Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

01:46:49

Daily Wire Backstage: Censor This!!!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, this is Michael.
	You're about to listen to our latest episode of Daily Wire Backstage, where I join Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, and the man who will one day fire me for real, Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring, for a great conversation on politics and culture, and where we answer questions from Daily Wire subscribers.
	Without further ado, here is Backstage.
	And fake laugh in three, two...
	No, I will not fake laugh.
	Don't laugh.
	Welcome to Daily Wire backstage.
	Censor this.
	Yes, tonight's episode with...
	I can't say these words.
	Look, there's a lot of...
	There's a lot of...
	With a lot of extremist mainstream YouTube conservatives here, it may be the one that ends it all for us over at The Daily Wire.
	I'm Jeremy, the God King Boring.
	That's lowercase g, lowercase k.
	You know what we're gonna do this week that we failed to do last time is roll opening graphics.
	We didn't let him know that Dave was coming in time to animate you.
	A little animation would have been nice.
	Honestly, just take the glasses off of Jeremy's character.
	Close enough.
	The last time Ruben was here, we were wearing the same shirt.
	Yeah.
	And you were very focused on the size.
	Who wears a bigger shirt?
	Well, listen, there are priorities.
	There are things that matter in this life.
	And the size of shirt is one of those.
	It matters.
	Joining me here for some good old-fashioned.
	I can't.
	I got to keep going.
	Free speech are the barons of the alt-right.
	Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, and worst of all, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report.
	Dave has finally been exposed by The New York Times as being a radical centrist moderate who invites people who have different opinions onto the show for conversation.
	As always, we have Alicia Krauss with us via satellite She'll explain how subscribers can get in their questions.
	Alicia?
	Absolutely.
	But first, we want to send you guys over to one of those big tech censorship companies.
	Go to the Daily Wire Facebook page right now and be sure to answer tonight's question.
	The question is, how do content creators solve big tech censorship?
	Options are, one, go to other platforms, two, through the courts, three, Create their own platforms, or I don't know, I prefer option four because it keeps me and baby girl employed, subscribe to thedailywire.com.
	And don't forget, for everyone watching at home, if you want to ask the guys questions, be sure to, one, become a Daily Wire subscriber because only subscribers get to ask the questions.
	And then go over to dailywire.com, click on the live stream, and type those questions away into the chat box, and we'll pull them out and be sure to ask the guys, including...
	Dave Rubin, who's kind enough to grace us with his presence this evening.
	Only subscribers get to ask those questions, so if you're not one, become one tonight to get those questions in.
	Thank you, Elisha.
	There's nothing left on the teleprompter, so I think now we just sort of...
	You know, before we start, honestly, we never do this, but I need to make an actual overt pitch for subscriptions at the very beginning.
	Honestly, okay, and the reason I'm going to do this is because if you've been following the news, you've been listening to any of our shows this week, including Dave's show, if you've been following any of this, big tech is coming down hard on anyone who is not even to the left, right?
	As long as you are not to the left, they're coming down hard on you.
	Obviously they came down very hard on our friend Steven Crowder.
	Last week they said openly that he did not violate their policies and yet he would be demonetized anyway because a very upset person at Vox was very upset over being very upset, obviously.
	And that means that they were wiping off entire YouTube monetization streams.
	They knock people's accounts off.
	Something like a thousand accounts.
	Yeah.
	And this is how it's going to be.
	It's going to get worse from here to 2020.
	And it's not just that sort of stuff.
	They're also going to be coming after advertisers.
	You've seen them do with Laura Ingraham.
	You've seen them do with Tucker Carlson.
	You've seen them do with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
	You've seen them do with my show.
	It's all fake.
	It's all media matters taking a clip out of context and then having five of their friends call up an advertiser and try to get those advertisers not to advertise anymore, even though the advertisers advertise on a wide range of products and thus are not endorsing our message.
	They just want to reach anyone who wants to listen to free speech.
	But...
	These threats to your ability to actually see and listen to shows like this, that can only be combated by you actually helping us with your direct support.
	It's necessary for you to go subscribe.
	So if you want to make sure that you can still get our stuff, even if we get knocked by big tech, even if advertisers get targeted, you really do need to join the club.
	I know I never make this sort of appeal at the beginning.
	I consider it a personal favor from you to me if you subscribe to DailyWare, not just because I get paid that way, but also because we literally cannot bring you the content that we want to bring you unless we run our own ship.
	And the way we run our own ship is with the subscription.
	So I know a lot of you, thousands of you in the last week have subscribed.
	I'm almost begging you, please subscribe right now because I think not only should you, I mean, you should also subscribe to Dave.
	You should subscribe to Crowd.
	You should subscribe to all of these services.
	But you should certainly subscribe to us if you enjoy the programming because it's the only way we can guarantee That the left's mission to censor folks like us doesn't succeed.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	And that's actually the thing I want to talk about here at the top of the show.
	And why I asked Dave if he would join us is things are getting hairy out there.
	And I would wager a guess that between now, hazard a guess that between now and the election...
	They're not going to get much better.
	Dave, what are you experiencing over there?
	Well, I would say you guys should enjoy your whiskey and your fancy cigars and your nice studio and your smoking jackets now because they're coming for all.
	So yeah, we're witnessing something that is beyond imagination.
	I mean, this is not just, it's funny, my critics, there are some people that don't like me.
	You're not going to believe me.
	There's a couple people that don't like me.
	Even with the beard?
	They like the beard, but they don't like me.
	But they'll say, oh, you know, he's only hanging out with these right-wingers like you guys, you very radical right-wingers, because there's money in it and it's a grift and all of this nonsense.
	And it's like, yes, I threw my hat in with the people who are the most hated, who the mainstream media hates, who are getting booted off the platforms, who can't get their stuff monetized.
	I did that for the money.
	And the long-term play of being loved.
	I was telling you guys right before we started that it is not fun for my dad, a 40-some-odd year subscriber of the New York Times.
	My parents are New York liberals in the good sense of that, if I can say that in this room.
	Will allow.
	It will be allowed.
	But my dad has to open up the paper on Saturday and see my picture with the word alt-right under it.
	An article about radicalizing people to the alt-right.
	Although, ironically, as we've talked about yesterday on your show, the whole purpose of the article in the Times, which was the cover piece on Sunday, was that actually, apparently, YouTube radicalized this guy to the left.
	Because the guy at the end of the story, even though the whole thing is about how we...
	He didn't even become all right.
	At his most radical...
	At the depths of his perversity.
	He was dating an evangelical girl who disagreed with his liberal friends.
	And everyone looked at him and said, what happened to you?
	And then he watched a bunch of ContraPoints videos.
	No, I think you guys are being a little bit unfair.
	I read the article too, and on the night that Hillary Clinton lost...
	I know.
	He looked up videos of supporters crying.
	You know, one of the videos he watched on the night that Donald Trump won, one of the videos that he watched was titled, Trump Wins.
	Unbelievable.
	So, Ben, you're talking about sponsors and how, of course, the left is going to try to take them away between now and the election.
	We have the best sponsors.
	We do.
	They're excellent sponsors.
	And one of the best for this show is Stamps.com.
	Tell us a little bit about it.
	Well, Stamps is great.
	I mean, I use Stamps.com.
	In my house, we use it here at the Daily Wire.
	It gives us all sorts of time and all sorts of money.
	Now, the post office has a lot of great services.
	There's only one problem with the post office.
	You have to go there.
	Last time I went to the post office, I stopped, I kid you not, for five minutes outside the post office and received a $130 ticket because Los Angeles government is garbage and everything.
	Except if you are in a red zone by like that much, I probably, they are on your ass so fast.
	I mean, it is unbelievable.
	They are so efficient.
	It's crazy.
	Well, if you don't want to be a victim of the efficiencies of Los Angeles city government, or by the way, any government agency, then one of the things you ought to do is get all of the great services of the U.S. Postal Services from your home, from your home computer.
