Andrew Tate and the Era of Sexual Confusion | Ep. 1683
|
Time
Text
A new tape of Andrew Tate drops in which he explains that he would prefer a, well, surgery transsexual to an ugly woman.
After Tucker Carlson drops bombshell new footage of January 6th events, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calls for his censorship, and the Fed chair plans on radically increasing interest rates again.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
It's unclear how that saga is going to end.
He is accused, of course, of sex trafficking, of luring women to Romania and using them as cam girls and all the rest of it.
But all of this is beside the point when it comes to the popularity of Andro Tate.
I've talked about Andro Tate on the program a little bit before.
And why exactly he's popular.
One of the things that I've suggested about Andrew Tate is that many of his diagnoses of modern society are not entirely wrong.
Many of them, in fact, are correct.
But his prognosis, his sort of his recommendation of the treatment is totally wrong.
And this sort of disconnect is strange.
It becomes stranger when you see some of the things that Andrew Tate has said recently.
So there was a tape that emerged on the Twitters over the course of the last 48 hours of Andrew Tate talking about whether he would prefer to have sex with a male who had had many surgeries to look like a female but still had not had bottom surgery, meaning he still had the full male appendages, or a very ugly woman.
And I think there is something kind of important about the fact that there are so many young men who are drawn to Andrew Tate and then Andrew Tate says stuff like this or said stuff like this.
It's bizarre.
It only makes sense in a particular cultural context.
I want to get to that in a moment.
Here's what Andrew Tate actually said.
I recently posted a question on Twitter asking, would you rather have sex with a transsexual, which is a legitimate 10, or a woman, which is a legitimate 1?
And everyone's sitting there clicking woman, woman, woman, woman, because they think they're going to be gay if they do anything else.
But they're not actually thinking about the question.
When I say a 1 and a 10, I mean Megan Fox with a d***.
That's the tranny.
Or Hulk Hogan with a p***.
That's the girl.
This is the question I'm asking.
Megan Fox or Hulk Hogan?
So you're thinking, well, I don't want to be gay.
So I just clicked the girl, the number one, did it?
You're going to Hulk Hogan.
OK, there's he's got mustache and muscles and he's all hairy, big dude, six foot five.
It's pretty gay to me.
That sounds pretty gay.
I don't care if that is gay.
OK, so, um, first of all, what?
What?
So on a variety of levels, what?
So the original question that he apparently posed was would you rather have sex with a 1 who's a woman or a 10 on the female scale but is male?
And so he launches into that bizarre diatribe.
Now, none of this makes any sense.
If you've been following Andrew Tate at all, and if you understand how popular he is, you understand that what he largely bases his image around is this idea of uber-masculinity.
And the uber-masculinity that Andrew Tate bases his sort of image around is he's Rip, he's very muscular.
He has a large house or a compound in Romania.
He has a lot of fancy cars.
And he has a lot of beautiful women, not transsexual women, but actual like biological women who he is in charge of.
And he has a harem of these women.
And this is what masculinity really looks like.
And then you get this bizarre fetishistic video in which he's explaining that he would prefer to have sex with a male who has had many surgeries to look like Megan Fox than an unattractive woman.
So what exactly is happening here?
Well, none of this makes any sense.
And frankly, none of our modern culture makes any sense.
Unless what you realize is the reason that we are seeing the death of masculinity and the death of femininity.
The reason that everything is falling into this morass of sexual chaos.
And he talks about it actually at the very end there.
He says, it's all a sliding scale, isn't it?
There's no such thing as gay or straight.
It's just a sliding scale.
And the reason all of this is happening is because we have a society that has decided to discard the notion of teleology.
Teleology means that things were created with a purpose.
Things were created with a purpose.
Whether by God or by evolutionary biology, you were created with a purpose.
Now, I'm a religious person, so I believe that God created us with a purpose.
And what that means is male and female, he created them.
Now, you don't have to believe in the Bible in order to believe that.
You can also believe that evolution created human beings, sexually dichotomous, in order so that we are designed to reproduce.
That's literally the purpose of sexual activity in the animal kingdom, is reproduction.
There's the side benefit of pleasure.
It is the pleasure that leads Beings of all mammalian species to reproduce.
But the reproduction is the end, right?
The thing toward which sex is generally oriented in the animal kingdom is reproduction, because otherwise it would be no different than baboons scratching one another or something.
So what does that mean?
Well, if male and female were created to do a thing, and if sex was created in order to achieve the thing, if reproduction and the one-flesh union between male and female is the purpose of the thing, then masculinity and femininity are built around that act.
What that means is that reproduction, being the point of sex, Teleologically speaking, not every time you have to have sex.
Not aiming for a baby every time.
But the idea is that, generally speaking, sex is oriented toward the production of human beings.
In a male-female context, because that's the only way biologically, historically, it has happened.
And will continue to happen.
Because of that, male and female are built around this.
Women were built by nature or by God, whichever you choose, in order to bear children and rear them.
This is their primary reproductive function.
Not their only function in the world.
It is their primary reproductive function.
When it comes to sex, this is the purpose of sex.
If for men, the purpose is to generate offspring and then to protect and defend those offspring.
This is not just true for human beings.
This is true for primates.
This is true for literally all species that have sexual dichotomy attached to them.
And so sex and masculinity and femininity were built around these roles.
And that's really important because one of the things that we've done is we've exploded those roles.
We've now disconnected the idea of sex from any sort of teleology.
There's no purpose to sex other than whatever subjective pleasure it brings you.
When you disconnect sex from teleology, things go wrong really, really quickly and you end up with bizarre videos like this one from Andrew Tate and a lot of the other societal problems that are plaguing Western civilization these days.
I'll get to more of that in just a second.
It actually is a kind of deep point.
I'll get to that in a moment.
First, in this economic climate, with inflation continuing to soar out of control, you should be looking at your monthly bill and figuring out where exactly you can cut.
Well, one place you can cut for sure is on your cell phone bill.
If you're using one of the big guys, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, you're spending too much money.
Instead, you should head on over to Pure Talk.
Pure Talk saves the average family over $900 a year.
When they switch from Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
That's correct.
You can save $900 a year on your wireless bill and still enjoy ultra-fast 5G service.
Get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data for just $30 a month.
Pure Talk is so sure you're going to love your service, they're backing it up with a 100% money-back guarantee.
Stop paying a fortune to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
Cut your bill in half with Pure Talk.
Their U.S.-based customer service team makes the switch super simple.
Switching over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes.
You can keep your phone and your phone number, and your first month is guaranteed risk-free.
Go to puretalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO to save 50% off your very first month.
That's puretalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Pure Talk is Simply Smarter Wireless.
Restrictions apply.
See site for details.
Again, head on over to puretalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO to save 50% off your very first month of coverage.
Okay, so, when you get rid of the teleology of male and female, when you get rid of the purpose of male-female sexual bonding, Which is reproduction and then rearing and defense of children.
And those have sex-specific roles because women treat children differently than men do.
Women have to actually have the child in them.
And women have to actually nurse the child.
Women have to comfort the child in the early going for sure.
And men have to be out there protecting and providing.
All of masculinity and femininity are built around these basic realities of life.
When you sever that connection, here's what happens.
On the one hand, you have people who demand that now that the connection between sex and reproduction has been severed, all the rules go away.
You can do whatever you want, and the only thing that actually matters is sexual pleasure.
But there's a problem with that.
The problem is that the animal instincts remain.
The evolutionary biology animal instincts remain.
And those animal instincts end up making you either quote-unquote sexist or fetishistic.
What I mean by this is that if you take all of the rules of tradition and you remove them from their teleological context, if you take all of the rules of marriage, which promoted, for example, chastity before marriage and outside of marriage.
