Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 5, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show

54:05

Truth vs. Pride

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, societally, we are in a battle right now between truth and pride.
	A battle between things that matter and things that make certain groups feel good.
	That is the battle that is taking place across American society, across European society, across the West right now.
	And last week, that battle manifested And whether you would be allowed to see the documentary, What is a Woman?
	You'll recall that last week we were going to release on the one year anniversary of Matt Walsh's hit documentary, What is a Woman?
	The entire documentary for anyone to see on Twitter for 24 hours.
	And Twitter's immediate response was that they were going to shadow ban any content from the film.
	On grounds of quote-unquote misgendering.
	Now, misgendering is an Orwellian term.
	The idea that if I say that a man is a man, this is somehow a form of misgendering as opposed to properly gendering.
	And that if a man says that he is a woman, that is his true self.
	That, of course, is Orwellian nonsense.
	It is directly opposed to truth.
	It predicates, it prioritizes the feelings of a person above the realities of life, and insists that all of society reflect the feelings of the person, which may shift moment to moment, as opposed to a truth that we all can share and then debate.
	Well, we obviously fought back against that, and Elon Musk, to his great credit, decided to take off the clamps.
	And now, the statistics on how many people have seen what is a woman are absolutely astounding.
	So I wanted to bring you the updated statistics on how many people have seen what is a woman at this point.
	The number of video impressions on What Is Woman, that tweet, the tweet that we put out there, that Elon Musk then tweeted himself and then pinned at the top of his account, 171 million impressions on that tweet.
	171 million impressions, which means, at the very least, tens and tens of millions of people have seen the actual documentary, making it, by any metric, perhaps the most watched documentary in the history of humanity.
	It is also the number one documentary on planet Earth for the second Pride Month in a row over on Rotten Tomatoes, which, again, pretty impressive stuff.
	And the reason people are engaging with the film, the reason that people love What Is A Woman is not just because it's super funny and because it's super interesting, but also because it says it is OK to speak a baseline truth.
	Here's some quick stats on how the viewership for What Is A Woman compares to the viewership of other online events, for example.
	So this this video, this documentary has more views than Anderson Cooper's show all week combined.
	On CNN.
	Then the 2023 Oscars, then Joe Biden's 2023 State of the Union address, then Lizzo's most recent music video special, which is four months old.
	And that's over the course of like 48 hours, 72 hours over the weekend.
	More viewers in the Game of Thrones finale.
	These are huge numbers because people want to engage with the truth.
	They're sick of being told lies.
	These are bigger numbers than the numbers on massive documentaries like Making a Murderer from Netflix, which had 19 million views over the course of five weeks.
	It's over the course of like 72 hours.
	What is a woman?
	Trended in the UK with 129,000 tweets.
	It trended in the United States.
	It trended in Germany.
	It trended in Canada.
	It trended in New Zealand.
	People are hungry for truth and they are sick of being lied to.
	They are tired of being lied to.
	They are sick of being told that somebody's sense of subjective individual identity is more important than, again, all of our shared concept of the truth.
	And this goes to a broader question that has now arisen in Western civilization.
	And that is, what is the norm?
	What is the thing that we can all share?
	What is the thing we can all share?
	And that doesn't mean there are people who are always going to fit into the norm.
	There are some people who don't fit into the norm.
	But as a society, we have to share certain norms and standards.
	And if we don't, then society fragments.
	Society is about the things that we share.
	Now, again, if you think of society, That's essentially a solar system.
	And the truth, that thing that we all share, is the sun.
	And then there are planets, right, in orbit.
	And those planets are not expelled from the solar system of truth.
	They're kind of just orbiting it.
	They're not part of the truth, but they're certainly at least accepting the presence of the central gravitational force that is holding the entire system together.
	So take, for example, the idea of quote-unquote heteronormativity.
	And so during Pride Month, there's a lot of talk about heteronormativity, exploding the myth of heteronormativity.
	That's not a myth.
	That is a central guiding proposition of any fundamentally durable civilization.
	The notion that man, woman, and child lies at the basis of any functional and durable civilization is unquestionably true.
	Because any civilization at which this does not lie at the root will die.
	There will just not be propagation of the civilization.
	It won't exist.
	The notion that man, woman, and child, we ought to be apathetic as to the choices that people make and the behaviors in which people engage that actually progenerate the species and allow civilizations to survive is absurd.
	Well, that is a norm.
	Now, we in the West, because that was sort of the background noise, because that was something that we all assumed, we all just assumed it was in the air and in the water, that a fish doesn't understand that it's swimming in water, it's just what is around it.
	For most of human history, people didn't think about, you know, the air that surrounded them, it's just what you lived in.
	In the same way, most of the norms that support how we live are things we don't think about at all.
	Nobody ever thought, for virtually all of human history until the last five minutes, nobody ever thought about, like, you know what's a fundamental norm?
	That we all rely on man, woman, child.
	That would have been an absurd thing to even think about, because of course that's the norm.
	What else would the norm be, exactly?
	Again, all of human propagation relies on this norm.
	And then there were exceptions to the norm.
	There were people who didn't live like that.
	There were people who had other desires.
	There were people who had other orientations.
	And those people, in the best of all possible worlds, you would say, OK, well, those are people who don't fit the norm.
	That doesn't challenge the norm itself.
	The norm itself is the norm.
	And hopefully we can have tolerance for people who don't necessarily fit the norm, but they aren't hurting anybody else.
	But the norm is still the norm.
	And then people in the 1960s and earlier, I mean, the 1960s is the culmination of it, but beginning in the early 19th century with the Romantic movement, there was a challenge to the norm itself.
	The idea was the norm is bad.
	The norm is an inhibition on who you are.
	The norm has to be destroyed.
	Heteronormativity has to be destroyed because what the left has pointed out really since the 1960s in America and across Europe, what the left has pointed out is that that is an assumption.
	And they're right.
	It is an assumption.
	And so what they say is that's not neutral.
	It's not a neutral assumption.
	Heteronormativity isn't a neutral assumption.
	It is, in fact, a set of values.
	Well, they're right about that.
	It is a set of values.
	But it's a good set of values.
	And that's the point.
	Now, people on the right responded by saying it's not a set of values at all.
	It's neutral.
	If we're just neutral about our values, then that's fine.
	What if we're just neutral about the question of heteronormativity versus non-heteronormativity?
	What if we're neutral about the question of what is a man and what is a woman?
	We'll just be neutral on that, you know?