	Stamps.com does bring all of those services directly to you, whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day.
	Stamps.com can handle all of it with ease.
	You can simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
	Once the mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
	It's that simple.
	With Stamps.com, you get $0.05 off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail.
	It's a no-brainer.
	It saves you time and money.
	Go check out Stamps.com right now.
	And right now, our listeners get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale.
	No long-term commitment.
	All you have to do, go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in my name, Shapiro.
	That is Stamps.com.
	Enter promo code Shapiro, and you get that four-week trial plus free postage and digital scale.
	No long-term commitment.
	Also, patronize our sponsors because they are willing to advertise on programs like this one.
	Go check them out at Stamps.com and type in that promo code Shapiro for the special deal.
	You know that I've been running this company now for four years.
	You know how many promo codes are in my name?
	Well, I'm sorry, but promo code boring is not exactly a winner.
	I don't have anything to mail, but I actually, when I leave here, I am going to write some hate mail to you, and I'm going to use Snaps.com to get it.
	Well, I appreciate it, as long as you patronize our sponsor.
	That's what I'm saying.
	It's a team effort.
	I'll throw out the anthrax and keep the cash.
	That's it.
	You know, we keep talking about this stuff, though, as if it were almost like an accident or ignorance on their part.
	This is a strategy.
	And Frank, to be absolutely honest, I think the strategy is primarily targeted against this guy, against Shapiro.
	I think that the whole point of this attack is to make people say, Shapiro alt-right, which is, of course...
	You know, absurd.
	We know it's absurd.
	But most people aren't paying that close attention.
	They're reading the headlines.
	They're seeing this name comes up again and again.
	And it's coming up again, not just on the New York Times, the Washington Post.
	It's very frustrating to those of us who know and dislike you.
	Well, to know me is to dislike you.
	Of course.
	But to hear you called the Nazi and an alt-right person, and you too, it's absurd.
	But it's done on purpose, you know.
	After Ronald Reagan was elected, the press changed.
	It changed because they thought, we do not want that ever to happen again.
	And the subtle middle-of-the-road leftism that was the press, the news business up to then, changed to an actual propaganda machine which got worse and worse.
	Trump has only made that worse.
	They know how Rush got ahead of them.
	They don't want to see that happen again.
	They're tagging you as alt-right immediately.
	And they mean it.
	They mean to be you.
	It was amazing.
	I know the Washington Post was printing stuff along those lines.
	And I wrote a piece for the Washington Post in 2016 talking about how evil the alt-right is.
	It was literally about how evil the alt-right is.
	I've spent half my waking hours ripping on the alt-right for years at this point.
	Long before the alt-right was even attacking anybody on the left, I was the target of the alt-right.
	The media didn't give two craps about it when the alt-right was threatening me back in early 2016, before they even knew what the alt-right was, and I was railing against it.
	Only when they started going after people like Julia Jaffe, suddenly they took...
	But now I'm a member of the alt-right.
	The only thing I can say to that is...
	No, but they're doing it on purpose.
	Of course.
	It's not an accident.
	Well, they're doing it on purpose at many levels.
	So I'm sure you guys are aware of, I think Ben was on there, and maybe you guys were on there too.
	About six months ago, Data and Society came out with this alternative influencer report.
	And quite literally, all they did was take a bunch of names of people who had talked to each other.
	So Rubens talked to Knowles, Knowles talked to Shapiro, Shapiro talked to Clayton.
	And then they pretended that this was actual data that proved that anyone was being radicalized anywhere.
	Now this happened about six months ago, and people thought, okay, something's not right here.
	And there were plenty of errors in it, and actually Tim Pool, who's one of the few journalists that actually we have these days, he actually did some background check on this, where they actually proved that we were de-radicalizing people, actually.
	We were actually getting people out of the alt-right, which is sort of what the New York Times thing said.
	But most interestingly, so they do that about six months ago.
	And then slowly, Vox gets into the fight with Crowder, and then you're telling me it's a coincidence that this guy, Kevin Roos, the author from the Ruse, is what he's actually doing, but Kevin Roos from the New York Times, you're telling me for months he's been working on this thing, and you're not gonna believe it, guys, it drops at the exact same time That Crowder's about to be kicked off YouTube.
	What are the chances?
	Are you suggesting collusion?
	Tell me something stronger than collusion.
	So there is...
	I mean, this actually is...
	So I talked on my show and I wrote a column about it this week.
	There's a two-pronged strategy here and they're reinforcing.
	One is that the Democrats decided after 2016 they were never going to allow a Republican to win the presidency.
	And what that meant is they had to crack down on the social media companies they blamed for Hillary having lost.
	So this is why you saw Nancy Pelosi openly say, and it's just a lie, that Facebook was willingly participating in Russia propaganda in 2016.
	It's just a lie.
	There's no evidence for it at all.
	She said that specifically because she is trying to intimidate just as Dianne Feinstein is trying to intimidate Just as everybody on the left is trying to intimidate these big tech companies into doing their bidding so as to avoid their scrutiny.
	The idea is if you do what we want, then we'll leave you alone to do your...
	And they know that they are appealing to people who are like-minded.
	I mean, Zuckerberg at Facebook.
	And Dorsey at Twitter.
	And what's her name?
	Watch Kiki over at YouTube.
	All these people are on the left.
	They all gave money to Democrats.
	And so they have Democrats who are their friends ripping on them and saying, you need to crack down on this stuff because otherwise you're leading to radicalization.
	They can't say you're leading people to...
	Engage with Republican content because then it's obvious what the game is.
	So you're leading to radicalization and incitement and violence.
	And they'll say, oh, well, in the name of goodness, we have to stop this.
	So that's game number one being played by the Democrats.
	And then there's the second game.
	And this is the one that I find truly shocking.
	Before you get to the second game, I want to push back just a second.
	Obviously, Zuckerberg and these guys are on the left in their personal thinking.
	But I don't think that it's as simple as the personal politics of the founders of the company.
	Oh no, I agree with that.
	I think Mark Zuckerberg, I'm certain that his view of himself is that he created an instrument that gives a voice I think that's how he sees himself.
	And if they hadn't let themselves get into the censoring business, it would be true.
	Yeah, that's right.
	But I agree with the political pressure.
	The left has basically blamed them for the election of Donald Trump.
	And the tacit threat is, we're about to take power again, and we will break you up.
	We will regulate you.
	You have mainstream Democrats out on the campaign trail.
	Openly saying this.
	Openly saying this stuff.
	So, yeah, no, I agree with all that.
	And I think that that's a good correction.
	I don't think that it's like Pelosi calls up Zuckerberg.
	She won't even get on the phone with Zuckerberg.
	That's right.
	Right?
	I think what it really is, is we're just going to threaten you.
	And Zuckerberg is like, okay, well, what am I supposed to do here, guys?
	That's right.
	And so there's some of that.
	And then there's also the fact that he is a person of the left.
	And he has said openly that Silicon Valley is a leftist place.
	And that means there's this echo chamber in terms of, okay, well, if you say Rubin or Shapiro are all right, that's all I've heard.
	I haven't really engaged with it too much.
	I guess maybe that's true.
	So that's part of it.
	Then there's the second aspect.
	And this is the part I find incredibly disturbing and actually quite evil.
	And that is the mainstream media that are proclaiming day in and day out that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the press.
	You have people like Jim Acosta who are doing books about how Donald Trump is calling them enemy of the people and therefore he's trying to shut down freedom of the press.
	These people are all in.
	I mean, all in on trying to get big tech to censor people.
	Vox is a supposed journalistic outlet.
	It is a pseudo-journalistic trash heap.
	They had their editors, their editor-in-chief, put out a letter explicitly saying, we know that Stephen Crowder didn't violate any of your rules.
	That's why we are telling you, as an editorial newspaper, we are telling you that you should change your rules.