If you promote rules that suggest monogamy between two people, if you do all of that stuff, but you remove it from the context of in order to create a family unit to provide for biological children, If you get rid of that, then all of that starts to sound really sexist.
And this is what women are having a real problem with these days.
A lot of feminists are having a real problem with this because they still have the same biological drives as women have always had, which is to, you know, actually be with a person that they trust.
A man that they trust is the general biological drive of women over time.
Otherwise, human beings would not exist generation to generation.
Women have had a drive to be with a man that they trust in terms of protecting, providing, and yes, sexual comfort, because that's true by every statistic.
Wanting to bear children with that man.
They still have those drives.
But they feel that it's sexist to have those drives, and so they attempt to sublimate them, and anyone who promotes those drives is now considered sexist.
Or, alternatively, you end up with the fetishistic, which is what Andrew Tate is doing with this video.
Because again, if sex is now disconnected from the teleology, Then secondary sexual characteristics, your fetishistic idea of attractiveness is now the only important thing about the sex.
Now, human beings have been fetishistic for all of time.
Human beings wanted to have sex with a wide variety of things, wide variety of people, wide variety of types for a long, long time.
That's nothing new.
What is new is the idea that when you separate sex from its purpose, what you end up with is bizarre questions like, is it better to be attracted to the secondary sex characteristics of a transsexual Megan Fox, which is what he's talking about, or to primary sex characteristics?
Now, the normal teleological answer to Andrew Tate's question is, you have sex with a woman because you can only, if you are a man, marry and produce children with a woman.
That was the original answer.
When you get rid of that, then you end up in weird Andrew Tate world where he's talking about moving aside male appendages in order to have sex with transsexuals.
You end up in a very chaotic place.
And you can see this in what Andrew Tate says very often.
It's kind of fascinating when you see that Andrew Tate is operating in a context where the teleology of sex no longer applies, but he is still attempting to apply the old rules.
He sounds alternatively to feminists, sexist, and to other people, fetishistic.
Because the rules of the road all make sense when things are directed by a higher purpose.
When there is no higher purpose, then everything starts to sound arbitrary or discriminatory or whatever.
And it doesn't just apply to Andrew Tate, as we'll see in just a moment.
So just to take an example.
Here's Andrew Tate talking to Dave Portnoy saying that women belong to their men.
He is using a sort of language that makes sense in the teleological sexual compatibility category, right?
If you're talking about a man belongs to a woman and a woman belongs to a man in the biblical sense, meaning a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife.
If that's what you mean, that a woman belongs to the man because you have to have a family unit in which you guys are now unified.
And it makes it, but you remove it from that and it sounds just randomly sexist, right?
Because you get rid of the teleology and it just sounds like he's being possessive and weird.
Here's Andrew Tate.
I don't know, because I think the women belong to the man.
I think the woman's given over to the man.
Yeah, that's inherently where you get called sexist.
No, it's not.
Well, you can call me sexist if you want, but if you look at marriage, it's the bride's father who gives her away.
It's not the groom's father, is it?
In old tradition.
The woman is always given over to the man.
Read the Bible, read the Koran, you can go to... Walking down the aisle, no chance.
There's definitely, there's like African cultures where they don't do that.
I'm sure there are some obscure tribes somewhere.
I mean, I can't say... I'm not a professional.
But you get it.
You seem like a very smart guy.
You gotta understand why people would say that.
You seem like a smart guy.
You're saying a woman is the property of a man if they're dating.
I'm not saying they're a property.
I'm saying they're given to the man and they belong to the man.
It doesn't mean they're a pure property without emotion.
Okay, the reason that it sounds fetishistic and weird and sexist when he's saying it is because he is saying it without reference to the kids that the union will produce.
If you say a woman belongs to the man because it is the man's job to protect and provide for her, that's a different thing from saying she's essentially your slave, which is a different thing.
And he's having a hard time articulating that in that particular clip because again, he has removed sex from the teleological consequences.
We're an entire civilization that has decided that children no longer matter, which of course is why we are a civilization that does not have children, or a civilization that is not producing a next generation, or a solipsistic, narcissistic civilization that has decided that the only thing that matters in life is sexual pleasure, which will end with one, sexism, toxic masculinity, and two, fetishism.
That's what it'll end with.
You get rid of teleology, and this is exactly what happens.
Here, for example, is Andrew Tate talking on Piers Morgan about couples' roles in protecting women.
It sounds sexist to people, but inside the context of because you have kids with the person you're marrying and you're forming a family unit that deserves protection, it doesn't sound weird at all.
It sounds normal, actually, and good.
Let's say your woman decided she wanted to take a nice little walk through the south side of Chicago at 2am, and she wanted you to go with her, and you were responsible for fighting and dying on the spot if she was attacked.
Don't you think you would say to her, no, we're not going out right now, it's not safe?
Yes.
Okay, so you'd have authority to make the decision.
No, I wouldn't.
I would say, I don't think you should.
If she decides to, it's her own volition.
Well, if she decides, you're not going to stop her.
I have no power to stop her.
Completely.
But you think you do?
No, I don't think I've We clearly do.
No, I think I have power to make the decision.
I think, no, that's not sensible.
So if you have the power to make the decision, you have the power to stop it.
And perhaps on certain issues, the woman will know more about X and she'll decide X and the man might know more about Y and he'll decide Y. So I'm saying if we're as a couple and we're sitting there and deciding as a couple, as a team, and she says she wants to take this late night stroll, I'm going to say, you know what, I'm going to veto this one.
Okay, so again, what Pierre is having a tough time there with is the idea that there's a family unit, right?
And that's what Andrew Tate is trying to say, but he can't operate in that context because that's not the context in which he himself tends to operate because his whole shtick is, once you remove, again, the purpose of sex and sexual relationships from commitment, marriage, and childbearing.
Once you do that, what you end up with is masculinity is all of the secondary aspects of masculinity.
In the same way that he's talking about the secondary sex characteristics of a transsexual woman, that's what truly matters.
He's talking about the secondary characteristics of masculinity and muscularity.
What's muscularity designed to do?
To protect your wife and your children and your nation.
That's what it's designed to do.
If you're Andrew Tate and you're talking about being rich, what is the purpose of being rich?
To provide for your wife and your children and your community.
That's what it's for.
But when you remove the teleology, all you end up with is the glorification of the secondary.
And when you glorify the secondary, you end up in strange areas.
Okay, so that's why AndroTate is popular, because he's articulating an unmet need that society has completely jettisoned.
Human beings still have the same instincts they have always had, but the entire framework, the moral guidance that provided boundaries and fences And channel those instincts in the best possible direction have been exploded.
So what it ends up looking like is this sort of archaic throwback kind of stuff combined with a fetishistic commitment to secondary sex characteristics in femininity and masculinity.
That's what it ends up looking like.
That's why you end up with that weird clip of Andrew Tate talking about transsexual Megan Fox or whatever.
Here's the thing.
It's not just hurting men.
It's also hurting women.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
First, let's talk about the fact that, you know, I have three kids.
I have a fourth on the way.
I have a puppy.
That means sleep, not the easiest thing to come by, and that's why I rely on Black Rifle Coffee every single morning.
It is the fuel that gets me through the day.
Black Rifle Coffee is fueling Americans before they go out and do amazing things with their lives.
Their ready-to-drink cans are crafted for convenience without losing quality.
If you want a Spartan-level caffeine kick, try Ready-to-Drink 300, made with 300 milligrams of caffeine per can and an electrifying blend of MCT oil and amino acids that will supercharge your day.
Ready-to-Drink 300 packs a serious caffeine punch backed by high-quality ingredients.
It comes in a bunch of awesome flavors, caramel vanilla, rich mocha, and more.
Every unique flavor combined with a large dose of wake the hell up.
Whether you need a boost before you hit the gym or a caffeine drill to get you through your shift, just grab a can and go head on over to BlackRifleCoffee.com.