	Like, because that's the way that we thought about it until five seconds ago.
	We didn't think about it as an actual moral norm that had to be re-inculcated with every generation.
	It was just the water we swam in.
	It was the air that we breathed.
	So neutrality would have just meant continuing to go along as it went along.
	What the left pointed out correctly is that we are swimming in water and we are breathing air.
	And they said we don't like the air that we're swimming in.
	We don't like the water that we're... We don't like the air that we're breathing or the water that we're swimming in.
	We don't like any of those things.
	Those norms are bad.
	What if we change the norms?
	What if we made those norms go away?
	And the answer is societal chaos.
	This is the great challenge that the West is going to have to face right now.
	It is the challenge between the norms that are good and alternative forms of living that insist not on being a marginalized but accepted part of the community and being the new norm.
	That is a difference.
	That is not the same thing.
	A lot of people have made over the course of time, the course of my lifetime, the distinction between tolerance and acceptance and celebration completely be obliterated.
	The notion that you would tolerate behavior that deviates from the norm has now been turned into, well, it's not enough to tolerate, you have to accept as completely moral.
	And then you have to celebrate.
	We went very fast in American society from people should be allowed to do what they want to do behind the closed doors of their bedroom to we have to have entire months, pride months, in which we celebrate the violation of the norm.
	Once you celebrate the violation of the norm, what you're really saying is that the norm is bad.
	Think of another area of life in which there is a rule and we celebrate the violation of the rule.
	We have a full-scale month celebrating the violation of what we think of as the societal norm.
	You can't think of another example of this behaviorally.
	It doesn't exist.
	Any other example of, here's a societal norm, a thing that we all think of as good, and then we have a full month celebrating the violation of that norm.
	A full month celebrating it.
	Because what is that really saying?
	It's really saying the norm is bad.
	And when you say the norm is bad, that is not a neutral position.
	Get some more on this in just one second.
	First, On this Father's Day, let Dad unleash his inner grill master.
	Whether he prefers that sizzling steak or savory grilled chicken, look no further than the gift of meat from our friends over at Good Ranchers.
	Producer Savvy and her husband, first time dad, they just got the Rancher's Classic box.
	They are loving it.
	We all know what life is like with a new baby.
	I know that particularly right now.
	It is wonderful and yet extraordinarily tiring.
	You don't need to worry about going to the grocery store and buying meat from, you know, God knows where.
	So Savvy and her husband are enjoying the magic of Good Ranchers.
	Good Ranchers offers ribeyes, New York strips, T-bones, all-natural burgers, and all the most delicious chicken you could ever want.
	Plus, right now you'll get 30 bucks off with our code BEN at GoodRanchers.com.
	Good Ranchers also offers a price lock guarantee for the next two years.
	Imagine if you could have locked in your price two years ago, you would have saved hundreds of dollars.
	If you're not sure how to grill the perfect steak, good news!
	Well, Good Ranchers has tons of recipes on their website, like our favorite, How to Cook a Steak Better than Gordon Ramsay.
	Whether dad is a steak lover, a barbecue enthusiast, or just enjoys that good old-fashioned burger, Good Ranchers has something for everybody.
	So order today.
	Make this Father's Day a sizzling success.
	Head on over to GoodRanchers.com.
	Use our code BEN for 30 bucks off any box.
	That's promo code BEN at GoodRanchers.com.
	GoodRanchers.com is American meat delivered.
	Okay, so the reason that this comes up is because to pretend that we are not actually in a battle between truth, meaning good, durable, valuable norms, and an alternative system of morality is to deny reality.
	There is no neutral in this battle.
	The left was right.
	The set of norms that existed was not a neutral set of norms.
	And I think it was neutral in the sense that it reflected reality a lot better than the new set of nonsensical norms in which men and women don't exist, in which all forms of sexual activity are equally valuable to society.
	It's obviously not in consonance with reality.
	But they are right to say that there was a set of norms, and that we assumed they weren't norms, we just assumed it was reality, but they were norms, and that those norms can be destroyed.
	And what the left has argued is that the norms should be destroyed.
	And so this is how they now make the affirmative case for performing drag shows in front of small children.
	Make the affirmative case for pride parades involving assless chaps in front of small people.
	Right?
	Not in front of kids.
	Right?
	The idea here is that it is an active good to explode the norm that society is rooted in.
	Make no mistake, that's what the Pride Month challenge is.
	Because these things are not, these are not Mutually acceptable in a society as the central norm.
	Again, you can have a society that has a central norm and that accepts people who vary from the central norm.
	That happens all the time.
	It happens in every religious community.
	It happens in every school.
	It happens in every society.
	In every society, there are the people who don't fit the established norm and society says, okay, well, you know, that's Bill.
	And then we move on with our lives.
	But that's not what's happening.
	When you have not only, by the way, a full Pride Month, you have something like 144 days on the calendar that are celebrated now in America as International Lesbian Visibility Day, International Queer Awareness Day, International Two-Spirit Native American Little Person Day.
	When you have that, that is an overt attempt to change the norm.
	And it's not like the ball is being hidden here.
	It's not a conspiracy theory when people just say it right out in the open.
	The idea is that heteronormativity is bad.
	Heteronormativity is somehow a restriction on the true you.
	And after all, what's more important in life than the true you?
	And I can see this really come into conflict over the course of this weekend.
	There's been an overt attempt on the part of some states to protect children from the violation of these norms, because many societies in the United States properly and in good faith believe, because it's true, that children should be taught the norm of man, woman, child.
	That that should be the thing that children are indeed inculcated with from the time they are very young, because all of human society relies on exactly this norm.
	And so, in order to prevent kids from having their little brains exposed to toxic societal idiocy, there have been a series of laws that have been passed in a wide variety of jurisdictions that ban, for example, overt sexual material from being placed before children.
	And that's now been extended in some states, like Tennessee, to include men gallivanting around dressed as women and thrusting their pelvises in graphic ways near kids.
	That's what Tennessee passed a law to do.
	Well now, that law has been struck down in Tennessee because the government is supposed to be quote-unquote neutral on this matter.
	But the point the left made a long time ago is there is no neutrality.
	There is no neutrality.
	Once you say that a society is apathetic about the norm, that's not a neutral position.
	If society is apathetic about a norm, it means the norm no longer exists or is worth upholding.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, when you are running a business, your employees can create all sorts of very interesting, fascinating situations.
	The fact of the matter is that when you have 300 odd employees like you have here at DailyWire, every so often somebody is going to create an HR problem for you.