	It shouldn't be as free speech.
	You need to change your rules, and you need to be able to kick people like Crowder off your platform.
	They were openly calling for Crowder's deplatforming.
	They literally lobbied Carlos Maza from Vox, a journalist at Vox, literally lobbied Pete Buttigieg to not do my show.
	Right, exactly.
	And then you see this from Daily Beast.
	You see it from Huffington Post.
	And the other tactic that they use in this attempt to deplatform people they disagree with is this tactic where there's some sort of manufactured controversy.
	Take a clip from one of our shows, and then what you get is the pseudo-journalist from Huffington Post who calls up an advertiser.
	And all that is designed to do is not actually get a story.
	There's no story.
	The advertiser hasn't said anything.
	They advertise on lots of shows.
	It's specifically designed to create a feeling of pressure for the advertiser.
	Like if you don't pull, there are going to be questions from all over the media about how nefarious you are.
	It's what they do with Laura Ingraham.
	As they do with Tucker Carlson, it's all bullshit.
	It's complete bullshit.
	It's eight guys with phones, and they're calling up advertisers, and then there's no boycott that ever takes place.
	By the way, there has never been a successfully led, media-driven boycott of one of these companies.
	Even from the left, when they tried to boycott Chick-fil-A, its stock went up.
	Nike stock has been up since Colin Kaepernick.
	There's no way to boycott one of these companies.
	So here's the part that's really nefarious.
	These media guardians of free speech and the free press...
	Here's what they're really after.
	What they are really after is not just ideologically silencing their opponents.
	It is that YouTube has already announced that they are going to start favoring authoritative voices.
	We've seen Facebook making similar statements.
	They're going to favor authoritative voices.
	Who are these authoritative voices?
	Let's guess.
	Might it be the people over at Vox and Daily Beast and the New York Times and CNN? So in other words, they are trying to reestablish the mainstream media dominance they couldn't achieve through open markets because they suck.
	And instead, what they are trying to do is pressure big tech into de-platforming or de-emphasizing content people want to see in favor of content people don't want to see.
	So it's, you're going to make them eat their vegetables, we're the vegetables, make them eat their vegetables, and we will endorse censorship to do it.
	It creates a world in which Joe Biden can get up and give the speech he gave yesterday in which he talked about the evil Donald Trump calling the press enemies of the people.
	And what a horrible thing this was.
	A guy who was vice president to the most oppressive anti-press president who has ever lived.
	A guy who...
	There are people who've done the same.
	But Obama, New York's Times was saying it while Obama was in office.
	This guy is denying us access.
	More FOIA requests declined than anybody ever, a record which he broke twice.
	I mean, this is an administration that shut down the press constantly, was on the phone whenever he heard criticism, was on the phone from the White House telling the press, hey, this has got to stop Trump's not doing any of that.
	He's openly criticizing them, which I think is what a straight guy does.
	When he pretends to be his own press secretary and calls the media.
	Did you see, I thought it was the most subtle instrument the New York Times used in that hit piece, which was in that last paragraph, the guy, Caleb Cain, that they were interviewing.
	He said, well, one thing I learned is if you go to YouTube thinking you're going to get an education, you better realize you're not.
	You can't get an education.
	Why did they put that in there?
	This is the same tactic the left has used since the 60s.
	Lionel Trilling, the leftist intellectual, said in the 60s liberalism is the only intellectual tradition in the U.S., and conservatism is nothing but an irritable mental gesture.
	Obviously, it should be dismissed.
	And I think the message here is even the censoring left, If you said that we're just educating people, you have different voices on your show, we bring different people on...
	Even they, I think, would push back and say, well, we shouldn't stop education.
	But if there's no educational value, if you're just a provocateur, if you're just looking for attention, well, then not only can you censor them, then you should censor them, and that's the truth.
	And by the way, Lionel Schilling was an actual intellectual.
	They had them on the left in those days.
	Anybody who reads the New York Times op-ed page and then reads the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, it's the difference between children and adults.
	You're watching people, this hysteria, this anti-Trump hysteria at the New York Times, which cannot stand up to real journalism.
	I've never seen anything emanating from anyone remotely associated with the intellectual dark web that is remotely comparable to the lack of skill, preparation, or knowledge on the New York Times editorial page.
	It's insane.
	It's quite incredible.
	It's insane.
	I mean, the columnist over at the Times editorial page I mean, it's good.
	They provide me a lot of material for my show.
	But that's about all they're good for.
	And bird feed.
	There's been a sort of meme out there that if something doesn't define itself as conservative, like you guys define yourselves here as conservative, so you have a sort of line that you will not cross.
	You can have disagreements, respectful disagreements, but you have certain lines that you guys believe in that you will not cross.
	I actually have a respect for that outside of what my differences might be because that means you will keep a certain set of values in place.
	What's happening with the left is that they, because they think that anything on any given moment, you might be a guy, you might be a girl, you might be this, you might be that.
	If you're a black person but you say you're white, how can we deny your lived reality?
	Because of that, they have no bearing in what is actually real anymore.
	So every institution, I think this is really what's happening.
	Every institution That doesn't specifically say it's conservative will eventually go off the rails to the left.
	And that's what's happening because it will eventually implode because you'll keep bringing in more people who will keep undermining every piece of truth that you try to put out there.
	And then eventually you'll never be able to hire anybody because If you're a male, you won't want to hire a female because then she could be to you.
	And if you're a gay guy, you won't want to hire another gay guy.
	And if you're a white guy, you won't want to hire a black guy.
	And I mean, you can extrapolate that every which way down the road.
	So in a weird way, there's an argument to be made here that by clearly you guys saying we are a conservative network, you take it or leave it.
	There's a strength in that, even if you don't have every single opinion here.
	And I'm not saying that you guys are opposed to those opinions.
	I'm here, right?
	And I'm happy to talk about what our differences may be.
	But I think that's partly what's happening.
	When you talk about the New York Times newsroom, I mean, I'm pretty sure we both have some insiders over there.
	The entire place has become a woke disaster, where even the moderates...
	You think Brett Stevens is having fun at the New York Times?
	Barry Weiss.
	Barry Weiss is getting shellacked.
	Every day over there.
	And that's the irony.
	Who hates Barry Weiss?
	It's the left more than the right.
	And she's far more of a lefty than I am at this point.
	But who hates her?
	Who's coming after her?
	I was talking to somebody on the left today, and we had a really good conversation.
	This is a pretty famous person on the left.
	And we had a very good conversation.
	At the end, he said, you know, if people...
	I said, you know, if people find out that we had this conversation, there could be consequences for you because this is the way that the world works now.
	And he says, it's weird because I really don't think that your people are going to have any problem with us talking.
	And I said, of course not.
	Of course not, because people on our side are fine with these conversations.
	We're happy to be treated as human beings, right?
	That's pretty much all we ask is that you treat us as human.
	And this is why I think really what the New York Times is doing in order to take everybody down a peg and treat us as non-human is so telling.
	That montage, that montage they put on the front page, the collage rather.
	It's so astonishing in the people that it juxtaposes.
	It's unbelievable.
	They put Milton Friedman on there.
	Milton Friedman's been dead for a while, guys.
	He can't radicalize nobody.
	He didn't radicalize anybody when he was alive.
	But it's also the mainstream media doesn't know what the alt-right is because to them, we are all alt-right, right?
	They can't discriminate.
	I don't agree with you about this.
	So Milton Friedman is hated by the alt-right.
	So this guy says in his article, you know, Cain or whatever the kid's name is, says, well, I mean, I never became a white supremacist.
	I never believed in the ethnostate.
	I never bought into any, like, conspiracy theories or anything.
	Oh.
	So not alt-right.
	You were never on the alt-right.
	He called himself a tradcon.
	But a tradcon who thought that men were men and women were women, which was radical.
	But shouldn't we give the devil his due here?