Use promo code Shapiro at checkout for 10% off your order.
That's BlackRifleCoffee.com.
Use promo code Shapiro, get 10% off.
You can also find Black Rifle Coffee in grocery and convenience stores near you.
Black Rifle Coffee is indeed America's coffee.
It's the coffee that gets me through the day.
It should get you through the day as well.
BlackRifleCoffee.com.
Use promo code Shapiro for 10% off.
Okay, so it's not just that the death of teleology with regard to sexual relationships.
Has hurt men.
It has.
I mean, it's completely destroyed masculinity.
It's basically turned masculinity into alternatively toxic masculinity.
All of these secondary instinctive parts of masculinity, but without any sort of purpose.
Or just complete innervation.
Men don't have any place in society, and so they sit home and they play video games.
And that's what it's doing to men.
Get rid of the teleology of male and female, and men collapse.
Guess what else happens?
Women collapse.
So, there is this fascinating podcast called the Whatever Podcast, and a bunch of clips from this podcast have now been making the rounds.
And it's the same thing with women.
If women do not, if there is no teleology to sex, what you end up with is women in a state of upset and confusion.
And they don't know how to deal with that, because no one knows how to deal with that, because civilization has never done anything remotely this stupid before.
Like disconnecting sex from its actual purpose.
Disconnecting human beings from their actual purpose on Earth, which is to propagate, to have children, to get married, to enrich those children, to protect those children from evil people who wish to pervert those children, to protect their communities and their values.
These were all the purposes that human beings were created to do.
And we have jettisoned all of them in favor of subjective sexual pleasure.
And then we're like, why is everybody so upset?
I don't understand why everyone's depressed and chaotic and suicidal and confused.
I just don't don't don't understand.
OK, so this whatever podcast is essentially a host sitting with a bunch of attractive young women and talking about everything from sex to dating.
And the clips are almost tragic.
They're almost tragic because what you see is people who don't understand how the world is supposed to work.
They don't understand the purpose of things.
And so they are just in a state of constant confusion.
They don't.
OK, so.
Take, for example, this clip that has now gone viral.
It is a woman storming out off the whatever podcast because a male guest says he will not have sex with a transsexual woman.
He will not have sex with a trans woman.
And this apparently is sexist because, of course, trans women are women.
We've been told again that sex is completely to be disconnected from reproduction.
So if a woman Who is not a woman says she is a woman, meaning a dude says he is a lady.
You are supposed to just believe that and then have sex with that.
But now and you and you won't and you and you say, well, hold on, I'm straight.
I'm not going to do that.
They say, well, yes, but that doesn't matter.
You see, whether you're straight, that's all spectrum, as Andrew Tate says.
It's all spectrum.
It doesn't matter because bottom line is what you are doing.
It's just it's just sex, man.
What's the big deal?
So here's this clip.
It's an amazing clip.
Chase, would you rather smash the hottest trans woman in the world or the oldest woman in the world?
Honestly, bro?
The oldest woman in the world, because then I wouldn't be gay.
What?
You really just want me to just whip you a f***ing new one, I swear.
Are you like... Chase, how dare you be transphobic?
Yes, actually.
What the f*** do you mean?
Yes, that was so unnecessary.
Because if I had sex with a trans woman, I'd be having sex with a biological man.
And I don't want to do that.
That's not what you said, though.
That's fine.
Because I'd be gay if I had sex with a biological man.
That's not gay.
I don't care if you're doing this for, like, whatever, but, like, shut the f*** up, actually.
Why don't you make me shut the f*** up?
Because I have an opinion that differs from yours.
She's right.
I mean, that's really hateful, bro.
She's not.
It would technically be homosexual.
A trans woman is a biological man.
Sue me.
Right.
And of course, the women who are walking out have been told that that's not the case.
They've been told that a biological man who has a bunch of surgeries to mimic the looks of a biological woman is in fact a biological woman.
Now, the only way that you can come to that conclusion is if what you believe is that sex and reproduction have nothing to do with one another, right?
That the only sexual or the only female organs that matter are not the reproductive organs, which are the ones that, by the way, typically define what is female from what is male.
The way that we define a female is, in fact, an egg-producing person, right?
That is the way, typically biologically, like a large A large reproductive cell producing person would be a female.
That is biologically how you define this thing.
But we've removed that because sex and reproduction are now completely separate.
And so you end up with this bizarre spectacle of actual biological women getting angry at a man for saying he does not want to have sex with a man who has a bunch of surgeries to look more like a woman.
Because that's what a woman is.
Once you disconnect sex from reproduction, what you end up with is the fetishistic.
The fetishistic Objectification of women.
The imitation of female body parts is now the same as a female.
There's no difference.
They are the same.
That's what you end up with.
The destruction of the distinction between the sexes.
And guess who that hurts, ladies?
Predominantly you.
But that's not the only confusion that arises when you get rid of the teleology of male-female relationships.
Take, for example, this woman, this young woman.
There's a young woman, again, on this whatever podcast and this clip went uber viral, mainly because at least 70% of this young woman's vocabulary is the word like.
Here we go.
I think like the biggest thing that like annoys me in like the whole dating world is like talking stages like that's so annoying like the whole like and just like the inconsistency in them like I literally like hate that like so much but I think that's like my biggest thing is just like what what specifically just like the fact of just like you like I don't know how to word this.
Like, in, like, talking stages, and it's just, like, you're, like, labeled that, and it's, like, people, like, are considered, like, you can't, like, you're just, like, confused, and, like, most of the time, like, the girl gets, like, attached or something, and they, like, see it, like, it's gonna lead to a relationship, and it's always not, and it's just, like, that's, like, my biggest thing, is, like, I just hate the whole, like, how, like, talking stages are so, like, normalized.
Like, traditional dating does not exist in this generation.
Okay, so, couple things.
One, she uses the word like a lot.
Now the reason I assume that she's using the word like a lot, there's only two reasons.
One is because normally it comprises an extraordinary extent of her vocabulary, which is plausible.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the world who use like a lot.
Or, alternatively, it's a nervous tic.
Like is a nervous tick in this clip.
The reason that she's nervous in this clip is because she is trying to articulate a human instinct that you are no longer allowed to articulate.
That human instinct is that sex is supposed to be combined with commitment.
Sex is supposed to be combined with commitment, and commitment is supposed to be combined with marriage, and marriage is supposed to be combined with childbearing.
I know these are these are really difficult things, except for literally all of human history.
But in the last five minutes, we decided we're not allowed to say this anymore.
So what exactly is she talking about?
I will try to decode this.
OK, let me try to decode this in just one second.
First, let's talk about your gifts to your friends, family this season.
I'm going to tell you about the best gift you can get somebody this season and any season.
That is the gift of preserving their memories.
So, Legacy Box.
Here's what they do.
You take all of the stuff that you got in your garage.
I'm talking about, like, your film reels.
You don't have a projector anymore.
I'm talking about your VHS tapes.
I'm talking about, like, all the old pictures.
All the stuff that moths are eating right now.
You take all of that.
You put it in the Legacy Box.
You send it to Legacy Box, and now they digitally preserve that forever, which means it's now accessible to you.
You haven't looked at it in forever.
And also it means that it's not going to be destroyed by like by bugs.
Legacybox is a simple, safe way to digitize your treasured videotapes, film reels, and photos.
Everything is professionally digitized here in the United States.
Just send in your old media.
Their team will send everything back in a digital format.
So you can share it on social media for your family and friends.
Over 1 million families have trusted Legacybox to preserve their memories.
So should you.
Legacybox is offering my listeners an incredible 9-buck tape offer right now.
That's over 60% off.
Visit Legacybox.com slash apero.
Shop $9 tape and film transfers.
Limited quantity available.
They're selling fast, so order the box now and then fill it up after.
