time for business as usual.
Remember business as usual just means freedom.
Red tape, the amount of paperwork, the amount of numbers, hiring that we have to do in a slowdown, an economic slowdown kind of environment.
How do we get above that concern for the private sector that this is going to represent a huge burden that, quite frankly, I don't have time for?
Because there is still this gap.
No, there is a gap, Julie.
You're absolutely correct.
And bureaucracy is the enemy of all of us.
We don't have time To do business as usual.
We don't.
Bureaucracy, red tape, democracy, you know, all of these things are a real problem.
And the end goal must, of course, be that your life has to change.
Your life has to change dramatically.
So the head of Siemens and Maersk, Maersk, of course, a major international shipping firm, his name is Jim Snabe.
He says, you know what the best possible thing, outcome here would be?
We should all stop eating meat.
A billion people need to stop eating meat right now.
Yes, this sounds like it's going to make your life significantly better is if you stop eating meat.
I'm not eating the bugs, guys.
It's not going to happen.
I'm not going vegan.
I'm not going vegetarian.
Meat tastes good and it's good for you.
Stop it.
Just stop.
But here we go.
So I stopped eating meat.
Now the math would say, well, you need to stop eating meat 11 years to compensate for a flight to Thailand.
Yes.
But if a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact.
I love that.
So his idea is you should personally stop eating meat because if you do, maybe a billion people will stop eating meat.
Spoiler alert.
A billion people are not going to stop eating meat.
I don't mean to burst your bubble there, Jim, but it ain't going to happen.
Maybe you should come up with better solutions than a billion people suddenly stop eating meat.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, that's going to happen.
Meanwhile, Larry Fink, the head of BlackRock, who's been using the extraordinary power of BlackRock.
BlackRock, of course, is an investment firm that has a trillion dollars under management.
He was speaking also at the World Economic Forum, and he's angry that people are saying that the corporations who are now seeking stakeholder capitalism, meaning doing the work of this sort of globalized elite, he says that you're not really supposed to attack him.
During an interview on Tuesday in Davos, he said, quote, I'm taking it very seriously, the criticism.
We're trying to address the misconceptions.
It's hard because it's not business anymore.
They're doing it in a personal way.
For the first time in my professional career, attacks are now personal.
They're trying to demonize the issues.
Wait, demonizing the issues means it's not personal.
And that means that we're taking very seriously the way that you govern your company, which involves you, but is really not personal.
What, of course, is the problem?
The problem, he says, is that Elon Musk has been attacking the ESG movement, the Environmental Social Governance movement, which suggests that corporations should be working in line with major government in order to pursue some of these nefarious ends.
The desire for control is extraordinarily strong.
It's very, very strong.
And Davos is just a pure example of that.
It's not that they're actually going to be able to achieve all of this.
They're not.
But they set the agenda.
And then the minute that you notice the agenda, they're like, why are you noticing?
Again, it's the face tattoo center.
We're here.
We're having a big convocation of all the most important people.
We run industry.
We run government.
We run media.
We do all of these things.
But if you notice that we're doing these things, you're a conspiracy theorist.
You're doing it out in front, guys.
You're saying it out loud into microphones.
That's not a conspiracy.
That's you saying things and us noticing.
Okay, meanwhile, speaking of people saying things that we're not supposed to notice.
So there's been this major controversy that is now broken out over a hockey player for the Philadelphia Flyers named Ivan Provorov.
He committed a grave sin.
What is his grave sin?
He did not wear the colors.
He did not wear the ribbon.
He didn't do it.
He wouldn't wear the rainbow flag jersey for his warm-up at some LGBTQ-plus-minus-divided-by-a-sign-happy-face emoji tilde swindon.
No, just tilde.
Pride Night, or some such.
And this is very, very bad.
And he said, I'm not doing it because I'm a Russian Orthodox observer, and therefore, I don't believe in same-sex marriage, and I also don't believe in homosexual activity, in line with virtually all traditional religion.