	I mean, it seems to me that they've actually had perhaps a better strategy than we've all had.
	Because it seems to be working at some level.
	Sure, our subscribers are all growing and our real numbers are growing.
	And I could literally tweet a picture of my dog and it'll get more retweets than the New York Times best story of the day.
	I'll test this later.
	But we should sort of give the devil his due because in a way, by them calling us Nazis for the last couple years, they've set the stage for where we're at now.
	So it's not that they kind of don't know what they're doing or they can't define the alt-right or some version of that.
	It's actually, they were planning this the entire time.
	So, as Ben has said, we're really focusing today on the things that make it possible for us to continue to bring our message to folks, in particular because everyone's trying to take away our capacity to bring our message to folks.
	And one thing that really helps is if you support our great sponsors, and one of the greatest is Bravo Company Manufacturing.
	I think we talked about it last time.
	I actually challenged you guys to watch some of the videos of these guys actually building parts for AR-15s.
	It's It's unbelievable.
	It's like, it's the best thing on TV. They've radicalized me.
	They've radicalized me.
	They've radicalized you into going to Bravo Company Manufacturing.
	I think you're about to say it, but all their products are made in Heartland, Wisconsin, by Americans, and they sponsor the Rumor Report, too.
	But so a company like this, they're putting their ass on the line.
	That's exactly right.
	We defend your ability to go out and say things, whether we agree or not.
	So, on the other hand, they're heavily armed, which helps.
	When the founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was make sacred the rights of the individual to share ideas without limitation by the government.
	The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
	I believe in those principles.
	We all believe in those principles.
	I'm a gun owner.
	Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
	Building rifles is no different.
	Started in a garage by a Marine vet more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM, builds a professional-grade product which is built to combat standards.
	That's because BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to all Americans, whether you're a private citizen or whether you're a professional.
	Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company, which is a big thing for me.
	I don't go hunting.
	I really don't go sports shooting.
	I have a gun.
	If someone comes to my house, I want to be able to shoot them.
	And if God forbid somebody should come for my liberty, I want the same ability.
	To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to bravocompanymfg.com where you can discover more about their product special offers.
	Upcoming news, that's bravocompanymfg.com.
	If you need more convincing, find out even more about BCM at youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa before they're banned by YouTube, just like everyone else.
	youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa and check them out at bravocompanymfg.com.
	They don't even have a promo code, so it may not be too important.
	They don't even have a promo code.
	I mean, really think about that.
	They're just saying we're going to defend the basic ability to have these ideas.
	That's right.
	I could have progressives on my show like the Weinstein Brothers or Sam Harris or whoever, and they don't have a promo code, but I have a script that's similar to that, and I believe that they are helping us do what we're supposed to be doing.
	Absolutely.
	I don't know how much of a better credit you can give.
	We should point out the one good thing that has come out of this is that Glenn Greenwald called Crowder a contemptuous cretin, which I think even Crowder would agree with that.
	Alicia, we're going to check in with some of our DailyWire.com subscribers.
	If you'd like to get in a question for us here on The Daily Wire backstage, you could head over to DailyWire.com slash subscribe.
	Give us some of your hard-earned money.
	We need it.
	Alicia, what are we hearing?
	Absolutely.
	We have some great questions going with the topic of tonight about censorship.
	Marie wants to know if you guys can explain the difference, in layman's terms, between platform and publisher.
	And this is actually a bit contentious.
	There are divided legal opinions on Twitter, Popat.
	Really read me the riot act about how wrong I am.
	At the same time, Senator Ted Cruz still seems to take our view, and he's smarter than me.
	When we talk about the distinction between publisher and platform, what we're talking about basically is, are you an open channel in which your content is provided by users?
	So if you think about the So in that sense, they're a platform.
	They're not executing editorial discretion as to what's published.
	We at TheDailyWire.com, we're a publisher.
	We're not a platform.
	Our content isn't user-generated.
	We're not an open forum.
	We curate the content that we publish.
	We have a strong editorial voice.
	Now, I actually will compliment Ben here as our editor-in-chief.
	We publish lots of people who disagree with Ben.
	We have people on staff whose job is to disagree with Ben.
	Nevertheless, We do decide where the boundaries are.
	We do decide what content is fit to publish.
	As such, as publishers, we're subject to certain legal liabilities.
	We have liability when we publish a piece.
	If there's information that's libelous, for example.
	If there are copyright violations, then all of that redounds to our detriment.
	Whereas, if Facebook finds itself in similar positions, they are protected.
	And they're protected because of this Section 230 of the...
	Communications Decency Act.
	Communications Decency Act, yes.
	Which was not written for them, but they have been determined by Congress to fit.
	And there's a good reason why they added this provision into the Communications Decency Act, which is, you remember, I mean, I was just a glint in my father's eye at the time, but in the 90s, the internet was exploding, and these companies that were pushing the internet into this incredible innovation...
	Would have been totally hampered from doing that if every image they put up got them dinged for copyright or every defamatory statement on the internet.
	In a comment section.
	Yeah, in a comment section.
	Every statement on the internet comment section is defamatory.
	So it would have shut down the internet.
	So they put this provision in to let the internet explode.
	It led to these incredible billion-dollar platforms that we're all talking about.
	And now...
	Part of the issue is the platforms can clean up their own comment sections fine.
	They're not applying the rules fairly or transparently.
	They are dinging one group for using the exact same words that another group gets to say on the platform.
	And that, it seems to me, is clearly the behavior of a publisher.
	So what's going to have to happen is a clarification by Congress of what this means.
	Because obviously there is this line.
	On one side is the, you can post whatever you want.
	That's a platform.
	On the other side is the, we curate our own content.
	We pay people to post and all of this.
	That's a publisher.
	There is a place where it starts to shade from one into the other.
	That is not clearly defined.
	And so what Popat says is that it's clearly defined in the law.
	I mean, there are independent users who don't work for Facebook who are posting stuff just like there are independent people in our comment sections who are posting stuff.
	We're not responsible for the stuff that our commenters post.
	Which is basically true.
	But the question becomes, is there a point at which Facebook's onerous attempts to quash one particular side of the aisle effectively make it a publisher, particularly if they are benefiting from the perception that they are a publisher?
	Or can they be a platform, but they actually have to, if you change the law, do they have to be transparent about the standard that they are using so that they are not gaining the benefit of being a platform while simultaneously acting more like a publisher?
	But doesn't this strike you guys as a horrible Faustian bargain, especially for conservatives and libertarians?
	Like, okay, so let's pretend, let's just say that we all agree they're publishers.
	We know that they're messing with all of us.
	Well now, okay, so we're gonna hand the power over to the government to be able to do that?
	And maybe Trump is friendly to some of the ideas we're talking about here, but now let's go...
	But there is an argument to be made.
	I know we can't trust Elizabeth Warren when she says break up big tech, because I know that that is the deal that you were talking about.
	But there is an argument to be made that these are essentially monopolies that can be broken up in order to foster competition.
	I think that there are things that can be done that can't be done as long as they are so powerful that nobody can essentially challenge it.
	Well, it is certainly true that the largest social media platform, Facebook, Owns the second largest social media platform, Instagram.
	And the largest search engine in the world, Google, owns the second largest search engine in the world, which is YouTube.
	So, I think that there may be something to this sort of monopoly issue.
	Although, I don't necessarily think that the government needs to break them up.
	I think that if they were held to any kind...
	This is why...
	With Popat's objections notwithstanding, and agreeing that Congress needs to clarify this, if you hold them to a standard of being platforms, most of this is going to cure itself.
	If you hold them to a standard of being publishers, also most of it will cure itself.
	You know, some people in Congress want to treat them as utilities.
	I'm also against that, although, am I more against it than what we currently have?
	Well, I'm not sure about that.
	But if you think about AT&T, Can't take away your phone because you said something conservative to someone else.
	Yeah, of course.