That's Legacybox.com slash Shapiro.
I've done this with my parents.
I've done this with my own family.
It's fantastic.
Great service.
Legacybox.com slash Shapiro.
There's never been a better time to convert your entire selection.
Alrighty, so let's talk about that particular clip.
So she's talking about talking stages.
What the hell is a talking stage?
So, I'll be honest, this is not of my generation.
This is of the Generation Z. It's the generation below me.
So, what exactly is a talking stage?
Apparently, a talking stage Is the beginning of the dating process, or the not dating process, in which you are just talking a lot with somebody and it's very awkward because you don't know the purpose of the talking.
That's what she's talking about.
She is saying that that stage is really awkward.
And apparently that can include anything from casual hookups and sex, to you just go to coffee, and you haven't defined the relationship.
You haven't defined the relationship.
She says that's really awkward for her.
You know why talking stages have become a thing?
Because you've obliterated the purpose of male-female relationships.
That would be why.
That would be why.
Because it used to be.
I'll tell you what the talking stage looked like in my relationship with my wife.
Here was the talking stage.
Would you like to go on a date?
That was the talking stage.
Then it was over.
There were no more talking stages.
You want to know why?
Because we went in, both my wife and I, with the purpose of getting married and then having children.
That was the purpose.
And so everything was constructed around that.
It was constructed around the end goal.
It was constructed around the teleological endpoint of what the relationship would be.
Thank God we are happily married for almost 15 years.
We have our fourth child on the way.
By the way, a huge majority of people, globally, Who have children and are happily married will tell you the same thing.
You have to start with the end point, but we've destroyed the end point, and so what you end up with is talking stages where, are we having sex or are we not having sex?
Are we supposed to make out or are we not supposed to make out?
Do I even like you?
Okay, so here is the way that it used to work in traditional society, and still does in most traditional societies.
Meet a woman.
Date a woman.
Marry a woman.
Have sex with a woman.
Have children with a woman.
That is the actual, those are the stages.
So the talking stage is like the very beginning.
Because you're talking about whether you wish to pursue the relationship or not.
There is no confusion.
You do not have sex during the talking stage.
Because that would be mixing up stage like four with stage one.
And the reason that stage 4 is not stage 1 is because the whole purpose of the relationship is to develop the commitment that is necessary in order to decide whether the two of you wish to provide a home for a child that you produce together.
That was the entire purpose.
You destroy that purpose and what you end up with is a woman who says like a lot while being very confused and frustrated and upset that she doesn't know what to expect from men.
Well, why should she know what to expect from men?
Men even don't know what they expect because all the expectations in our society have been drowned in a bathtub.
They've been destroyed.
So you end up with this sort of chaos.
I feel bad for her.
I feel bad for a lot of young women and young men because they've been brought into a world in which the purpose that God laid out for them, and I believe it was God, but you can say it was evolutionary biology if it makes you feel any better.
The purpose of your being has been removed from you.
And thus, you are left in a stage of confusion.
We'll have talking stages, like lots of talking stages, like so many like talking stages.
And they really, of course they bother you because there's no purpose to the talking stage.
The talking stage is awkward only insofar as you don't know what it's designed to do.
She's saying, I want clarity in my relationship.
That's what she's actually saying.
I want clarity in relationships.
You know how you have clarity in relationships?
When you go into the relationship seeking clarity.
That's how.
But we destroyed that because the normal endpoint of the relationship is something that is apparently completely subjective and may be scorned, may be frowned upon.
You can see this happening, by the way, on television.
If you watch any movie from the 1940s, the way that this works is Man meets woman, they date, they fall in love, and then, again, the purpose is get married and have kids.
Now we've completely screwed this up.
Now every TV show is you go out with somebody, you're at a bar, you have sex with them, and then you have to decide the next morning whether you even like them.
Then you wonder why people are confused, why men don't know the difference between quote-unquote toxic masculinity and regular masculinity, and women don't know the difference between Quote-unquote, promiscuity and freedom.
You want to know why?
That is why.
Get rid of the teleology, and this is where you end up.
Okay.
So, meanwhile, in the biggest sort of news story of the day, Tucker Carlson has now come under heavy fire, particularly from Chuck Schumer.
So, you'll recall, we talked about it on the show yesterday, that Tucker went on his Fox News show, and he revealed some unseen footage from January 6th.
He was given 41,000 hours of footage from January 6th, And this footage showed a couple of things.
Tucker's done two episodes of his January 6th investigation.
The second episode last night didn't really contain any new footage, so I assume that most of the big footage was dropped on night one.
So, night one of his investigation.
Showed two things in particular.
One, the QAnon shaman walking around the Capitol building being guided by police officers, right?
Not being arrested.
He has two police officers by him.
They walked through a group of another seven police officers.
At no point is he arrested.
And the idea that he is, you know, a violent insurrectionary overthrowing the democracy He violently entered the building and he pled guilty to that.
But once he's inside, he's not being tackled.
Now, the police can say whatever they want.
They can say, well, you know, we didn't want to escalate the situation.
But when you're walking, one dude, if the idea is that you have a shortage of police officers, then it seems like a misallocation of police officers to have two police officers walk a man around the Capitol building.
Seems like a misallocation of police resources at the very least.
Anyway, what Tucker showed is that the kind of narrative that he was running through the halls of the Capitol building Knocking people over and beating their brains out in order to get into the main room of the Capitol and then sit behind the desk and then hang from the ceiling and all that kind of stuff.
That was a part that they never showed you.
The other tape that he showed, he showed some people who are sort of walking in rope lines.
They probably knew that they weren't supposed to be there, but they thought, OK, is it really that bad?
I mean, the cops are literally standing right there doing nothing.
So is it really that bad?
And that was another piece.
And the other piece that he showed was Brian Sicknick, who is the officer who died a couple of days later.
And the media originally attributed it to him being essentially murdered by the rioters.
And the evidence suggests that he died of natural causes.
Now you can say that it was the excitement of doing his job that caused him to have a stroke.
Okay, sure.
But the idea originally put out by the media is that he was beat to death with a fire extinguisher or that it was them, they murdered him.
Which, again, is a sort of standard for police death that I've never seen applied anywhere else.
If a police officer goes to a Black Lives Matter protest and it gets very pushy and riotous, and then two days later that person dies of a heart attack, typically you're not going to say Black Lives Matter killed the guy.
But that's precisely what the media did in that particular case.
So that's what Tucker revealed.
Now, in the middle of that monologue, Tucker also gave credence to the original falsehoods that I think Donald Trump was speaking from November 4th to January 6th, which is that the election was capable of being overturned, that Trump legitimately won the election, and all the rest of that.
And he suggested that, not that this was a protest that turned into a riot on the part of some people, which is the accurate way of portraying this, but that it was essentially peaceful in the extreme.
Now, if Tucker had done that as a bit of trollery to the left, because the left You know, in 2020, he basically declared that $2 billion in property damage was mostly peaceful protest.
If he had done that as a piece of trollery, I totally get it.
I don't think he was doing that.
I think he was saying that it was essentially a peaceful event.
It wasn't a peaceful event.
There were people who were peaceful who entered the Capitol building and then were walking around as a large number of people.
But there were people who certainly were violent with the police.
I mean, we all saw that on TV in any case.
The one thing that the Democrats had to do, they didn't.
The one thing that they had to do is say, OK, Tucker's had his say, here's where he's wrong and here's where he's right.
They couldn't do it.
They couldn't do it because they have a narrative and the narrative must be maintained.
And the narrative is that January 6th is the worst thing that has happened to the United States in the history of the United States, at least since the Civil War.
In order to maintain that perspective, they have to ignore all of the footage that Tucker brought to the table.
And they have to say that it was a really, really bad thing that Tucker brought that footage out in the first place.
And they have to call for his censorship.