This means, of course, that he has committed a grave sin, and he must be punished.
He must atone.
So here's a Canadian host named Sid Seixero ripping Properov in rather colorful terms because you're not allowed to disagree with the alphabet people.
You're not allowed to do that.
It's a bad thing.
You're not allowed to say, listen, you can do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, whatever, it's your life, but you can't force me to agree with you.
You're not allowed to do that anymore.
That's bad.
You must celebrate.
You will be forced to celebrate by the culture or you must be punished.
Here is this Canadian host going after Properov.
I think you find the flyers a million dollars for this.
I'm not kidding.
Figure this out and stop offending people on nights where it's not about that.
It's supposed to be about inclusivity.
The National Hockey League need to attack this and figure this out.
Because what I heard last night was offensive and didn't make any sense.
The National Hockey League today He needs to fine that organization a million dollars and reevaluate how they support gay rights.
Because that is insulting.
That is the number one trending topic in Canada.
That is insulting what happened in Philadelphia.
And if the NHL is serious about this, they say they are, we'll see.
We'll see how serious they are today.
Stop offending people on a night that's supposed to be about inclusivity.
We're not going to include you.
Our inclusivity means you shut the hell up.
That's what inclusivity means.
Guys, that's the best kind of inclusivity, says this moron Canadian host.
But unfortunately, this is large swaths of the sports media.
This is just one reason why you should, instead of subscribing to left-wing sports media companies that hate your guts, you should go check out Crane & Co, which actually covers sports from a perspective of people who actually like sports and don't hate you.
Mark Lazarus, a senior writer for The Athletic, he tweeted out, quote, I have no time for people who openly hate and hide behind religion.
If your religion preaches hate, your religion is bulls**t. I'm disappointed in Tortorella, who famously said that's the coach, who famously said he'd bench a player for protesting peacefully during the anthem in the wake of Colin Kaepernick.
Oh, you mean because we are all supposed to be unified in support for the United States of America?
I'm sorry if your vision of social justice elevates the Pride Progress flag to the place of the United States flag in the American pantheon, but that is not true for a vast bevy of Americans.
Lazarus says, he has a quote, Ivan Prokhorov made a decision not to participate in an event that was important to our team and to our fans.
As a result, we as a team made a decision not to play him out of respect to the LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign community and all our fans.
The end.
That's all he had to do.
All he had to say.
So he should have been fined.
He should have been played.
Um, that is vile and disgusting, but unfortunately, a huge swath of the sports media that, again, hates traditional values, agrees with this.
Adam Protu, who is a writer for the Hockey News and Full Press NHL, he says, Ivan Provorov has the right to any opinion he chooses, and we have the right to have any opinion on Ivan Provorov we choose.
Like this, he's a shameful human being whose homophobia is only going to get more shameful over the years.
It's shameful, you see, to oppose the agenda.
Again, he didn't call for anybody to be punished.
He didn't call for anything to happen to people who were wearing pride flags.
He just said, I'm not going to do it.
And all these morons are the rioters in the Seinfeld episode.
Wear the ribbon!
Wear it now!
We're going to beat the living hell out of you!
Gord Miller, a commentator for TSN NHL says, Right, but there are no consequences because he didn't do anything wrong.
What is the thing that he did that is wrong?
He didn't celebrate.
in Philadelphia.
The Flyers should have responded by not allowing him to play in the game.
Freedom of expression doesn't give you freedom from the consequences of your words or actions.
Right, but there are no consequences because he didn't do anything wrong.
What is the thing that he did that is wrong?
He didn't celebrate.
He essentially did the Sir Thomas More thing.
He said, I'm just going to be silent here and not do that.
And like, nope, nope, you must be punished.
Pierre Lebrun, who is the official Twitter page of TSN and RDS Hockey Insider and a columnist for The Athletic, he says, Pravrov obviously does not respect everyone.
If he did respect everyone, he would have taken part in a warmup and worn the Pride Night jersey.
Don't hide behind religion.