	But we are veering pretty close to that.
	I mean, actually, right?
	That's right.
	Why are they allowing Alex Jones to have a phone?
	Right.
	By the estimation of the way they think.
	You're seeing some banks now that are refusing to do business with people based on their politics.
	And it's getting into very dangerous...
	And when you have...
	What's the one that you can pay through with...
	PayPal.
	PayPal.
	When you see PayPal refusing to service people that they don't like with opinions they don't like, that is essentially quashing competition.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But although, again, as the Lib...
	A libertarian leaner here.
	I will say that the more these platforms restrict, the more there are market openings for competitors.
	What is it that Princess Leia said to Grandma Tarkin as she was about to blow up Alderaan?
	The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your face.
	You just blanked out there.
	I just gave you the easiest softball ever.
	But that's the libertarian idea, right?
	The more you guys do this, you will give us opportunities to build something better.
	And that's kind of where I'm coming from.
	The one thing that I would say is that, you know, in sort of pressure tactics, that was very good.
	When it comes to pressure tactics, the idea of saying to these tech companies, look, everyone wants to regulate you.
	Right, left, center.
	Everyone is talking about regulating you.
	You need to clarify what it is that you actually are doing.
	As a pressure tactic, I don't have any problem with that because that is a description of reality.
	And it's also, on this Faustian bargain, I don't want to regulate social media.
	Just as much as any libertarian, I do not want to regulate social media.
	But I definitely want to regulate a publisher that is pretending to be a social media platform.
	Well, this is really what it comes down to.
	I'm done with the illusion that there is an open platform that is regularly targeting people for their specific, not only opinions, but the intentions that they imagine behind the opinions.
	I'm done with that.
	Well, what happened with you and Pinterest today?
	You're a bad man on Pinterest.
	Yeah, I'm a bad man on Pinterest.
	Yeah, I'm a bad man everywhere.
	For a nice, clean-cut young Jewish boy.
	Really?
	Yeah, you really flipped the nice Jewish boy thing on its head.
	It's really amazing how I went from cleanest person in American life to uber-Nazi villain.
	It's a pretty great origin story.
	When they do the comics, it's going to be pretty fantastic.
	So James O'Keefe broke this.
	Yeah, James O'Keefe over at Project Veritas.
	And then he got banned from Twitter.
	Yeah.
	Temporarily.
	For actually breaking the story.
	For actually breaking the story.
	So great job, Twitter, as always.
	Right on the money.
	So basically, Pinterest, I wasn't the main target.
	I was one of the targets.
	So basically, Pinterest has this internal Slack chat board where they're talking with the leadership of Pinterest about which messages to quash.
	And one of the groups they decided to quash was live action, run by our friend Lila Rose, pro-life group.
	And they basically labeled it a pornography site.
	That's right.
	For purposes of banning it.
	And then they also suggested that I was a white supremacist, and therefore my material should be downgraded, particularly the material about Islam.
	So I'm not sure what they're going to do with that PragerU video where I talk about the glories of Islam from 700 to 1300.
	I feel like that's going to be a little awkward.
	Or maybe the video where I talk about why it's very good that Congress changed the rules that Ilhan Omar can wear hijab on the floor as a person who wears a funny hat on a daily basis.
	All that stuff, or my interviews with a wide variety of reformed Muslims, all those I guess are now banned.
	So they decided they were going to go after those.
	They went after also Candace Owens.
	I mean, they went after a bunch of people.
	But yeah, the tech platforms, here's the thing.
	They got into business, the great illusion and the great stupidity of a lot of the folks in Silicon Valley is that when you get into a business, the great good that your business will probably do is in the service that your good provides.
	So if you run a grocery, the great good of your grocery is that you provide goods at a low price to people that they can take home and then eat.
	And if you are in our business and we are providing you information that you can consume, And if you're in the Facebook business, or if you're in the Pinterest business, or the Twitter business, you're providing a platform on which people can freely engage.
	And people have decided that's not enough.
	Instead, we have to hone in on the motives and the messages, and we're gonna be true do-gooders, right?
	We're gonna be, it's not just Google's don't be evil.
	It's instead, do good, right?
	Do good.
	And once you've decided that the good is not in the good that you're providing to millions and billions of people, the good is actually your perspective on life, and that's what people need to imbibe.
	Then you get in some really ugly territory.
	But I would say that brings me back to why I said there's, we have to give the devil his due.
	When they were calling all you guys, when I was on the Young Turks, when I was a lefty and a progressive, and when I started waking up to some of this nonsense, the first part of it was that it suddenly, one day it just seemed crazy to me that all of you were Nazis.
	I was like, this can't be right.
	Like, I don't know, maybe Klavan's a Nazi.
	Clavin might be a Nazi.
	But they can't all be Nazis.
	But they did that intentionally because what we will all do is sit around and try to figure out what is morally right, what is ethically right, what is right in terms of Good business practice, legal issues, all that.
	And what they are doing is they're on a moral crusade.
	And their moral crusade doesn't...
	I've never seen one instance in the seven or so years that I've been doing this where they've been given some penance and they've said, okay, we'll ease up for a little while.
	They take everything as fuel for more insanity.
	And one of the reasons for this is that their policies actually don't work.
	And this is an important thing.
	I mean, the main proof of their policies not working is the collapse of the Soviet Union.
	And I think it's since then...
	I thought you were going to say Los Angeles.
	That had nothing to do with communism.
	No, no, no.
	The collapse of the Soviet Union had to do with Donald Trump and Trump Trump and Trump something Trump.
	You know whose policies do work?
	It was that big gold Trump on the top of the Berlin Wall, I remember it.
	Hey, Drew.
	Oh, let's hear it.
	You know whose policies do work?
	Go for it.
	Policy Genius.
	The best egg of the night.
	If you're like me, you're sitting here tonight thinking about death, because I mean, what else would you be doing while watching this?
	If you are thinking about death, and if you are thinking, hey, maybe I ought to do something in case of my impending death.
	Like, what will happen to my family should I die?
	And you've decided to be a responsible adult for 35 seconds, you should head on over to PolicyGenius.com.
	Policy Genius is the easy way to shop for insurance online.
	In just two minutes, you can compare quotes.
	Policy Genius doesn't just do life insurance, by the way.
	They also do home insurance and auto insurance and disability insurance, all sorts of insurance.
	So if you need life insurance but you've been busy doing literally anything else, check out Policy Genius.
	While death is on your mind, while you think of whether or not you should hang yourself while watching this, You should go check out Policy Genius right now.
	It's the easy way to compare.
	Policy Genius is this kind of company that could have never existed before the internet, which is one of the reasons that I really like them.
	Because we make our money by making internet, and they make their money by making a kind of internet.
	It's this sort of referral business where they're able to source the best things for us.
	In the old days, you'd have to go from insurance carrier to insurance carrier to insurance carrier, make your own comparisons.
	And now with a company like Policy Genius...
	He did like five seconds flat.
	He did like five seconds flat.
	Really, it's very quick and it's very easy.
	PolicyGenius.com.
	Go check them out right now.
	Save yourself time, and because you're comparing prices, save yourself money as well.
	PolicyGenius.
	Can I ask a question of the group here?
	I'm a First Amendment purist, virtually.
	I mean, I almost would let you cry fire in a crowded theater, almost, okay?
	And I'm a libertarian as well.
	And yet, it seems to me that the Internet has created certain things that we've never seen before, certain kinds of ways that change the brain, especially of children, especially of young people, that maybe we haven't all taken into account as almost like viruses that go beyond the actual information that's being contained.
	And I wonder, the reason I've become interested in the idea of breaking up big tech is because I think that we actually need to have tech services like Facebook that have parental controls, that actually have power and bite, that can actually say, here's a phone for the kid, so if he's kidnapped, he can call me and tell me where he is.
	But he can't get porn on the phone.
	You know, pornography, just a good example, it's not that I think pornography should be banned.