	And this creates serious legal liability, which is why we have an entire HR department here at DailyWire.
	But you may not have an HR department where you work because you're a startup company or you're a small business.
	Well, this could be a problem for you.
	This is why you need Bambi.
	Bambi gives you access to your own dedicated HR manager starting at just $99 per month.
	This person is available to you by phone, email, and real-time chat.
	They'll help you run employee onboardings, terminations, and performance reviews.
	With Bambi's HR Autopilot feature, you can automate important HR practices like setting policies, employee training, and feedback procedures.
	All of Bambi's HR managers are based in the United States and can support the nuances across all 50 states.
	HR managers can easily cost $80,000 per year, but Bambi starts at just $99 per month.
	Schedule your free conversation today.
	See how much Bambi can take off your plate.
	Go to Bambi.com right now.
	Type Ben Shapiro under podcast when you sign up.
	Spell B-A-M-B-E-E.com.
	That's Bambi.com and type in Ben Shapiro.
	Okay, so there's this case in Tennessee.
	A federal judge who's actually appointed by President Trump has decided that a law that placed strict limits on drag shows was unconstitutional.
	According to the judge, the law was, quote, unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad and encouraged discriminatory enforcement.
	The judge named Thomas Parker and he wrote, there's no question that obscenity is not protected by the
	First Amendment, but there's a difference between material that is, quote,
	obscene in the vernacular and material that is obscene under the law.
	Simply put, no majority of the Supreme Court has held that sexually explicit,
	but not obscene speech receives less protection than political, artistic, or scientific speech.
	Now, you can put the blame on Parker for this decision, this judge.
	I don't think the blame is actually on Parker.
	I think the blame here is on what the Supreme Court has done with the First Amendment since really the 1960s with regard to obscenity generally.
	So it used to be widely accepted in the United States that obscenity law could go pretty far on the local level.
	The First Amendment, first of all, was never designed to apply to the states, and it certainly was not designed to apply to localities.
	The original language of the First Amendment to the Constitution simply says the Congress shall establish no law Inhibiting freedom of speech.
	Congress is the actor in question in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
	It is not the state legislature and it is certainly not a municipal body.
	Now there are a lot of states that have also put in place their form of the First Amendment.
	But there is no reading of the First Amendment, the original First Amendment, that includes anything like sexually explicit material.
	Or material that protects cross-dressing.
	Hey, that was never... To pretend that that was in the history of the First Amendment, that America has a long history of protecting cross-dressing as a First Amendment activity, is ridiculous.
	And cross-dressing in front of kids as a First Amendment activity?
	It's an absurdity on its face.
	But again, the idea here is that government is supposed to now be neutral, and that neutrality is going to be crammed down by the federal government.
	Is that a neutral position?
	My point is that that's not neutrality.
	When the federal government says that you, as a local community, cannot ban drag shows in front of five-year-olds, that is not a neutral position.
	That is a very, very strong position held by the federal government to prohibit you from protecting your kids in your community and setting up a centralizing norm.
	That's what that is.
	Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose.
	And the government, in the form of the federal government here, is deciding that you, your local community, cannot do this thing to establish a norm.
	That, for example, kids should be taught that boys and girls dress differently as a general rule because masculinity and femininity are distinct.
	Again, that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule, but those are the rule, and it is good that boys learn masculinity, and it is good that girls learn femininity.
	The fact that this has become Some sort of controversial proposition that boys ought to learn to be men and that girls ought to learn to be women and that men and women are distinct categories with the areas of crossover, but they are largely distinct.
	The fact that that is a controversial proposition is one of the reasons why you are seeing a decline in masculinity and a decline in femininity and a decline in childbearing and childrearing and complete breakdown of relations between the sexes.
	When the sexes are no longer distinct, it's hard to have relations between them, is it not?
	The norm has to be maintained.
	If the norm is not maintained, there is no norm.
	And the absence of a norm is a norm.
	The breakdown of an actual societal rule.
	When the sun explodes, there is no gravity.
	There is no center of gravity anyway.
	The planets are going to spin off into the emptiness, into the void.
	That's what happens in terms of norms.
	Once that sun is wrecked, either there's a new center of gravity, There's a black hole that is going to act as the new center of gravity, or there is no center of gravity and everything spins off.
	And that's what you're watching right now.
	And again, you can see the battle over the norm.
	The battle over the norm right now involves, as I say, the destruction of the norm.
	Here's another case.
	Another example.
	Over the weekend, a Utah school district banned the Bible in elementary and middle schools due to vulgarity and violence.
	Again, they're saying, That this is an aspect of neutrality.
	They're saying this is neutrality.
	Neutrality is that if you don't want a seven-year-old having access to Genderqueer, a book in which little boys are taught about gay sex, Through pictures, through cartoons.
	If you don't want that available to a seven or an eight or a nine-year-old, then that kid also should not be exposed to the Bible.
	That is the quote-unquote position of neutrality.
	Is that a neutral position?
	It's equating the two things.
	But we're not a society that traditionally has equated biblical morality, which says that you ought to be responsible in the use of your genitalia, with an entire worldview that says that all forms of sexual activity ought to be promoted to children.
	The Bible is not quite saying the same thing as genderqueer, or even the converse of the thing.
	To equate the two things is a perversion, and everyone knows that it's perversion, which is precisely why the left is pursuing it.
	According to the Associated Press, the Good Book is being treated like a bad book in Utah after a parent, frustrated by efforts to ban materials from schools, convinced a suburban district that some Bible verses were too vulgar or violent for younger children.
	Now again, the teaching of the Bible used to be a rigorous prerequisite to going to school in the United States, including in most public schools across the United States.
	Most public school kids knew the Bible.
	At the end of the 19th century, in the early 20th century, most kids were familiar with the Bible, if not from school, then certainly from church.
	Most of them went to parochial school.
	But now we are a society that equates the two.
	And it's the easy, lazy person's position.
	The easy, lazy person's position is to say, there are no norms.
	I'm neutral on this question.
	No, you're not.
	No, you're not.
	Neutrality is a position.
	Neutrality with regard to biblical morality versus anti-biblical morality.
	There is no neutrality.
	Let's take a different example.
	Here's the, the norm is murder is bad.
	You say, well, you know, maybe murder's not so bad.
	And not in all cases.
	In fact, maybe there shouldn't be a norm about murder.
	Let's just, there's no norm.
	In fact, we're going to be neutral as to whether murder is bad or good.