Okay, so now the definition of respect, just to be clear, the definition of respecting everybody is wearing their emblem.
So let me just say, I don't believe that you respect the Jews unless you wear a yarmulke.
You see why this is real stupid, guys?
I think you can respect the Jews without wearing a yarmulke.
In fact, I think I can respect the Christians without wearing a cross.
I can respect all sorts of groups without wearing their emblem on my chest.
I can even respect the people and not respect the activity in which they participate.
I do that all the time, like pretty much every day.
Including to my children.
I respect them.
I don't respect all the things that they are doing every day.
But the left refuses to acknowledge these possibilities because in the end, the left believes that they must rule and you must, you must obey.
To the point, by the way, where even if the left agrees with you, if you are of the wrong skin color or you're of the wrong group, you're not allowed to talk about it.
So this is an amazing example.
So Leslie Jones, who for some odd reason is considered funny by some people.
I don't know whether they, I don't know whether they're like Phineas Gage and they were hit by some sort of mind, mind crankshaft, like through the, through the skull, went through the eye and like out the back of the head.
And so now they find Leslie Jones funny.
There must be some group of people who finds Leslie Jones funny.
I don't know who they are or where they live or why they exist, but in any case, Leslie Jones was guest hosting The Daily Show, and she was talking about this garbage statue, this MLK statue in Boston, the Embrace.
We talked about it on the show because it's hideous.
It's just a terrible piece of garbage statue.
I mean, there are lots of great statues of MLK.
There's a great one in Washington, D.C.
of MLK.
This is, by any stretch of the imagination, a hideous nightmare fuel aberration of a statue.
Everyone understands this.
And it literally looks like a person attempting to fight a boa constrictor.
And that is the rated G version of that statue.
Megyn Kelly had a slightly less rated G version of what this statue looks like.
In any case, Leslie Jones admits she hates the statue and that it's garbage.
And then she's like, but you white people can't talk about it being bad.
Why?
Why can't I say it's a bad statue?
I'm confused.
Does me being white mean that I am now blind?
Explain.
And let me tell you something, even though I'm about to go straight hard on this statue, I gotta talk to the white people for a second.
Woo!
Talk to the white people.
What?
White people?
You don't need to be saying s*** about this statue.
Clap guys, clap because she's a racist.
Black hands only!
You need to sit your s*** in the back of the bus for this one, okay?
You need to honor this statue.
This is our civil rights icon.
It isn't, though.
It's disembodied arms holding each other.
Also, I'd just like to follow this logic down to its extreme, okay?
So basically, she's now saying that if you associate complete garbage with a topic that is sacrosanct, then certain groups are not allowed to criticize the garbage for being garbage.
Here is a pile of human feces!
It's in the middle of the street!
But if I declare that this pile of human feces has some sort of political ramifications, that means you can't say anything.
You can't notice that it's stinking and steaming in the middle of the street.
She hates the statue too, but you're not allowed to talk about it because you're a white person.
This is, by the way, and she's doing this in the name of MLK, the man who is most famous for suggesting that people should be judged by the character Rather than the color of their skin.
And she's like, you white people!
You're not allowed to notice things.
What are you doing?
Doing that white noticing thing?
Again?
You noticing things, white people?
Can't notice things.
You stop that.
That's enough of that noticing.
Because that's a white thing.
Racism.
Some MLK Day racism there from Leslie Jones, who is, again, I'm confused why anyone finds her funny, but this is what wokeness amounts to.
What wokeness amounts to is if you're not part of the in-group, you don't get to talk.
And if you are part of the in-group, you can say whatever the hell you want, no matter how false it is.
We'll get to that in just one moment.
First, it's been a rough ride if you own a business over the past several years.
You had COVID-19, which probably destroyed your business, and then you were somehow able to survive, and then you got hit with Bidenflation, and now you're gonna be hit with stagnation.
Well, what if you overpaid your taxes over the past couple years and you could claw some of that back?
That is a possibility, and this is why you should contact my friends over at Innovation Refunds.