	I do think it should be controlled.
	I do think that there's something really sick happening with pornography to young people that is actually damaging their sex lives and maybe damaging...
	But how do you negotiate that with your libertarian side?
	Well, what I'm saying is that if there were more competition, you could choose a platform You know, to dominate your internet world that had more restrictions.
	The only reason that I don't...
	You could also not do that.
	So you want to go back to AOL. I mean, that's interesting.
	That's the way the internet works.
	It's unboxing and reboxing and everything else.
	But you want to go back to portals to get in that are going to basically gatekeep some version of what you sort of think is okay and we'd all have our own portals.
	Because this is a big change.
	There's no such thing as a record player where like a Frank Sinatra record comes out and you can only play it on a certain record player, but there is that in video games.
	Certain games come out and you can only play it on Xbox and ultimately maybe it comes out for the other platforms.
	It seems to me that that may be kind of the new mode of competition where if you want certain products that are going to be on this platform and not on another platform, It just seems to me that maybe we should have more control, especially as parents, over the way- Why can't that alternative be provided now in the absence of government breaking up?
	But here's why.
	Why can't that alternative just arise now?
	Well, it can unless these guys are so powerful they can quash anything.
	I don't think it's their power and I don't think it's their ability to quash.
	I think it's something else entire.
	It's the superhighway is what we want on the internet.
	Facebook doesn't work if the girl you went to high school with isn't on Facebook.
	Twitter doesn't work if William Shatner can't...
	Wait, has William Shatner never retweeted any of you?
	No, you've got to be kidding me.
	No, it happens.
	Unbelievable.
	We're not worthy.
	YouTube only works if I can go there and find all the videos that I might be looking for.
	The reason that you can't compete with these guys It's because they've achieved a kind of scale, and we all expect that scale.
	So you can create a Twitter.
	I mean, we've got the money as a company right now.
	We can hire some developers.
	I mean, Ruben probably doesn't.
	We do.
	We can hire...
	We're doing okay.
	We're doing my own Twitter.
	He's got a bankroll in his pocket.
	But the problem is, the second we create one, and the gal that you went to high school with isn't on it...
	And then it just becomes, it suffers from the sort of sad fate of Gab.
	It suffers from the sad fate of Gab.
	But then they are YouTubers.
	Well, I think there is a fair argument that they have reached a level where they are something.
	Because there's Gab, there's Parler.
	I mean, there are other Twitters.
	People just don't use them.
	That's right.
	They become niche, so supremely focused, you know, that they're virtually ghettos for a teeny world view.
	And that's not fun.
	None of us want that.
	Utilities are created because the government crowds out all the other options.
	Railroads were utilities because the government gave land grants to particular railroads.
	The phone lines are utilities because the government actually prevents many phone companies from coming in, which is why a lot of the phone companies I've basically been pummeled since the rise of cell phones and satellite phones.
	I mean, all that has changed everything.
	I'm not particularly warm toward this specific argument.
	Again, this is why we have platforms like Daily Wire, because in the end, I really believe that, and you're seeing it with all of us.
	I mean, in the last week, as all of these platforms cracked down on us, we have seen a significant uptick in subscribers.
	I know Crowder has seen a significant uptick in subscribers.
	I know you've seen a significant uptick in subscribers.
	They're trying to squeeze the air out of the balloon, but it's still a balloon, and the air is going to go to different parts of the balloon.
	So I think that in the end, maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think that a lot of these tech companies, it's going to hurt us in the here and now, obviously, because when you shut down our methods of distribution, Yeah.
	And Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting on this crap piece of technology called the AM radio, where he could barely hear what was going on for all the static.
	And suddenly he's got 20 million listeners.
	But the one difference is that...
	Can we just get a loop of you saying maybe I'm being too optimistic and just play it over the song?
	The one difference is that I think conservatives did that again with the platforms.
	I actually think conservatives...
	We were the best on Facebook.
	We're the best on Twitter.
	We're the best on YouTube.
	And so the left doesn't want to make the mistake they made with AM Talk Radio.
	They're just going to take it away from us.
	And what I'm saying is if they take it away from us, then that's why we have Daily Wire.
	And conservatives, I think, are thinking in this direction.
	I think conservatives see what is coming.
	They see this train coming down the track, and they realize that eventually they're going to have to put their money where their mouth is, and it's not just going to be Going to YouTube and watching stuff for free that YouTube approves of and monetizes in the way that YouTube wants to monetize it, they're going to have to support the kind of programming that they want to support.
	But it's not just about the financial portion, though, because the way they're coming after you, the way they've been coming after me, is not purely so that you guys don't get subscribers here.
	It is to taint You, specifically you, right?
	To taint you to the point that politicians will be afraid to walk into the doors here.
	It is to make sure that Pete Buttigieg will not do my show.
	And they want to get it to the point that not because of anything you've actually said.
	I mean, you have your ongoing list of things that you've messed up, right?
	So it has nothing to do with what you've said or what your intentions are.
	But they want to make you toxic enough So that people, that contributors will be afraid to walk in here, so that guests will be afraid to appear with you, so that people won't want to tour with me, etc., etc.
	Because they already know they've got us at some level.
	Yeah, this is the real danger.
	On the platform front.
	So the next level is, they're going to fight this...
	Look, what are they doing right now?
	The purpose, partly what they've done here is, I guarantee you it's the same for you guys as it is for me.
	My Wikipedia page is a freaking disaster.
	Not because of anything I've actually said, but they get, somebody puts the data in society, report out, New York Times links to it, so Phil DeFranco, who's a huge YouTuber, like nine million subscribers, the guy now is associated with the alt-right and the New York Times, so now congratulations, that's in his Wikipedia.
	And then what will happen?
	Well, six months from now, Vox will do a piece on it, then New York Times doubles down, and next thing you know, he can't get some contract with some sponsor that he wants.
	So it's not just about, this is where- They're actually politically resegregating society.
	Yes.
	Is what's happening.
	Absolutely.
	And when that happens, if that's what they're gonna do, that's what they're gonna get.
	What I mean by that is you see it with Alabama.
	So Alabama passes their pro-life law.
	And Hollywood goes, okay, well, we're not going to produce film in Alabama or Georgia or any of these other states.
	But you think Alabama and Georgia have any obligation to do business with the businesses in California?
	They're just going to build conservative alternatives.
	They're going to build their own safe spaces.
	And all this is really doing is accelerating the downfall of us as a united country.
	I mean, that's really what we're talking about.
	There's one state in America that has a disunited legislature.
	One.
	It's Minnesota.
	It's the only state in America that has a legislature that is split between the parties.
	Every other state in America has a unified legislature by party.
	What that means, and basically the entire Northeast is Democrat, and then you have Oregon and California.
	In Washington on the West Coast.
	And those are all Democrat.
	And everything else, except for maybe Nevada and New Mexico, everything else in the middle of the country is all red.
	All of those legislatures are red.
	And it's going to get worse because the Democrats have decided they don't want to do business with those places.
	They've decided they don't want to do business with particular brands.
	They're trying to force other brands to go woke or go broke.
	I mean, that's really their new slogan.
	That's why you're seeing Gillette suddenly embracing ads With women shaving their faces because they're actually transgender men, as though their chief, like who is their chief constituency?
	It's guys age 25 who need to shave their face.
	And you're advertising a man teaching his daughter to shave her face because it's go woke or go broke.
	They understand that the left must have the virtue signaling or they will not buy the product.
	How about Budweiser celebrating asexuality for Gay Pride Month?
	Which I didn't even know that asexuality had anything to do with Gay Pride Month.
	I mean, there's only one guy.
	There's, like, one guy there.
	Also, yeah, first of all, it certainly has nothing to do with Gay Pride Month.
	Or Straight Pride Month.
	Or Straight Pride Month.
	Like, there's one person in America who is an amoeba.