	Who does that favor?
	Is that, is that a neutral position or does that actually kind of favor murder?
	Right?
	Pick any norm and the same thing applies on the moral level.
	And that is why you are seeing, again, it is not a neutral proposition to ban the Bible from Utah school districts while also banning genderqueer.
	That is not a neutral position.
	That is an anti-biblical position, and everybody knows that it's an anti-biblical position.
	When judges are striking down laws prohibiting drag queens from gallivanting in front of children, that is not a neutral position for the government to take.
	That is a very pro-drag queen position, which is why drag queens were celebrating yesterday in Tennessee as they got to flaunt their wares in front of eight-year-old children.
	Corporate America is not neutral on this question.
	When they pretend neutrality, they are not neutral.
	They're very much in favor of the new norms and the new standards.
	We'll get to that momentarily.
	First, President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home.
	He suggested that our currency is crashing and will no longer be the world's standard.
	But whether or not that is true, it is certainly the case that the central government of the United States is manipulating the U.S.
	dollar.
	That has a dramatic impact on your savings.
	You should be diversified.
	There is a material that has spent all of human history, essentially, Mitigating against the power of central government to manipulate your worth.
	And that, of course, would be gold.
	You can own gold in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birch Gold.
	That's correct.
	Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold.
	The best part?
	You're not going to pay a penny out of pocket.
	I bought gold from Birchgold in preparation for uncertain economic times, and you should do exactly the same thing.
	When currencies fail, gold is indeed a safe haven.
	How much more time does the dollar have?
	I don't know, but you should probably protect your savings with gold the way that I did.
	Birchgold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, tech spend to $98.98.
	Get your free info kit on gold.
	Again, text Ben to 989898 to get started.
	Text Ben to 989898.
	Check out my friends over at Birch Gold right now.
	Okay, so corporate America obviously has taken sides when it comes to the norm battle.
	That is presumably why we, you want to see how idiotic society has become, right?
	You want, this is like a perfect example of how marginalized becomes the new norm.
	And this is it.
	So, Bugs Bunny.
	Remember watching Bugs Bunny cartoons when you were a kid?
	And you'd get up on Saturday morning, or for me, Sunday morning, and Bugs Bunny would be on the telly, and you'd turn on the TV, and you'd watch Bugs Bunny.
	Okay, well, there are a bunch of jokes in which Bugs Bunny dresses in drag because it's funny.
	Because we're laughing at it.
	Not because Bugs Bunny is expressing his alternative sexual orientation.
	Not because Bugs Bunny is a queer icon.
	Because it is funny when a man dresses a woman because it is absurd.
	Because men dressing as women is stupid and absurd.
	That is why.
	That's literally the point of Bugs Bunny dressing in that way.
	Every time he does so, in order to fake out Elmer Fudd, it's a joke, guys.
	It's a joke.
	But no, Looney Tunes.
	A cartoon for kids has now decided that we have to be absolutely serious about all of this.
	In fact, they put out a rainbow-paletted series of images of Bugs Bunny in drag.
	Again, because it was funny.
	And now they say, happy pride, get your drag on, rainbow flag, Looney Tunes.
	So now Bugs Bunny is a queer icon.
	Who knows?
	Bugs Bunny may in fact be pansexual.
	I mean, that may threaten the future species of bunnies, but That's the way it works.
	This is also stupid.
	We're now retconning what exactly... So you're telling me now that Some Like It Hot, which was mocking drag, is now a pro-drag movie.
	That's the whole thing.
	It's so silly.
	It's so silly.
	And that wasn't the only thing that they were celebrating.
	Again, they put out a series of tweets surrounding this new idiotic trope.
	Here we go.
	Oh, look at that.
	Tom is now a gay icon.
	Sorry, Sylvester the Cat is now a gay icon.
	Really exciting.
	Sylvester is chasing Tweety Bird and turning into a gay icon in the process.
	For children!
	Amazing.
	Amazing.
	And people are tweeting out things like, I love her, what a woman.
	And Looney Tunes writes back, what a maroon.
	So the entire corporate sphere, for kids, again this is for kids because Bugs Bunny is directed at children.
	When's the last time you watched Bugs Bunny?
	You're probably 10.
	This is the new norm.
	It's a norm.
	You take pride in a new norm.
	You don't take pride in violation of a norm.
	Pick another Any norm in life.
	Is there a month celebrating the violation of the norm?
	I'm gonna need like an example of it.
	Meanwhile, Microsoft is partnering with GLAAD to improve LGBTQ plus minus divided by 10 representation in Xbox games.
	Again, this is directed at the kids, and the reason it's directed at the kids is because this is what you do.
	As an adult, you teach kids norms.
	Everybody keeps wondering, why is this all directed at the kids?
	Why are they trying to trans the kids?
	Why are they trying to teach genderqueer to eight-year-olds?
	Because the whole point is to inculcate a new set of norms so that they themselves feel better about the set of norms that they are living by.
	They are trying, the advocates for the LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign, new norm, are trying to change the norm.
	The way that you change the norm is by recruiting the children.
	That's why I've suggested before, it's not about sexually grooming children, it's about ideologically grooming children.
	Now if those kids become confused and sexually oriented in various directions, so much the better for this movement.
	I mean, I don't see anybody making the argument on that side of the aisle that something has gone wildly wrong when there's a 1300% increase in trans identification inside of a couple of years.
	That's all just to the, that's to the good.
	And it's just more expressive sexual behavior.
	But that's not really the goal.
	The goal is change all of society's views about the norm, substitute the new norm for the old norm, and then everyone will live better, happier lives.
	This is why, in the end, this is a battle against biblical morality and traditional morality.
	That's what this is.
	Now, Taylor Swift, her silence was deafening.
	You remember that time that Taylor Swift used to just be like a person who sang songs and without autotune didn't sound amazing?
	Well, now, she has decided that she's a political leader of sorts, so she was doing a concert And one of the things that makes me feel so prideful is getting to be with you and watching you interact with each other, being so loving and so thoughtful and so caring.
	And so being with you during Pride Month, getting to sing the words to you need to calm down where
	there are lyrics like, can you just not step on his gown or shade never made anybody else gay and you guys are
	screaming those lyrics.
	In such solidarity, in such support of one another, in such encouraging beautiful acceptance and peace
	And I wish that every place was safe and beautiful for people in need.
	Right, so notice the language here.
	The language that is pitched to the public is, we just want to be safe.
	We just want to be left alone.
	That's not what's happening.