If your business Has five or more employees and managed to survive COVID.
You could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to 26 grand per employee.
It's not a loan.
There's no payback.
It's a refund on your taxes.
The challenge is how do you get your hands on it?
How do you cut through the red tape and get your business the refund money?
Head on over to getrefunds.com.
Their team of tax attorneys are highly trained in this little known payroll tax refund program.
They've already returned a billion dollars to businesses.
They can help you as well.
They do all the work, no charge upfront, simply share a percentage of the cash they get for you.
Businesses of all types can qualify, including those who took PPP, nonprofits, even those who had increases in sales.
Just go to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, answer a few quick questions to get started.
This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time, so you don't want to miss out.
Head on over to GetRefunds.com.
Again, that's G-E-T-R-E-F-U-N-D-S.com.
GetRefunds.com.
And see if maybe you can get some money back.
You shouldn't have paid to the government in the first place.
GetRefunds.com.
Also, you may have noticed that the government jacks around the interest rates.
It jacks around bond sales.
It jacks around the currency on a routine basis.
Maybe you wish to insulate yourself against all of that screwing around with the economy by the Federal Reserve, by the Treasury Department, by whichever administration is in power.
This is why you should insulate yourself at least a little bit by buying into precious metals.
And that's what the folks over at Birchgold can do for you.
Over 5,000 years, gold has withstood inflation, geopolitical turmoil, and stock market crashes.
Now you can own gold in a tax shelter retirement account.
Birch Gold makes it super easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Text Ben to 989898.
Claim your free info kit on gold.
Then talk to one of their precious metal specialists.
When you purchase From Birch Gold by January 31st, you'll get a signed copy of my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, which seems more and more like an actual playbook for the left these days.
With an A-plus rating, with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, you can trust Birch Gold to help protect your savings.
I bought gold because I was tired of my money being impacted by dumb decisions made by our leaders over in Washington.
Well, if you want to be more like me, text Ben to 989898, claim that free information kit, get a signed copy of my book today.
That's Ben to 989898 to get started with my friends at Birch Gold.
Also, Folks, this month we are celebrating the anniversary of one of the great moments in Daily Wire history.
After months of us leading the legal battle against the federal government and a national Do Not Comply campaign, the Supreme Court ruled in our favor and blocked the Biden administration's outrageous VAX mandate.
That mandate would have set an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It would have given OSHA The power to basically force you to vaccinate was insane.
The Supreme Court recognized it was a gross power grab and struck it down.
We were proud to lead that fight.
We're the only major media corporation to lead that fight.
Thousands of you joined the Daily Wire.
Over a million Americans signed our petition against the mandates to celebrate.
We're offering 40% off our annual memberships with the code DO NOT COMPLY.
Obviously, it meant a lot to me on a personal level.
To do this, we as a company made this decision that we were going to stand up for our own employees and their right to decide whether or not they wish to vaccinate.
And not just our own employees, risking tens of millions of dollars in fines, but also employees all over the world.
So, celebrate one of the greatest moments in DailyWire history with 40% off on your annual membership.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Join the winning team as we continue to crush the left.
Remember, do not comply for 40% off.
Code, do not comply.
Okay, so, and the rule for the left is that if you're a member of an approved group, you get to say whatever you want, even if it's...
Abjectly untrue.
So Joy Reid on MSNBC doing that sort of work with Nikole Hannah-Jones yesterday.
So Nikole Hannah-Jones is the most overpaid and overestimated intellect of our time.
She was on with Joy Reid, another overpaid intellect.
And Joy Reid said, what's it like to be a truth teller?
If by truth teller you mean a repeatedly debunked falsifier of history, sure.
But Nikole Hannah-Jones is one of the specials, so she gets to say whatever the hell she wants.
There has been a resistance to what you have brought to the table, which is truth and telling the truth about this country, which for a lot of people is more than they can bear.
So I want you to just talk a little bit about what it's been like to experience being a truth teller in the way you've been with the 1619 Project and what you've received in return.