	If you guys want one gay somewhere, but you don't get to throw it in Gay Pride Month in America.
	That's the worst monkey throw at you.
	That makes no sense.
	And also, you saw that ad?
	And it's all in black and white and gray because they have no color in their sexuality.
	The whole thing is...
	But you're right.
	That's what they're trying to do there.
	But it doesn't work because you already referenced Chick-fil-A. It never works.
	And you know what's going to happen?
	Then you're going to get black rifle coffee.
	Too much taste to drink Budweiser.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, come on.
	Speaking of this, this kind of ever-present battle, this kind of ever-pushing...
	The envelope.
	It is amazing in our culture how this works.
	I mean, 20 years ago, there was actual controversy, 30 years ago, there was actual controversy in this country about decriminalization of sodomy laws, right?
	And then everybody kind of went, okay, this is stupid.
	Why is the government involved in this?
	These aren't enforced anyway.
	This is dumb.
	It's none of the government's business.
	We're like, okay, fine.
	And then there was civil union battle, and everybody was like, all right.
	And then there was gay marriage, and that was more controversial because it was using the word marriage.
	But most people were Are basically like, alright, even if I disagree with it, is it really my business?
	Do I really care?
	And now, it's always the new push.
	So now we get a big controversy over whether we are supposed to actively fly the gay pride flag over the U.S. Embassy in Botswana.
	What in the actual hell?
	Like, I've never thought of flying a different flag than the United States flag over the United States Embassy.
	It's not called the United States...
	Ben, Ben, Ben.
	You are an alt right now.
	I know.
	As soon as I say...
	I mean, this was...
	So I made this joke, and then Jeremy stole this joke.
	Oh, man.
	What?
	Oh, come on.
	I got a lot of miles out of it, guys.
	Oh, in that case, there's a lot.
	To be fair, the joke sort of initiated a little bit with Jeremy.
	We were talking about this today, and Jeremy was saying, well, you know, since we're doing this, since we have to have all the embassies flying the gay pride flag, obviously the American soldiers should take the flag patch off of their uniforms and put on the gay pride flags so people know, like, really what they're fighting for, because obviously this is America, right?
	And so what I said is what we really should do is it should be sort of like the NFL or the MLB. And we should switch it up every month.
	So, like, we should have a breast cancer awareness patch.
	And so when we're killing Taliban guys, when our guys are killing Taliban guys, they should know that we're killing them on behalf of breast cancer.
	They should know that every cause, like National Hispanic Awareness Month or something, I think it's September 15th to October 15th, we should shift the flag.
	The Asians and the Jews have the same month, which I find a little suspicious.
	But we all know who we're fighting the Taliban for.
	This goes to what I was saying before about that they never stop, right?
	So I tweeted this earlier, but it reminds me of what's going on with the flag.
	We gotta fly the gay flag in Botswana.
	It's so stupid.
	It reminds me, I'm sure you all saw the episode of Seinfeld when Kramer gets yelled at because he won't wear the AIDS ribbon.
	He goes there, he's gonna march, he's gonna show up, he's there for them, right?
	He's gonna raise money, but that's not good enough for them.
	That's not good.
	You won't wear the ribbon?
	Who won't wear the ribbon?
	And then they end up kicking the, can I curse here?
	Yeah.
	Shit!
	Out of the guy.
	Right?
	Like the mob, the gay or aide, whatever the hell that mob was, they went after Kramer because it wasn't good enough that you show up.
	It's not good that you fundraise, that you do exactly what they want.
	They always want more.
	You know, one thing, though, that none of us is acknowledging here, which I think we're really missing, is our embassy in Botswana is super gay.
	The gayest embassy we have, right?
	If I could put in a good word on behalf of the President of the United States here, I know that's not always popular, but I wonder if there's something, you know, we all know that he's a guy who works by his gut.
	I mean, he's obviously not a guy who works by his brain.
	Well, the usual logical progression.
	But there may be something that he senses that's going on.
	When you talk about the division of the countries, you talk about the division of the state houses.
	It may be.
	I think it is, actually.
	Let me put this in a positive way.
	We had a kind of consensus here after World War II that was a kind of a...
	It's right down the middle.
	It was really a right down the middle consensus, a little bit to the right.
	We would say it was a center-right country, but kind of always looking for reform, always looking for moderation.
	That's gone.
	That consensus is gone.
	I think we can all agree on that.
	And there's something that Trump gets about that.
	There's something he knows that he has no ideology.
	He just feels his way.
	He's still invoking principles that used to be held in common.
	And people are attributing to him an emptiness of principle because they think that he's doing it cynically.
	But the fact is that, I was talking to somebody about this today, if you look at every successful movement in American history, it's invoking those universal American principles and saying, but you haven't applied it properly to me.
	So if you look at the civil rights movement, they look at the Declaration of Independence and they say, the same way Frederick O'Gill said 100 years before, they say the Declaration of Independence is exactly correct and it's not equally applied to me and it now must be applied to me.
	And Americans, by and large, by the civil rights movement, they say, that's exactly right.
	That's why MLK is honored and Malcolm X not so much because Malcolm X did not believe that, right?
	And then the gay rights movement comes around and they say basically the same thing.
	They say, you know, there's this promise in the Constitution that everybody sort of gets left alone and that's not being applied to me.
	And Americans by and large go, all right, fair enough, that's cool.
	And then we've reached a point where To even invoke the principle is considered reestablishing the hierarchy of power dominance.
	That's the part that I find extremely dangerous about what's happening now.
	If you quote the Declaration, if you quote the Constitution, by its very nature, this is now considered an act of white supremacy.
	This is now considered an act of hierarchical power because the actual story of America is not the consistent invocation of good principles in order to broaden those principles.
	The actual story of America is a hierarchy of power crammed down on people with less power We have to fight militantly in order to gain it.
	And if they have to cynically use those principles from time to time to get there, then they will.
	But the reality of America is minority groups struggling for power over majority groups.
	And eventually those majority groups will have to...
	See the point, because it's our principles.
	This is what bothers me about the Sourabh Amari attack on David French, is essentially saying...
	It's all your Catholic...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Essentially saying that the liberal idea...
	Is ultimately illiberal.
	The illiberal idea ultimately eats itself.
	And in this moment, you can make that argument, but I'm not sure you can make that argument as essential and necessary.
	I do not think it has to be this way.
	I think this is something, again, that has been manufactured by the left.
	As the liberal here, I actually probably agree with Michael on this more.
	I'm watching this thing.
	That's not a show.
	That's not a shot at liberalism.
	I mean, look, I got you, I think, the second time you were on my show to admit that in a normal, sane world, you are a classical liberal at heart.
	Yeah, of course.
	Right?
	I mean, that those enlightenment principles and the belief in the individual and laissez-faire economics and light-touching government, that all those things, we all basically agree on that, and then there may be some differences on, let's say, abortion or a couple other things.
	Okay, fine.
	But that gets to what I was saying before, that things that don't define themselves as conservative We tend to veer off into insanity.
	That's basically it.
	And I'm sort of, I'm sort of there now.
	It sucks.
	It sucks, but I'm sort of, I don't see an out on that.
	And I'm not saying that from a religious perspective, obviously.
	The claim of liberalism, you know, you had all of this at the end of the 90s.
	They said, liberalism, that's it.
	We've reached the end of history, is what Fukuyama wrote.
	And the claim of liberalism is that it's not an ideology like all the other ideologies.
	That it's actually just the neutral playing ground.
	It makes no claims.
	You can all do whatever you want.
	You can hold whatever views you want.
	And what we're seeing now, increasingly so, is that it does make certain claims.
	It does have certain premises.
	It is not tolerant.
	It's not tolerant of intolerance, as we're seeing on YouTube and all these social media platforms.
	It is an ideology.
	I love liberalism.
	Every American conservative defends what is largely a liberal tradition.