	Have you noticed that's what's happening in society?
	They literally lit up the Department of Agriculture with gay pride flag.
	Does that sound like a safe space?
	Or does that sound like an actual religious movement that is seeking to substitute one set of morals for another?
	That's seeking to supplant truth about human relations and about progeneration and about the decency of certain sexual activity.
	Or the utilitarianism of certain sexual activity, if you wish to remove morality from the equation, and replace that with subjectivist pride.
	It is truth versus pride.
	That is what this is about.
	Which is why it's so necessary for the left to make sure that the truth is never spoken.
	Because if the truth is spoken, it's considered insulting and bad.
	It's why things can't be said.
	Because if you speak out against the new religious norm of the secular left, if you speak out against that norm, it's blasphemy.
	And blasphemy must be stopped.
	It must be stopped.
	Because if you speak the truth, you might explode what exactly is going on.
	It's why they're trying to stop what is a woman.
	It's why they're constantly attempting to boycott out of existence anybody who says the reality about human relations.
	These are things that cannot be said.
	These are things that you're just not supposed to say.
	And if you do say them, then the secular tsunami comes for you.
	Okay, meanwhile, speaking of the battle between truth and wokeness, we'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how you can build a career.
	It's very difficult to build a career these days, right?
	You have to make your resume better.
	You have to find the best possible job.
	It's hard to find the best possible job.
	And you know what's really hard right now for employers is to find the best possible employees.
	That's really tough.
	This is why we, at Daily Wire, we've been using ZipRecruiter for years.
	ZipRecruiter helps you find the most qualified people for your roles fast.
	Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter's matching technology helps you find the most qualified candidates for wide-range roles.
	If you see a candidate you like, you can easily send them a personal invite so they're more likely to apply.
	Their user-friendly dashboard makes it easy to filter, review, and rate your candidates all from one place.
	Let ZipRecruiter help you find the best people for all of your roles.
	Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within day one.
	See for yourself.
	Head on over to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	You can try ZipRecruiter for free.
	Again, that's ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire, which is why, again, we've been using it here at DailyWire For literally years now, you can do the same.
	Head on over to ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire and find the best employee to fill that role today.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	Also, we just had the fight of our lives here at DailyWire over free speech, and we won.
	It was the beginning of Pride Month, the one-year anniversary of Matt Walsh's groundbreaking documentary, What Is Woman?
	So we decided to celebrate by making it free to watch on Twitter.
	And everybody kind of thought for a second that pre-Elon Twitter was coming back from the ashes
	because they tried to actually mark all of our content on the film as hateful conduct
	and they suggested that it was misgendering.
	Well, Elon then reversed it.
	And of course, massive, massive success.
	He personally tweeted out the film, said every parent should watch it, which they should.
	That tweet now has over 170 million views, made headlines all around the world.
	Well, again, this is just one reason why you should be a member over at Daily Wire.
	You should be a member over at Daily Wire because these are the battles we fight.
	We are not just fighting battles with regard to saying things that need to be said.
	We're also fighting the battles so people can actually say those things in the first place.
	It's really, really important, right?
	The free speech battle allows us to say the things that need to be said.
	And that's what we do.
	We take the money that you give us as subscribers and we use it for things like what is a woman.
	We build staff so that we can fight for free speech.
	You can see what all of us are up against, but this is the part of the battle that you join when you become a subscriber.
	If you're not yet a DailyWare Plus subscriber, now would be the time.
	If you sign up today, you get 25% off your membership when you use code WOMAN Meanwhile, speaking of the battle between truth and wokeness, and pride, of course, is just one aspect of the woke mind virus, which suggests that how you would wish reality to be ought to supplant what actually is, right?
	Truth has to be discarded in favor of stupid utopianism.
	Well, this is now what is happening in Chicago at Walgreens.
	This is an unbelievable thing.
	So apparently, Walgreens has been experiencing so much theft In Chicago they have now locked up the entire store like the entirety of the store.
	There are two aisles in the entire Walgreens where customers can shop for themselves.
	The rest is locked up and you need to order from a kiosk.
	Because too many people are just the rates of breakage, as they call it in the industry, are just too high.
	People are running in and they are robbing the store so often that Walgreens had two choices.
	Either they shut down the store entirely or they literally lock everything.
	They lock down the aisles.
	And then in order for you to order, you can like go to a kiosk and order everything.
	According to the UK Daily Mail, a Chicago branch of Walgreens has been redesigned with just two aisles where customers may shop for themselves.
	The rest must be done via a kiosk.
	The new anti-theft store at 2 East Roosevelt in downtown Chicago will trust shoppers to pick up essentials for themselves in the two free aisles.
	Everything else must be ordered and picked up via a counter.
	The store took weeks to construct and it opened to mixed reviews on Tuesday.
	One shopper told WBBM News Radio their experience was positive.
	Quote, it's nice that for the essentials, you no longer have to call security to get them to open the glass case.
	So I guess that the default before that is that even for the essentials, you had to ask somebody to unlock.
	It's been a long time thing that when you go to a grocery store, there are certain items that are probably high theft
	items like razors, for example, where you actually have to have the store employees unlock it for you.
	You go to the local CVS and there's the stuff they keep behind the counter because that stuff was like very high
	rates of stealing.
	In Chicago, apparently that's just all the things that's like everything in the store.
	We should be able to be trusted to go in without having to have cameras and people watching us and all that stuff,
	said one person.
	Well, I mean, if people weren't stealing everything, probably that'd be, that'd probably be better.
	The move comes after Walgreen's chief financial officer told investors on an earnings call this year executives may have overstated the effects of organized shoplifting.
	So maybe we cried too much last year.
	He said that the company had probably mischaracterized how much theft took place in the chain stores and may have spent too much introducing security measures.
	Well, or alternatively, you guys don't have the actual stones to go up against municipal governments that have failed to arrest criminals.
	When I say truth versus wokeness, this would be the example.
	We live in a society in which high rates of criminality, if they happen to be, Congregated, in particular racial sectors of the population, have to be ignored.
	So instead of saying, say a disproportionate number of people who are shoplifting in downtown Chicago are black, but that has nothing to do with them being black.
	It has to do with you need to arrest people who are shoplifting.
	Instead of just saying that, they're like, it means too many black people are being arrested.
	If we ask for people to be arrested, we're going to look like racists.
	And that means that the best possible solution is we lock up the entire store.