I am a truth teller and you are a truth teller and together we are truth tellers who lie all the time.
This is the problem with people who claim that they have an absolute monopoly on truth.
especially when they're lying, is they then seek to set standards for everybody else.
Which is why, over at Davos, back to the World Economic Forum, the UN Secretary General is now claiming that social media has to be held accountable for false information. And again, this is an element of control. If you're a member of a particular group, you can say whatever you want. Or if you have a message that is approved by the global elitist, then you can say whatever you want. Otherwise, you know, we're going to hold you accountable. In social media, there is no responsibility. And I can understand the argument of social media platforms saying,
well, this is put by people, so it's not our responsibility.
But the truth is that the algorithms are made in such a way that they amplify, in a preferential way, a certain number of things.
And when the algorithm amplifies Then there is, in my opinion, a responsibility and there should be accountability, including through the legal system.
That's an amazing thing.
He's now saying that all of these platforms should basically be held accountable for quote-unquote amplifying false information.
False information is defined by the UN Secretary General.
Again, the United Nations is a... is a...
Most nicely of international law, a rogues gallery of scum and villainy.
And all of this ties into something that my friend, well, I should say my colleague, Michael Moles has uncovered.
The safety by design agenda.
There's a whole Twitter thread about this that's kind of fascinating.
So safety by design might be the biggest tech threat you've never heard of.
The World Economic Forum, the Australian government and a radical bureaucrat named Julie Inman Grant are using it to impose their woke ideology onto the internet for everyone worldwide.
Here's how.
You might remember Julie Grant, the Australian e-safety commissioner from this viral World Economic Forum clip last year in which she proposed a recalibration of free speech.
Here's what she had to say last year.
We have increasing polarization everywhere.
And everything feels binary when it doesn't need to be.
So I think we're going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online, you know, from freedom of speech to the freedom to, you know, to be free from online violence.
So, you know, we're going to recalibrate free speech.
So she tried that by going up against Microsoft and Adobe and Twitter before Elon Musk took over.
And as Michael points out, that went flat.
But then she moved over to the Australian government and the World Economic Forum.
We have something called the Basic Online Safety Expectations that looks at safety by design and basically says to companies, these are the basic safety standards we expect you to live by.
whatever it deems quote unquote harmful.
So what exactly does it mean for things to be quote unquote harmful?
Well, she explains.
We have something called the basic online safety expectations that looks at safety by design and basically says to companies, these are the basic safety standards we expect you to live by.
And if you don't, or if we cannot tell that you are enforcing your own, you know, terms of service and standards consistently and fairly, then I can compel transparency reports.
So for the first time anywhere in the world, if a person is at a very high threshold because we need to balance freedom of expression and freedom of opinion, you know, it's not just going to be about name calling or even character assassination.
This is serious cyber abuse with the intent to harm.
So we are drawing that line.
You see a lot of companies saying, well, how do you even tell what's harmful?
Well, we have to investigate every report that comes into us and and look at all the facts.
And is it menacing, harassing and offensive in every case?
And is there serious intent to cause harm?
OK, but how do you evaluate all of that?
So as Michael points out, safety by design is the notion that government regulators cannot possibly keep up with innovation.
So left wing regulatory preferences need to be built into the tech.
In order to operate in Australia and many more countries soon, if the WEF has its way, a company would have to abide by these basic online safety expectations and lean into the safety pushed by the eSafety Commissioner and the WEF.
So what exactly does the eSafety website say would fall under banned speech, quote-unquote hate speech, individual identity attacks, disinformation and misinformation, and conspiracy content?
This is the stuff that they want these companies to suppress.
So again, the idea is that anything they deem to be bad information must be suppressed.
This is the plan.
And we've seen how that plays out.
Reason.com has a fascinating piece today, going through a bunch of emails that they have now uncovered via the CDC, and how the CDC was essentially controlling what you could see on Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Quote, according to a trove of confidential documents obtained by Reason, health advisors at the CDC had significant input on pandemic era social media policies at Facebook.