And it's precisely what Chuck Schumer The Senate Majority Leader did yesterday.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, with everything going on in the world right now, again, tough to get sleep.
But this is why I rely on my Helix Sleep Mattress.
It was made just for me.
Helix is a premium mattress brand that provides tailored mattresses based on your unique sleep preferences.
The Helix lineup includes 14 unique mattresses, including a collection of luxury models, a mattress for big and tall sleepers, even a mattress made just for kids.
I've had my Helix Sleep mattress for years.
I took that sleep quiz.
They matched me to a mattress type that was firm but breathable.
It's what allows me to come in rested despite my lack of sleep each and every day.
Helix, their sleep quiz applies to you too.
You get a great mattress.
It'll be matched just to you.
Personalize your mattress instead of going over to the big box store and just buying whatever you lay down on for 10 seconds.
Head on over to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
Take that two-minute sleep quiz.
Find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
Helix has a 10-year warranty.
You get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
This is their best offer yet.
Hurry on over to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
With Helix, better sleep starts right now.
Head on over to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
Get yourself a personalized mattress the way I did, helixsleep.com slash Ben.
Also, My friend Jordan Peterson has now completed the second half of his extraordinary 16-part seminar on the Book of Exodus.
He is joined by a group of esteemed scholars, theologians, and artists to discuss one of the most seminal books of the Bible.
Episode 9 is streaming right now on Daily Wire+.
This is an extreme deep dive on the Book of Exodus.
It's going to get you thinking.
I was honored to participate in it.
It was wonderful.
Just listen to this clip between Dennis Prager and Jordan.
If you obey me faithfully and keep my covenant, you will be my treasured possession.
So, one of the most controversial things I have said in my career is that I don't believe in unconditional love.
This is one of my biblical bases.
If you keep my covenant, you are my treasured people.
If you don't, you're not.
Right.
That's conditional.
Yeah.
Well, you know, one of the things we could investigate on that front is whether or not love, in any real sense, can be unconditional.
Right?
Because if the love is unconditional, it doesn't have an element of encouragement towards an ideal.
There's nothing that's discriminating and judgmental in the way that's elevating.
Because everything you do is instantly, well, it's all loved.
And it seems to me that there's a tension there between what you might describe as the archetype of feminine love and the archetype of masculine love.
And feminine love is love for an infant.
It's all-encompassing.
And masculine love, you could say, is, well, it's got that conditional element whose design is to further growth.
It's a great series.
It is totally worth the watch.
You're going to come away with an entirely new view of the Bible.
Go check it out.
Exodus, right now, episode nine is available right now.
New episodes are coming online every single week.
It's all exclusive for DailyWire Plus members.
Also, don't miss out on our full library of Jordan Peterson content, including Dragons, Monsters, and Men, Vision and Destiny, Marriage, Logos and Literacy, and the Beyond Order Tour.
Tons of Jordan content.
Just join right now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch Exodus.
So as we say, Tucker Carlson, he reveals all of this new footage.
You make some points with which I agree and some points with which I disagree.
Hey, that's that's called, you know, kind of the normal way that free speech works.
But Democrats decided that he had to be shut down.
So Chuck Schumer.
comes out and immediately says on the floor in the Senate, he says that Tucker should be shut down.
Fox News should not allow him to broadcast what Tucker is saying. Now again, I disagree with some of what Tucker said the other night. I also think that what Tucker revealed is kind of important.
It changes the kind of nuanced view of the narrative. But again, the Democrats didn't want you to have a nuanced view of the narrative, which is why they hid certain pieces of evidence from the public view and only featured other pieces of evidence.
Here was Chuck Schumer slamming Tucker.
Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he is perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again.
Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.
Um, so you have to shut Tucker down.
The Senate Majority Leader literally calling for a shutdown on Tucker Carlson because he doesn't like the way in which Tucker Carlson presents the footage.
Now, is Tucker a partisan?
You bet your ass Tucker's a partisan.
I'm not sure that he's been hiding the ball on this.
The amazing thing, though, is that the legacy media have presented themselves as not partisan.
I mean, again, Tucker is honest enough to admit his biases, I think you will all acknowledge.
But the January 6th committee said that they're providing you all the objective footage that you could possibly want.
You didn't even need to see the footage.
And the media were like, OK, well, we don't need to see the hours.
I mean, the January 6th committee is revealing things.
Well, no, I hadn't seen that.
It was kind of shocking to watch police officers literally escorting QAnon shaman around the Capitol building.
That's kind of important.
Again, it doesn't change the overall structure of the day, a protest which turned into a riot.
But it does change your picture of what happened inside the building to particular people, obviously.
But again, the problem for the Democrats is they could have presented all of this during the January 6th hearings.
They could have done this.
And they could have actually explained it away.
They could have said the reason that the cops are walking him around is because they were afraid that if they arrested him and other people saw that it would turn into more of a riot inside.
Fine, you want to do that, do it.
But they didn't.
They hid it.
And presumably they hid it for a reason.
The reason would be that they wanted a black and white narrative in which everybody who entered the Capitol building that day Was in fact some sort of insurrectionist terrorist.
Everybody was violent, every single person.
And no one had been ushered inside at all, which again is not true.
Life is not quite that simple.
Life is a little bit more messy.
It allows people.
I remember I was on Bill Maher's show last year and Malcolm Nance was on the show, MSNBC contributor, and he suggested that like thousands upon that, like 30, 40,000 people had entered the Capitol building because everybody who's involved in the original Donald Trump protest Was it though?
Was it though?
I mean, I hated January 6th.
Go back and watch my podcast.
like involved in the Donald Trump.
Again, the whole idea is conflation.
This is how you end up with Kareem Jean-Pierre yesterday from the White House, suggesting that Tucker's January 6th tapes show the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
Is it though?
Was it though?
I mean, I hated January 6th.
Go back and watch my podcast.
I thought it was egregious.
And I'm, I said from the get go that Donald Trump's case against the election did not have evidentiary support.
And not only that, once it was certified by the states, it was over.
There was no chance it was going to be overturned by Mike Pence.
That reading of the Constitution was stretched beyond the capacity of the document.
By far.
Because the Vice President was not given the power to declare who the President is, basically.
All of that.
Still, you want to pretend that this is the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War?
I can think of a few other attacks on our democracy.
Federal buildings were routinely bombed in the 1960s by members of the Weather Underground.
Black Lives Matter riots, the most damaging riots in American history, happened, like, three summers ago.
What are you even talking— 9-11!
I mean, like, a few attacks in our— just a few.
But here's Kareem Shampoo— the narrative must be maintained at all costs, even if it means shut Tucker the hell up.
Last night, Tucker Carlson cherry-picked video surveillance from the January 6th insurrection, severely downplaying the events of that day.
He said the mob was orderly and meek, and that they were tourists instead of insurrectionists.
What's your response to Carlson and to Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who granted him access to that video?
Anybody who watched that video would strongly disagree.
Anybody who watched that video in a Nope.
with their own eyes in a real way and saw what happened on that day would would disagree with what was just stated.
The president has been very clear.
January 6th was the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
Nope.
Nope.
But again, the narrative must be maintained at all costs.
You can agree, as I say, you can disagree with aspects of how Tucker covered his footage.
You can say that he exaggerated his case.
You can say that he tried to completely realign what January 6th was and suggest that it wasn't even a riot.
I think that even that is kind of a stretch on Tucker's reading.
But in any case, that is not the same thing as a call for censorship.
So Mitch McConnell yesterday, for example, the Senate Minority Leader, he says that Fox News made a mistake depicting January 6th that way.
He didn't call for the deplatforming of Tucker Carlson.
He said that they shouldn't have been depicting the riots as sort of a peaceful event.
Was it a mistake by Speaker McCarthy to give access to Tucker Carlson on this security footage?