	Our solution is not to stump for criminals to go to jail, which, by the way, would make life better for all the non-criminals in Chicago, including mainly, by the way, people living in low-income communities that are disproportional and minority.
	No, instead, what we're going to do is we'll make everybody suffer so we can continue along with the myth that if a disproportionate number of black men are going to prison, it's because America is racist rather than a disproportionate number of black men are committing certain types of crime.
	It's not just Walgreens, of course.
	Every element of our media and our corporate infrastructure has been suffused with this stupidity.
	Instead of looking at individuals in America and their performance and then deciding whether or not they hit the metrics, we have decided that if the metrics are disproportionately hit by certain groups but not hit by other groups, that must be some reflection of underlying racial animus.
	That's how you end up with this story in the New York Times about Stoyvesant High School.
	Quote, Stuyvesant High School admitted 762 new students.
	Only seven are black.
	Okay, so just from that headline, it makes it sound like the people who are leading Stuyvesant are just, they must be the worst racists ever.
	I mean, 762 new students and only seven are black?
	Do they hate black people or something?
	Well, no.
	They don't actually select the people who enter Stuyvesant.
	There's an entry exam.
	The people who pass the entry exam get in.
	The people who don't, don't.
	They're not equally apportioned by race.
	The numbers, which have remained stubbornly low for years since the New York Times, placed a fresh spotlight on racial and ethnic disparities in the nation's largest school system.
	Now again, a disparity does not mean discrimination.
	It might just be a disparity.
	There's a disparity between the percentage of men and the percentage of women who go to prison.
	Is that discrimination?
	Is it because society hates men that 95% of the people in prisons are men?
	Or is that called a disparity?
	At Stuyvesant High Schools in Manhattan, the most selective of the city's so-called specialized schools, 7 of the 762 offers made went to Black students, down from 11 last year and 8 in 2021.
	20 Latino students were offered spots at Stuyvesant.
	So obviously, this is white supremacy, right?
	Except that only 158 of those slots went to white students.
	489 went to Asian students.
	Obviously, New York is just a wildly pro-Asian, anti-white, anti-Latino, anti-black place.
	Clearly, that's what's happening here.
	The Asians have gotten control of the levers of power in New York, which is why Andrew Yang is currently the mayor.
	I can't believe it.
	I can't believe the Asian supremacy that is happening is stoicisant.
	Or maybe there are some differences in how Asian students study, and family and parental structure, and the kind of time they spend on homework.
	Maybe it would be those things.
	But no.
	Instead, we are going to yell at Stoyvesant High School.
	You remember that Mayor Bill de Blasio actually, because he wanted to reject reality so much, actually proposed replacing the entire entrance exam, which would have raised the share of Black and Latino students accepted to more than 40%.
	That would have involved, of course, just exploding all the standards in the first place.
	And this has now suffused so much of what's happening across our society.
	According to the Wall Street Journal, assaults in school have ratcheted up since the return to in-person learning, adding to broader concerns about safety in school.
	Across the United States, violence against teachers has ratcheted up since the widespread return to in-person learning in 2021.
	In some areas, the problem is worse than it was pre-pandemic.
	The data are limited because many states don't specifically track teacher assaults or use the same methodology to make data comparable.
	From September through May of the current school year, the number of assault-related workers' comp claims filed at some 2,000 schools in different regions of the United States topped 1,350, a five-year high.
	So why exactly is all of that happening?
	1,350 workers across the United States, that'd be mainly teachers you'd imagine at these schools,
	have experienced assault.
	The average cost of those claims has increased 26% to around $6,700 compared with the same period in 2018,
	2019.
	So why exactly is all of that happening?
	Well, one of the reasons is because schools have stopped expelling or suspending students who assault people
	or sending them to jail.
	In a nationwide American Psychological Association survey of nearly 15,000 teachers and staff
	from July, 2020 to June, 2021, 14% of teachers reported physical violence from students.
	49% of teachers said they wanted to quit or switch schools.
	While teachers are frequently hurt intervening in fights, some are targeted.
	Now, here's where things get fun.
	Why exactly is all of this happening?
	Why this vast uptick in the amount of violence against teachers?
	Well, the reason is because everyone is afraid of sending kids to the school-to-prison pipeline.
	The so-called school-to-prison pipeline, right?
	There's been a big bugaboo of the left for a long time.
	It's the idea that if you put law enforcement officers in schools, if you put support officers in schools to prevent this sort of stuff, they might arrest kids and those kids might end up in jail.
	And we can't have that.
	So just like Walgreens, what we'll do is we'll pretend that the problem isn't happening.
	Quote, Over the past decade, many U.S.
	school districts have begun relying less on out-of-school suspensions in favor of so-called restorative practices, which can include group-based social skills training sessions and conferences, where those affected by an incident jointly discuss how to resolve the situation, said Anne Gregory, professor in Rutgers University's school psychology program.
	Out-of-school suspensions raise a student's odds of dropping out and being arrested, she said, and disproportionately affect black students.
	Oh, they disproportionately affect black students, do they?
	Why?
	Why?
	Are you suggesting that a disproportionate number of black students are committing assaults against teachers?
	And if so, what does that have to do with their race?
	And if so, like, if a black student beats up a teacher, why should that student... Why should we redesign the entire system so that student isn't punished because of the color of the student?
	And ignoring reality, ignoring truth, in favor of comforting lies happens to be the way things are done.
	And the way that that is done on a general societal level is by elite cram downs.
	Because normal citizens don't like this crap.
	Normal citizens are not up for this.
	Normal citizens are not up for every corporation in America mirroring Pride Month.
	The common man in America is not up for a full month of corporate cram downs about why your child needs to learn that all forms of sexual behavior are morally equivalent.
	The normal American citizen is not up for locking up entire Walgreens just so people won't get arrested.
	That's not what normal people... They would like to be able to go to a Walgreens and then shop there and then for people who are criminals to be arrested.
	The normal American citizen is not up for the idea that teachers just have to accept a certain amount of assault in the schools in favor of racial and ethnic disparities being wiped away by not paying attention to the stats.
	But the elites are very much in favor of this because, for them, they want to create a new system.
	And elite consensus is created really easily.
	There's this idea out there that the way that elite consensus is created is people in a room getting together and then they conspiratorially talk things over and they come to a conclusion.
	They are aiming at a thing and they decide to hit the thing.
	And sometimes that's true.
	More often, it's just elites talk to each other, and they're in an echo chamber, and then they start mirroring each other.
	That is a perfect example of this.
	And it's indicative, again, of how policy gets done in the West these days.