They were consulted frequently, at times daily.
They were actively involved in the affairs of content moderators, providing constant and ever-evolving guidance.
They requested frequent updates about which topics were trending on the platforms.
They recommended what kinds of content should be deemed false or misleading.
Here are two issues we are seeing a great deal of misinfo on.
We wanted to flag for you all, reads one note from a CDC official.
Another email with sample Facebook posts attached begins, be on the lookout for a small but growing area of misinformation.
The Facebook files show the platform responded with incredible deference.
Facebook routinely asked the government to vet specific claims, including whether the virus was quote, man-made rather than zoonotic in origin.
In other emails, Facebook asked the government, for each of the following claims, which we've recently identified on the platform, can you tell us if the claim is false?
And if believed, could it contribute to vaccine refusal?
The platforms may have thought they had little choice but to please the CDC, which of course is exactly right.
Again, the idea here is what is called jawboning.
This is where the government essentially tries to push private entities into doing their dirty work.
And that's what happened over at Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic.
So, as Robbie Sov writes, this has been the case throughout the pandemic.
With encouragement from government health advisors, congressional leaders, and White House officials, including Joe Biden, multiple social media companies have suppressed content that clashes with the administration's preferred narratives.
This has been the repeated process.
People who have been silenced just because the government says that they ought to be silenced.
And then as long as it's a private company doing the silencing, then it's presumably okay.
Top-down control is the true enemy of the people, is this sort of top-down control.
Obviously.
It's truly dangerous, dangerous stuff.
Okay, meanwhile, I would just like to take a moment, speaking of big tech and its suppression of free speech, take one moment to comment on a controversy that has broken out because my friend, Steven Crowder, I've been friends with Steven for a long time, like well over a decade.
I was his lawyer when he first signed a contract with Fox and I've been friendly for a very long time.
He put out a video essentially accusing Daily Wire of being in league with big tech.
He's accusing us of being in league with big tech because of a term sheet, a negotiable term sheet that we submitted to him that offered to pay him $50 million over four years.
And, um, and included provisions that said that if he got booted from arenas that would lose him ad dollars, since we would also lose the ad dollars, then he would lose money as well.
This is typically how contracts work.
If his show were to start losing money, this is true of my show, if I, if my show loses money and it loses the daily wire money, I lose money.
So if Stephen had come to work at Daily Wire Plus, it would have been precisely the same thing.
That if he had lost money in the ad space, and his show had lost money, then he also would have lost money because that's how a joint venture works.
Stephen interpreted that as somehow, misinterpreted, I'll give it the best possible gloss, he somehow misinterpreted that as us attempting to quote-unquote do the work of YouTube.
No.
No.
If you want more on that, then you should check out my friend and co-founder Jeremy Boring's 55-minute video going through every single word of the term sheet that Stephen selectively read on his own YouTube channel.
He read certain parts.
He didn't read other parts.
Jeremy reads literally word for word the entire term sheet and explains every single term therein.
I think it is well worth the watch.
We should all be on the same side of this thing.
I'm encouraging you that you should go subscribe to Stephen's Mug Club.
I hope that he's very successful in whatever endeavor he chooses to pursue.
That does not mean that he happens to be correct about the term sheet we submitted to him, and there is something rather nasty about attacking people who have been friends for over a decade, colleagues, defenders, for over a decade, on the basis of your own misinterpretation of a document that offers you $50 million over the course of four years.
Alrighty guys, the rest of the show is continuing right now.
You're not going to want to miss it.
We will be getting into Joe Biden and serious corruption concerns at the Penn Biden Center for receiving Chinese money.
We will also get to George Santos.
He's, if that's his real name, he's that congressperson from New York who it turns out was, I guess, a Brazilian drag queen at one point.
Yeah, things are getting weird.
If you're not a member, become a member and use code Shapiro.
Check out for two months free on all annual plans.
▲
Export Selection