My concern is how it was depicted, which is a different issue.
Clearly the Chief of the Capitol Police, in my view, correctly describes what most of us witnessed firsthand on January 6th.
So that's my reaction to it.
It was a mistake, in my view, for Fox News to depict this.
In a way that's completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at Capitol thinks.
Okay, so there was an attempt, I think, to conflate what McConnell was saying with what Schumer was saying, which was de-platform Tucker or take him off the air.
Schumer literally said that.
He said, literally, Fox News should not allow Tucker to go on the air tonight.
McConnell said nothing of the story.
He said, I don't like the way this was depicted.
There was an attempt, including by Tucker last night on his show, to say that McConnell and Schumer are the Uni Party because they agree I should be taken off the air.
That's not actually what McConnell is saying right there, but I understand where Tucker is coming from.
He was under assault from the Democrats suggesting that he should be de-platformed entirely.
The letter, by the way, from the policeman, from the police chief of the Capitol Police, Thomas Manger.
He's the USCP chief.
He says this.
Last night, an opinion program aired commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6th attack.
The opinion program never reached out to the department to provide accurate context.
One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as tour guides.
This is outrageous and false.
The department stands by the officers in the video that was shown last night.
I don't have to remind you how outnumbered our officers were on January 6th, et cetera, et cetera.
Well, I mean, I think the question here is, there is no context provided for the more tense moments either.
Meaning, if the complaint is, Tucker didn't provide context for the walking of QAnon Shaman around the Capitol, you guys provided no actual context to what happened to QAnon Shaman after he broke into the building between that time and when he was standing in the actual main chamber of the Capitol.
So, if you guys provided black, and Tucker provided white, and the actual answer is kind of dark gray, then you can't really complain that Tucker provided some white when it didn't exist before.
Meaning, like, you provided a completely Manichaean story in which you just ignore the other, like, any evidence that did not cut in favor of all of your notions, and now you're complaining that Tucker provided some context because he didn't provide enough context?
The police chief says the most disturbing accusation from last night was that our late friend and colleague Brian Sicknick's death had nothing to do with his heroic actions on January 6th.
The department maintains, as anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer Sicknick would not have died the next day.
Okay, again, that's all fair enough, but I'm not aware of any standard in American journalism or even law enforcement in which Riots which result in the later stroke or heart attack of a police officer are then blamed on the rioters.
Like really, that's not something I've seen a lot before.
Maybe it should be, but that would be a new kind of standard.
But again, the main goal here is to take Tucker off the air.
To his credit, Kevin McCarthy, who was asked about why he gave the material to Tucker in the first place, said, listen, I'm being transparent.
That's called transparency.
You don't like what Tucker presented?
Fine.
But at least the footage is out there now, which, again, is not unfair, given the fact that the partisan media on the left do the exact same thing on behalf of Democrats.
Because of the footage that you gave Tucker Carlson, last night he went on and said this was a mostly peaceful chaos, as he said, he downplayed Brian Sicknick's death, said it was not related to January 6th, said this was not an insurrection.
Do you regret giving him this footage so he could whitewash the events of that day?
No.
I said at the very beginning, transparency.
And so what I wanted to produce for everybody is exactly what I said, that people could actually look at it and see what's gone on that day.
Look, each person can come up with their own conclusion, but what I just wanted to make sure is I had transparency.
Because I know in CNN, I mean I had here, Where you guys actually broke where we were.
This was a secret location.
Fort McGlare.
I don't know if you got concerned by that.
I don't even know from a point of view of security if we could ever be taken there again.
But when you broke that at CNN, that was a real concern to a lot of people.
Okay, well, meanwhile, the Biden administration continues to struggle on its own.
So the truth is that Democrats would love to talk about nothing but January 6th from now until the end of time.
Because, of course, that's what they ran on in 2021 and in 2022.
And that's what they will presumably run again on in 2024.
But there are actual real problems in the United States that didn't happen three years ago.
Those problems include the fact that Americans are now being kidnapped and murdered over in Mexico.
According to the New York Post, the two American citizens who were found alive Tuesday after being kidnapped at gunpoint during cartel crossfire in Mexico have now been identified and returned to the United States.
Latavia Tay McGee and Eric James Williams were rushed to the border near Brownsville, Texas Tuesday in a convoy of ambulances and SUVs escorted by Mexican military Humvees and National Guard trucks with mounted .50-caliber machine guns.
They were found just hours earlier in a rural area east of Matamoros called Ajijolongoreno, I'm going to screw that name up, on the way to the Gulf Coast known as Baghdad Beach.
That's always a good indicator that that beach is great.
That's why they call it Baghdad Beach.
It's like a great vacation spot, Baghdad Beach.
Just hours after the pair were reportedly found at a clinic in the northeastern city of Matamoros, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN they were receiving medical care at a hospital in Texas. One of the survivors is said to be seriously injured.
Apparently, McGee and Williams had traveled to Mexico with their pals, Shaeed Woodard and Zendel Brown, so McGee could undergo a cosmetic medical procedure.
Shortly after they crossed the border from Texas into the crime-ridden border city of Matamoros, located in the northeastern state of Tamaulipas, they were caught in the crosshairs of a shootout between rival cartel gangs.
And then they were kidnapped at gunpoint.
Woodard and Brown were confirmed as dead on Tuesday.
Their bodies will be examined by medical authorities in Mexico before being returned.
So, um, that's great.
That's just wonderful.
The White House was asked about the drug cartels on the border who are, you know, shooting Americans across the border and also are smuggling extraordinary amounts of fentanyl across the border.
And the White House had no answer, of course.
So, cartels kill Americans on this side of the border with drugs, and now they're killing Americans on the other side of the border with guns.
Why is President Biden so comfortable with cartels operating so close to the U.S.?
Well, let's be very clear.
Let me take on the drug part here, because since you brought this up, because of the work that this president has done, because of what we've done specifically on fentanyl at the border, it's at historic lows, historic levels, that we have been able to They're just lying now.
They're just lying right now.
I mean, literally, fentanyl may be.
Fentanyl OD might be the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45 in the United States right now.
That's because of what this president has done.
And I think that's what we need to do.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to National Review, consistent with overdose death data, the trafficking distribution and abuse of illicitly produced fentanyl and fentanyl analogs positively correlates with the associated dramatic increase in overdose fatalities.
At the end of 2022, the DEA announced the seizure of more than 50.6 million fentanyl-laced fake prescription pills and more than 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder this calendar year.
The DEA laboratory estimates these seizures represent more than 379 million potential deadly doses of fentanyl.
That is more deadly doses of fentanyl than there are humans in the United States at current point.
That's insane.
So what she's saying is we're seizing a lot of fentanyl?
Yeah, because there's a crap load of fentanyl coming across the border, guys.
Which presumably is one reason why the Biden administration, as we mentioned yesterday, is now going to think about reinstating a bunch of Trump-era immigration policy.
According to the Wall Street Journal, The Biden administration has held meetings in recent days to discuss detaining migrant families who cross the border illegally as officials prepare to put in place more restrictive border control measures to counter unexpected surge in migrants, according to people familiar with the discussions.
As Title 42 ends, Title 42 is the The COVID-era regulation that allows rejection of people at the border who have not been tested for COVID or whatever.
As that comes to an end, the Biden administration is now going to have to do exactly what the Trump administration did and what the White House was yelling at the Trump administration about.
I mean, it was the Biden administration.
It's Team Biden who was saying that Trump was some sort of brutal, evil dictator.
Remember AOC taking pictures in white down at the border?
Well, Kareem Jean-Pierre won't answer any questions about that, of course.
On immigration, so we're hearing that this idea to detain families in detention, again, is one of a lot of policies that are currently under consideration as Title 42 restrictions are going to possibly end on May 11th.