	The brand new CDC director, a person named Mandy Cohen, who is the North Carolina health director and was selected for this job by President Biden.
	A clip has now emerged of Mandy Cohen talking about how common standards were set between North Carolina and Massachusetts during lockdowns.
	Listen to how casual she is about elite cram downs of policy that affects tens of millions of people based on we had a conversation, me and my friends thought so.
	So I would call, probably the person I called most was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts.
	She worked for a Republican governor.
	But when she was like, are you going to let them have professional football?
	And I was like, nope.
	And she's like, OK, neither are we, neither are we.
	Okay, so again, the elite consensus is created just by people talking with each other.
	That's it.
	It's just the same way that you and your friends decide where to go to a restaurant.
	This is how they decide to control the lives of tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions of people.
	They can decide to explode entire societal norms.
	They can shut down your business.
	They can do anything based on just this elite consensus that is created by them getting on the phone with their friends and then being risk averse because there is safety in corporate numbers.
	There is safety in elite numbers.
	If you can blame your elite friends and your elite friend group decided to make the rules, well then everybody else has to comply.
	Americans are not up for this.
	The answer to all of this, by the way, is actual localism.
	The answer to all of this is to stop allowing elites at the governmental and corporate level to control everything that we do and hear and see.
	Because when we actually have the option to opt for truth, when we have the options to establish societal norms from our local communities, everybody is happier.
	You want to establish your weird norm in San Francisco?
	Go for it, man.
	You want to establish green hair norm in San Francisco?
	Well, you know, I'm not morally indifferent about that, but you're the one living in San Francisco.
	But what we've done as a society is we've said that moral neutrality involves implementing San Francisco values all over the country in every way, from criminality to Pride Month, To COVID.
	The elite consensus that exists on the coast is now being crammed down on America via corporate power, via governmental power, and we can all feel it and we can all see it.
	This is why the norms are disintegrating in real time.
	And meanwhile, remember that time that Joe Biden fell down real hard on a stage and we were all supposed to ignore it, pretend it never happened?
	Well, you know, I'd have more faith in the authorities telling us that there's nothing wrong with Joe Biden if I didn't see him falling downstairs every five seconds or falling upstairs every five seconds.
	And also, We have a long history in this country of people falling and hurting themselves and then the media pretending it never happened.
	Remember that time near the end of the 2016 campaign that Hillary Clinton collapsed into a van?
	You remember that?
	I think it was a September 11th memorial and she was walking away from it and just like fell overhead long into the van.
	They pretended it was like walking pneumonia.
	And then a year later we found out that she was still having double vision because of it.
	The media have a very long history of covering up serious health problems among Democrats.
	I'm going all the way back to JFK, going all the way back before that to FDR.
	The media love covering up for Democrats who have health problems.
	So even if Joe Biden had a health problem...
	And he doesn't have to.
	I mean, we just know he's super old.
	Even if he had a health problem, we just wouldn't know about it.
	The media are not going to cover it because they want him to be president of the United States.
	So, Karine Jean-Pierre was asked by one intrepid reporter whether Joe Biden had had an exam after he fell down that hard.
	He is 80 years old and he did fall.
	And Karine Jean-Pierre's like, no, no, no, no.
	He doesn't need an exam.
	He's fit as a fiddle and ready for love.
	Just to make sure we clear the record here, he tripped over a sandbag on the stage and briefly he tripped and got up and he got right back up and continued what he was there to do.
	There was no need for the doctor to see him as it was related to the fall and he's doing fine.
	Some of you saw him last night when he returned getting off Marine One on the South Lawn.
	He spoke to this.
	That's, yeah, I believe you.
	He's probably fine.
	The New York Times is doing its best to cover up Joe Biden's problems.
	They have an entire article today on the front page titled, Inside the Complicated Reality of Being America's Oldest President.
	It's not a complicated reality.
	He's really old and he is not with us any longer.
	He's occasionally sentient.
	He can barely make words happen from his face hole.
	There's not a lot going on upstairs.
	I mean, there never was with Joe Biden, but there's even less going on upstairs now than there was 10 years ago.
	But listen to how the New York Times reports this, quote, The portrait that emerges from months of interviews with dozens of current and former officials and others who have spent time with him lies somewhere between the partisan cartoon of an addled and easily manipulated fogey promoted by Republicans and the image spread by his staff of a president in aviator shades commanding the world stage and governing with vigor.
	It is one of a man who has slowed with age in ways that are more pronounced than just the graying hair common to most recent presidents during their time in office.
	Mr. Biden sometimes mangles his words and looks older than he used to because of his stiff gait and thinning voice.
	Yet, people who deal with him regularly, including some of his adversaries, say he remains sharp and commanding in private meetings.
	Diplomats share stories of trips to places like Ukraine, Japan, Egypt, Cambodia, and Indonesia, in which he often outlasts younger colleagues.
	Democratic lawmakers point to a long list of accomplishments as proof he still gets the job done.
	And then they go on and quote a bunch of his aides who talk about what a virile man he is.
	Quote, like many of his age, Mr. Biden repeats phrases and retells the same hoary, often fact-challenged stories again and again.
	He can be quirky.
	When children visit, he may randomly pull a book of William Butler Yeats off his desk and start reading Irish poetry to them.
	At the same time, he is trim and fit, exercises five days a week, and does not drink.
	He has at times exhibited striking stamina, such as when he flew to Poland, then boarded a nine-hour train ride to make a secret visit to Kyiv, spending hours on the ground, then endured another nine-hour train ride and a flight to Warsaw.
	Oh my God, he sat on a seat for long periods of time?
	Whoa!
	It's like he was riding the Tour de France or something.
	That's crazy.
	I mean, you mean he sat on a plane and then he sat on a train and then he stood upright for a bit and then he and then he sat back down again.
	Wow.
	That is some strong stuff right there.
	Apparently, they then go after Trump, and they suggest that Trump, of course, was absolutely terrible.
	But then they get to, this is the best quote of the piece, Aides say it is clear he actually reads the briefing books
	because of the questions that follow.
	There is no one who is better at asking questions to get to the bottom of an issue.
	Calling your bluff, asking the tough questions, said Stephanie Feldman, White House staff secretary.
	He asks just as tough questions today as he did 10 years ago.
	below.
	Wow.
	That's... His own aides say that he's an amazing guy.
	Astonishment and his ability to keep up when Italy's new leader pushed for a meeting while the president was in
	Wow.