If you can rule out family detention or what can you say about the idea that, you know, families may or may not be detained, migrant families may or may not be detained?
So I'm not going to go in on rumors that are out there or conversations that are happening at this time.
The department, as you know, as you just noted Colleen, the Department of Homeland Security is certainly continuing to prepare for the eventual lift of Title 42.
So, um, yeah, no answers there.
No answers at all.
Well, the good news is that we have a very energetic and with a president of the United States to help us through all this.
So Jill Biden, who seems to appear on TV.
A lot more often than Joe, probably because she's still alive.
So she has been going around doing a media tour in the absence of the President of the United States, who is her husband.
And in the middle of this media tour, she keeps getting asked about the fact that she is basically Edith Wilson and they're wheeling Joe around in a chair.
And she has some answers.
Here was her answer yesterday as to how fit Joe Biden is.
What do you say to those people who say maybe he's too old to be president?
Are those fair questions and conversations to be having?
I say look at what he's done.
You know, look at what he's doing.
Look at how physically he's got the good bill of health from the doctors through his physicals.
But how many 30-year-olds could Travel to Poland, get on the train, go nine more hours, go to Ukraine, meet with President Zelensky.
How many 30-year-olds?
Is that a true question?
All of them?
The answer to that question is all of them.
There is not a 30-year-old on planet Earth.
There are 30-year-olds with deadly conditions who can do that.
You mean how many people can sit on a plane for a long period of time and then be shoveled onto a train for a long period of time and then do a meeting?
Is that what we're supposed to believe makes Joe Biden fit?
Seriously?
I have a three-year-old who can do that.
What?
Yeah, man.
Well, I mean, that's a lady who's not going to give up the presidency anytime soon.
Well, our first actual female president, well, second, because Edith Wilson was president.
So we have Edith Wilson, who's president.
We have Dr. Jill, the greatest doctor in all the land.
So presidential, so doctor-y.
She's just the doctor of all doctors.
It would be sad if the second female president was actually replaced by the third female president.
There's some rumors that Michelle Obama is thinking about running in 2024.
Now, I don't believe these rumors because she has a great life.
Michelle Obama's life is being treated like Oprah Winfrey, even though she is a radical leftist.
That is a great life.
She's a lady who's been given like Netflix deals and huge Spotify deals.
And she's treated as sort of the voice of the boomer slash millennial woman, even though she really is politically quite awful.
Well, she seems to be making some political rounds now.
She has a new book that came out recently.
And now she has shared in a new podcast that she broke down and cried for 30 minutes straight, uncontrollably sobbing after Donald Trump was inaugurated, which kind of makes me love Trump a little bit.
Tonight, uncontrollable sobbing.
The former first lady, Michelle Obama, revealing how she really felt after the inauguration of then President Trump in her new podcast.
There were tears.
There was that emotion.
But then to sit on that stage and watch the opposite of what we represented on display.
There was no diversity.
There was no color on that stage.
There was no reflection of the broader sense of America.
I cried for 30 minutes straight.
Uncontrollable sobbing.
Aw man.
I have to admit, I've been pretty critical of Donald Trump over the years.
That may be the thing that somebody has said that makes me the most like Donald Trump, of all the things.
I don't know if there are any other things.
Notice, by the way, how radical she is.
She's so radical.
She looks at Donald Trump and she doesn't say, oh, there's sort of man who opposed all of the policies that we'd fought for.
And a person who had called my husband a non-citizen born in Kenya.
And she doesn't even go to his character.
Right?
She doesn't even say anything about Trump.
She says, I cried for 30 minutes straight because there weren't enough black people standing next to Donald Trump.
How racist is that?
I didn't see enough diversity on the stage, right?
There were just no black faces.
It was all white people.
Is that how you see other people?
Seriously, is that how you see them?
If you looked at the Obama administration, and instead of looking at their radical policies, all you said is, man, it's a lot of black people.
You'd be like, whoa, that's pretty racist.
And Michelle Obama's like, I cried 30 minutes straight because there were just too many white people on that side of the stage.
What in the actual?
She's been doing this on her book tour for a book tententiously titled The Light We Carry.
Wait, oh god, The Light We Carry.
You can't carry light!
She's gonna put it out there.
Can't do it.
I know, this is where the literalist memes of me come out.
But yes, that's a crappy book title, The Light We Carry.
Ah, she's so tiring.
But, you know, there's been talk now.
about her running for president.
I highly doubt that that's the case.
She would be a dangerous candidate just because the media have made such a heroine of Michelle Obama by pretending that she is a person who she actually is not.
By the way, speaking of crappy policy from the current administration, it's amazing to watch as the Federal Reserve just swivels around like a jib of a ship in a wind.
It's in a high wind.
It's amazing.
So I said, Last time, the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates by 25 basis points, 0.25.
That was not enough.
That they were whistling past the graveyard.
They were assuming that inflation was going to go down based on some statistics that kind of trail.
And that they were stupid because what they were doing by increasing the interest rates by only 0.25 is they were signaling to the market that there was going to be an end to the interest rate increases in the near future.
The market spiked on that basis.
And then it turns out inflation wasn't dead.
And so now they're going to have to reverse course and they can't do 0.25.
They're going to have to do actually 50 basis points again.
And it's going to look like they don't actually know what they're doing.
Which, by the way, secret.
They don't know what they're doing.
If they knew what they were doing, we wouldn't be at a 7% inflation rate year on year.
Anyway, Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve yesterday, he admitted again that inflation is running higher than expected.
The data from January on employment, consumer spending, manufacturing production, and inflation have partly reversed the softening trends that we'd seen in the data just a month ago.
Some of this reversal likely reflects the unseasonably warm weather in January in much of the country.
Still, the breadth of the reversal, along with revisions to the previous quarter, suggests that inflationary pressures are running higher than expected at the time of our previous FOMC meeting.
Oh, are they?
Well, I mean, you guys are the experts.
We should listen to the... If there's something we've learned over the past several years, the experts are always right.
I mean, wrong, about apparently everything.
Powell then admitted, we're going to have to have still higher interest rates. Well, yeah, I mean, who around here has been saying that we're going to need interest rates like between five and six percent before this is over minimum, maybe six to seven percent? Oh, yeah, yeah, right here. I'm saying that for like well over a year and a half. Anyway, here is Jerome Powell admitting as such. Although inflation has been moderating in recent months, the process of getting inflation back down to two percent has a long way to go and is likely to be bumpy.
As I mentioned, the latest economic data have come in stronger than expected, which suggests that the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated.
Oh, there's a shock.
You shouldn't be shocked by this.
This is totally expected.
Because again, it couldn't get under control one way and so now they're going to have to slam on the brakes the other way.
There is no choice.
And you know who's going to pay the price for that?
Presumably Joe Biden.
Because all this fake economic growth built on inflation is going to stagnate very, very quickly here.
Okay, time for some things that I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
There's a clip from ESPN that frankly was quite delicious.
So J.J.
Reddick, who is an NBA commentator on ESPN, he got really into it with Kendrick Perkins on ESPN.
So if you watch ESPN, ESPN, like CNN, they have to cover a thing for 24 hours a day, and there just ain't 24 hours of things to cover on ESPN.
Football season is over, so they can't really cover football all that much.
NBA is still going.
Baseball hasn't really started.
So that means they really don't have tons to cover right now.
And so what this means is that they are just going to make up racial controversies for ratings.
This is what ESPN has become, as I say, it's MSNBC with footballs.
So yesterday, JJ Redick was talking about how Nikola Djokic from the Denver Nuggets, how he was probably going to win a third straight MVP, which he should.
He's an amazing player.
And Kendrick Perkins basically suggested on the air that the reason that Djokic was being talked about for a third straight MVP is because he was a white guy.
And the reason that he says that is because Nikola Djokic is not one of the top scorers in the league.