	Poland He readily agreed to it
	During a trip to Ireland people with him said he was energized and wanted to talk at length on Air Force One
	rather than rest Wow, that's it
	His own aid say that he's an amazing guy. Wow. Wow, I mean Not not to put to find a point on this
	But I promise you that if you ask my staff to comment by name in the newspapers about what a wonderful dude I am
	They will tell you by name.
	If they're going to crap all over me, I assume they would do it anonymously.
	So if you're quoting the White House staff by name, talking about how awesome their boss is, that's not like an amazing source.
	It's fun to watch Democrats try to pretend that Joe Biden is doing amazing.
	the Democratic congressperson from Maryland. He says that older leaders are wise. Yes,
	great. I'm sure he'd be saying the same about Trump, who is going to be running for
	the presidency at the age of 78. Sure.
	Are voters wrong to be worried about reelecting a man who would be closer to 90 at the end of
	his second term than 80? You know, America is a country that loves youth and vitality,
	which is why we have laws against age discrimination, because we tend to favor
	youthfulness and the new thing.
	In a lot of countries, people who've been in office a longer period of time are praised for their wisdom.
	And I think that Joe Biden rightly says that he has grown very wise in his many decades in public office.
	So, he's grown.
	By grown, he means that his arteries have hardened.
	By what measure?
	By what measure?
	How desperate are the Democrats at this point?
	Hilarious piece over in The Messenger, positing that perhaps Joe Biden will throw a 2024 Hail Mary by kicking Kamala Harris off the ticket and adding to the ticket, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it.
	Former President Barack Obama.
	Now, I know what you're saying.
	That's not legal.
	And you are right.
	It is not legal.
	But!
	Wait until you hear the justification for adding Barack Obama, a two-term president, as VP.
	At first blush, the 22nd amendment might be thought to preclude Obama from being on the 2024 ticket.
	That amendment provides no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.
	While Obama is precluded from ever running again for election as president, the amendment does not prohibit him from running for any other office, including vice president.
	Nor does the last sentence of the 12th amendment disqualify him.
	It stipulates that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to the office of vice president of the United States.
	For several reasons, this requirement does not expand Obama's inability under the 22nd Amendment to run for election as president.
	So I guess the idea here is that you can be a two-term president and then run for vice president because you're not being elected as president.
	And then if you assume the office after the president dies, you can serve a third term.
	Which seems like, by the way, an amazing way of just ending around the Constitution.
	Because by this very same logic, you could just run as VP on a ticket, put some empty Placeholder at the top of the ticket.
	That person can retire day one and you're the president again in perpetuity.
	Exciting stuff they've discovered in the Constitution of the United States.
	Now, it is illegal.
	There's no way that a court were to allow Obama to be on the ticket, but this is how desperate they are at this point.
	They're like, yeah, Joe Biden, not a good candidate.
	He's falling apart.
	By the way, As we're noting here that the markets are getting a little skittish.
	The S&P 500 has been stagnating.
	It's probably ready for a drop.
	It's worth pointing out right now that the measure that I typically use to determine whether the stock market as a whole is overvalued is price to earnings ratio for the entire S&P.
	So typically, the sort of rule of thumb used by investment guru Ben Graham, that rule of thumb Was that if it's trading, if the price to earnings ratio for the S&P 500 is above 20, it's probably overvalued.
	Like significantly over 20, it's overvalued.
	Right now, it's about 24, 25.
	So that means that it's overvalued right now.
	It's probably going to go up because again, the earnings are going to come in short and people are still investing in the stock market hedge against inflation, which means that the stock market is probably overvalued a little bit right now.
	The Wall Street Journal points out that we are now in what they call a full employment recession.
	And there's been a historic drop in productivity.
	So what does that mean, that there's been a drop in labor productivity?
	It means that employers right now are hesitant to fire people, even if they don't have enough work for them, because it's been so hard to get them to come back to work after we inflated a bunch of money into their pockets.
	So there's all of this kind of weird disconnect between the market and employment rates right now, which suggests that if we enter a prolonged period of economic stagnation, which is very likely to happen over the course of the next few years, then the employment rates will in fact drop.
	So get ready for that.
	Look, Joe Biden has done a terrible job, which is why he's vulnerable, and that is why they're speculating about the possibility of somebody like Barack Obama being his VP candidate, which, of course, is silly in the extreme.
	Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, speaking of things that I like, I just mentioned Benjamin Graham.
	Benjamin Graham is the investment guru who taught Warren Buffett.
	He has an excellent book if you are interested in investing on your own.
	He invests using a strategy called value investing.
	I am a big advocate of value investing.
	The basic proposition of value investing is that when you invest in an asset, The underlying value of the asset is what you are investing in.
	You should not buy into bubbles.
	You should not buy into busts.
	And basically, when you buy a piece of stock, instead of thinking of a piece of stock as a thing that goes up and down in market value based on the vagaries of the stock market, you should look at the actual company and think about you are owning a piece of that company.
	Is that a company that you wish to own a piece of?
	Do you think that is a successful and well-managed company?
	His book is called The Intelligent Investor.
	It is definitely worth the read.
	It's got an excellent additional commentary on it.
	Free chapter by Jason Zweig.
	It's really, it's not the easiest financial read, but it's certainly not the most difficult.
	It's definitely made for the lay person.
	It is worth the read.
	The Intelligence Investor by Ben Graham.
	So people who are constantly asking me for investment advice, my answer is read that.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	Sam Brinton, dude.
	Remember that guy who was in charge of our nuclear waste?
	Well, it turns out that he himself is a bag of nuclear waste.
	He is now being charged again with grand larceny in a third airport baggage theft case.
	So that dude has a weird fetish for stealing luggage to the point that he is now being arrested a third time for stealing other people's bags.
	According to county records reviewed by Fox News Digital, Brinton was taken into custody in Rockville.
	A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority said the arrest was related to theft of airport luggage, the third such criminal case involving Brinton.
	Brinton, of course, has made a habit of not only being a generalized weirdo, but also stealing people's luggage and then wearing it around.
	It's gone poorly.
	It's been very, very strange.
	So, yeah.
	Well done, Sam Britton.
	Good hiring decisions being made on the basis of non-binary gender diversity there at the Biden administration.
	It all worked out fantastically.
	Alrighty, guys.
	The rest of the show continues right now.
	You're not going to want to miss it.
	We'll be joined by Bjorn Lomborg, who, of course, is the debunker of all global warming hysteria.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code SHAPIRO.
	Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

▲