He instead has a lot of assists, he's a great rebounder, he's a good defender.
He does a lot of things on the floor that make you incredibly valuable, but don't necessarily win you the MVP very often because people tend to be attracted by the flashy scoring numbers.
Kendrick Perkins, again, suggested that that was only the case because Joe Kick was white.
And he pointed to, like, Steve Nash as an example of another player who had not led the league in scoring but had won some MVPs. And JJ Redick absolutely went off on Kendrick Perkins, and I am here for it. I assume he'll have to apologize in the next 48 hours.
I mean no offense to you, and I mean no offense to First Take.
Because I think this show is extremely valuable.
It is an honor to be on this desk every day.
It really is.
But what we've just witnessed is the problem with this show.
Where we create narratives that do not exist in reality.
The implication, what you are implying, that the white voters that vote on NBA are racist, that they favor white people.
You just said that.
Yes, you did.
That is exactly what you implied.
My point that I made the other day, which is a valid point and which I will stand by, is that Nikola Jokic does not care.
What he cares about doesn't fit your narrative, so your narrative to discredit him somehow, to discredit what he's doing, it's not based in reality, Perk.
Perkins had accused Jokic of stat padding in order to get to a triple-double average on the season.
I'm here for this sort of stuff, and I'm hoping that there is more sort of backlash in this arena when people create fake racial narratives.
It is very important to call that crap out.
By the way, it is amazing how real racial narratives like actual racism or anti-Semitism are completely ignored depending on who exactly is engaging in it.
So Cori Bush, the Black Lives Matter congresswoman from Missouri, I call her the Black Lives Matter congresswoman because that was literally her job.
She was a Black Lives Matter spokesperson before she ran for Congress in Missouri.
Well, it turns out that she has spent $137,000 on a person named Nathaniel Davis.
Nathaniel Davis, apparently, It also turns out this person, he's received $137,000 from her since 2020.
He claims that he is 109 trillion years old.
Trillion years old.
It also turns out this person, he's received $137,000 from her since 2020.
He claims that he is 109 trillion years old.
Trillion years old.
Also the Jews control the world.
So yeah, there's that.
That's, that's great.
I mean, just for point of reference, the entire universe is, uh, like 14 billion years old.
So if he, if he does have some secrets about what happened before the big bang, I would love to hear it.
I'm, I'm into it.
I want to hear this guy's take on, on astrophysics.
I think that'd be amazing.
Anyway, here he was explaining some of his views.
We're so busy out here hating each other because of what we look like, what we sound like, how we walk, how we talk, that we don't see the bigger picture.
You got the global elite looking to kill every last one of us.
They want to wipe out half the population of the planet.
The global count on the planet is 7.8 billion, 7.9 billion people.
And the global elite is trying to reduce that down to right around 50 million.
That's a lot of people dead, man.
I'm not from the nation of Islam, but I read the Honorable Elijah Muhammad's book, Fall of America, and I'm seeing everything come true, come to pass.
The God came and dropped some knowledge on us.
It's coming to pass.
America is falling.
It's going to topple itself, but it's a planned system.
That's what this global pandemic is about.
We're getting a new global system.
Okay, also, he calls himself Ahasen Pianki.
He's a spiritual guru.
And that, of course, is not a shock because Cori Bush has spent pretty much her entire career working with radical anti-Semites.
This particular human is a former member of the New Black Panther Party.
So that's great.
But does this deserve mainstream media attention?
By the way, if there were a white supremacist who were paid $137,000 by a major Republican in the media, wouldn't that be like a major story?
But it is absolutely not a major story because Cori Bush is one of the beloved members of the adjunct squad.
So that means that she is one of the protected class.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
Remember the time that Ken Burns was a historian?
I seem to remember that.
The entire media have decided to turn it up to Spinal Tap 11 when it comes to Ron DeSantis.
And it's early, guys.
I mean, it is March 8th of 2023.
We're not going to have an election in this country for another year and a half.
So you might want to hold some of your fire until Ron DeSantis actually declares.
But they're already getting ready for it.
Ron DeSantis is Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.
Usually I ignore Stalin because he was on their side.
Mussolini, Hitler, And so they're really going hard.
So yesterday we had Michael Beschloss, who writes speeches for Joe Biden and says insanely ahistorical nonsense.
Today it's Ken Burns.
So Ken Burns is out there pushing one of his new documentaries, and he suggests that Ron DeSantis is like a Nazi and a Soviet, all wrapped into one.
Also, Ken Burns needs to stop dying his hair.
He's a little too old for this.
It's not working for you, dude.
All of these bills that DeSantis and others are doing limit our ability to understand who we are and are not inclusive.
They're exclusive.
They're narrowing the focus of what is and isn't American history.
It's terrifying.
It feels like a Soviet system or, you know, the way the Nazis would build a Potemkin village.
Tucker Carlson's doing the same thing with the footage from 1-6.
It's just a kind of rewriting of history at the most dangerous level.
Like the Nazis or the Soviets.
Oh my gosh.
First of all, Potemkin villages were built, as the name might suggest, by the Soviets.
The Nazis did some of that, but it's mainly associated with the Soviets because of Potemkin.
In any case, solid stuff there from Ken Burns, Hitler, Stalin, all of them.
It's Ron DeSantis saying that you shouldn't teach young children that they can be a member of the opposite sex.
Also, he says that the problem with Ron DeSantis, he has this nice white picket fence view of America.
He likes America.
That's a problem.
We can't have that.
That's bad.
How do you think that we'll look back and reflect on the period that we are living in now?
Well, I think there's some really positive aspects, and I think part of what we're seeing in DeSantis and others is a kind of reaction to anything that makes it nothing but a kind of neat, tidy, white picket fence, morning in America kind of view of things.
This is a complicated world, and race is in everything we touch, not because I'm looking for it, but because we were founded on the idea that all men were created equal.
The guy who wrote that owned hundreds of human beings.
He's so tiresome.
He's so tiresome.
Yes, I'm sure that Ron DeSantis is preventing the teaching of slavery in Florida schools, which is mandated by Florida law, you idiot.
But it is what the media go for.
So Ron DeSantis, by the way, remember that we spent like a week here saying that Ron DeSantis wanted to make bloggers register in order to cover him.
In point of fact, there was a single state senator in Florida who sponsored an idiot bill that went nowhere.
Well, Rhonda Sands was asked about this yesterday.
He's like, I noticed that you guys put my picture on a bill I didn't sponsor or support, which means that you're really dishonest.
Correct.
I see these people filing bills and then there's articles with my face on the article saying that, oh, they're going to have to, bloggers are going to have to register for the state.
And it's like attributing it to me.
And I'm like, OK, that's not anything that I've ever supported.
I don't support.
I've been very clear about what we're doing.
And so people have a right to file legislation.
They have a right to To do different types of amendments and all that other stuff, but the Florida led a whole 120 of them in the House and however many in the 40 in the Senate, you know, they have independent agency to be able to do things like I don't control every single bill that has been filed or amendment.
So just as we go through this session, please, you know understand that.
Um, yeah.
But again, it doesn't matter what's true and what's not.
DeSantis is the new target.
Remember, remember always how dishonest the legacy media are on this stuff.
They're so dishonest.
Donald Trump was a unique threat to the Republic.
He was Hitlerian.
January 6th, the worst thing that's happened in the history of the Republic.
And anyone who challenges Donald Trump in a primary is Hitler.
Anyone who challenges him is Hitler also.
That's how big a threat Donald Trump is.
We definitely need him to be the nominee.
It's really important.
Ah, the media.
Alrighty guys, the rest of the show is continuing right now.
You're not going to want to miss it.
We'll be getting into riots in France.
We'll be getting into the question of who actually bombed the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
If you're not a member, become a member.
Use code Shapiro.
Check out for two months free on all annual plans.