	But what a lot of these writers, or so Rob started to say this, and then other people have said that since, is that liberalism is not sufficient in and of itself.
	There are other premises that we have to think about.
	That's what Bill McGurn wrote this.
	Bill McGurn wrote this very eloquently in the Wall Street Journal where he said liberalism essentially rests on a foundation that is pre-liberal.
	And that, of course, is true.
	I mean, that's my entire book, right?
	I mean, my entire book is about this.
	But I think that...
	But I think that there's something else that gets ignored in the American tradition of liberalism, which is that America is very liberal at the top federal level, but it's not particularly liberal when it comes down to the local level.
	Meaning that if you look at the tradition of federalism in the United States, there was never this idea that everything that goes for the federal government also goes for your local school board.
	In other words, the federal government may have nothing to say about drag queens at your local library reading to your five-year-old, but if you and your community decide you don't want drag queens reading to your local five-year-old at the library, that would be a you-business issue.
	And then if there's someplace in San Francisco where they want drag queens reading to their five-year-old, then that's the them issue.
	That's where the federal government comes in.
	But when it comes to what we should be stumping for on the local level, there's no implication in conservatism that the broad agreement that we have on free speech principles That that necessarily means that what you implement on the personal, local level, which builds consensus.
	You have much greater consensus on a local level than you do on a national level.
	But that's exactly the same.
	Yeah.
	That's a huge point.
	I mean, on pornography, I sort of feel the same way.
	Meaning, I don't want a pornography shop next to my house.
	I don't.
	I want a zoning law in my neighborhood that stops a porn shop from opening next to my house.
	So I want the federal government regulating porn.
	No, I don't.
	Because I don't think the federal government has the power to do that.
	But...
	I think also that if somebody wants to, you know, view porn in San Francisco, like, I don't like that, but it's also not really my role.
	Nobody likes the porn in San Francisco.
	I do think, though, that now that I've learned that every single one of you, even the liberal, is less liberal than me, I feel like I'm going to have to start a new company, and I'm going to go over to ZipRecruiter.com.
	Wow.
	I am wrong.
	I have a very solid knowledge.
	We'll move to the level of art at this point, the same way it is.
	If he does do that, I may need to look for a new job.
	If you need to look for a new job, ZipRecruiter is the place to go.
	What if you had your own personal recruiter to help you find a better job?
	ZipRecruiter's technology can do that for you.
	Just download the ZipRecruiter job search app.
	Let it know what kinds of jobs you're interested in.
	Its technology starts doing the work.
	The ZipRecruiter app will find jobs you'll like and put your profile in front of employers who may be looking for somebody like you.
	If an employer likes your profile, ZipRecruiter will let you know.
	So if you're interested in the job, you can then apply.
	No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated job search app My listeners right now should download the free ZipRecruiter job search app today and let the power of technology work for you.
	Don't wait.
	The sooner you download that free ZipRecruiter job search app, the sooner it can help you find a better job.
	So when I go, when I look for a new job, and leave all of you bereft of your money now, well then, I will have used the ZipRecruiter app to ensure...
	Bitter, bitter, bitter.
	That's right.
	I'm an hour five of broadcast today, my friend.
	I think my bitterness is well-earned.
	I have to tell you, I filled in for you.
	If you were wondering why your ratings dropped, I filled in for you on Monday.
	And I got to say, you work hard, pal.
	And you appreciate it.
	Twice as many words as I do in the course of an hour.
	He talks very much.
	By the way, so I had Eckhart Tolle on my show today, who's one of the world-renowned spiritual leaders.
	I mean, in the history of the world, he's sold 50 million copies of his book, blah, blah, blah.
	He says he listens to you, and he speaks very slowly, by the way, because he's really thoughtful in the language.
	Very slow, not that you're not thoughtful in your language, but he speaks very slow.
	And he said...
	Ben Shapiro talks too fast.
	I guess he's about 70.
	Yeah, so that's the rule.
	If you're above the age of 60, I think I speak way too fast.
	I told him half speed.
	It's the power of now.
	He's putting all those words into me.
	He actually sounds quite normal at half speed.
	We're going to check in with Elisha because we've only taken one question from anywhere.com.
	We're telling him the subscribers, and we keep telling him to subscribe.
	We need to show him a little respect.
	And here to help us do so, Elisha.
	I try to show respect, guys.
	I do.
	I only have subscriber questions.
	Rebecca and I work hard to pull them, and then they just sit there and they smoke their cigars and drink their whiskey and they ignore us.
	Okay?
	Elisha just became a Jewish mother.
	I work and I work.
	I'm from the Bible Belt, and Ben and I have often said there's lots of similarities between Southern grandmas and Jewish grandmas.
	Fair, true.
	We could definitely do it.
	I feel like the food is better for Southern grandmas.
	I love that Alabama kugel.
	Yeah.
	So, first, let's get to our Facebook poll.
	We asked people, how do content creators solve big tech censorship?
	17% said to go to other platforms.
	20% said, hey, thank you, guys.
	Subscribe to thedailywire.com.
	24% said, through the courts.
	That doesn't seem very conservative.
	And 38% said to create their own platforms.
	We did.
	It's thedailywire.com.
	Go subscribe.
	Come on.
	80% of you are wrong.
	No.
	All right.
	Arun says, Hey gang, what do you think of the lawsuit against Google for its discrimination against whites, Asians, and conservatives?
	Could conservatism become a protected class?
	Well, interestingly, in employment law...
	Political beliefs don't qualify you for protection.
	So if I fire Michael for being an unrepentant papist, he would have a legitimate claim against me.
	But if I fired all of you for not being actually classically liberal, you would have no claim against me.
	I have the right to do that.
	So I think that as well-intentioned as some of these suits are, I don't really think they're going to go anywhere, do you think?
	No, I think it's very unlikely they go anywhere.
	I think that anti-discrimination laws of body is very troubled.
	I think that it runs into serious First Amendment freedom of association concerns.
	I've always been very worried about this, even though I fully agree with the principle that you should employ people of different races and different religions and all of this.
	I think that the government placing itself in the position of an employer and telling them what to do is just a sword that is too powerful to be wielded by the government.
	However, of course, what you're saying legally is right.
	And politics should not be a protected class, even by the logic of anti-discrimination law.
	The basic idea there It is immutable characteristics that are being protected.
	So if you're black, you can't change the fact that you're black, Rachel Dolezal.
	It gets in weird territory when it gets to religion, because people can convert in and out of religions.
	So that's a little bit strange.
	And for politics, obviously, those are very immutable.
	People change their political opinions all the time.
	So trying to force somebody to hire somebody who has a different politics is Pretty strange and pretty weird.
	The lawsuits against Google, I think, are probably not bound by significant law, at least on the federal level.
	I think the best that people are going to be able to do is say that the user agreements for Google are not being held up.
	And you want to call it Twitter?
	And your wife does what?
	My wife's a doctor.
	Your wife's a doctor?
	Alicia.
	Almost done with her.
	She has 13 days.
	My son is a doctor now.
	He's a PhD.
	I wouldn't let him operate on it.
	Well, if it's something that can be cured by Hippocrates, he can...
	Alicia?
	I'm just curious if we're going to have a Drew's son is a doctor shirt available on our Amazon Prime.
	I think so.
	When I was in law school, I remember there was a class where the professor called on a student and she happened to be a doctor of education or something.
	And so he called on her and he said, Miss, something.
	And somebody said, it's doctor.
	And he said, if I have a heart attack, can you help me?
	And she said, no.
	He said, well, then it's Miss.
	I was like, this is correct.
	Although, as Drew's son will tell you, the word doctor means...
	Don't do this.
	I will murder you right here.
	I will murder you right here.
	And finally end two of my problems.
	You living and you working here.
	If that doctor of education was CPR certified, she could technically help you until the EMT does it.
	Please get to another question.
	Tennyson says, for Mr.
	Rubin, my friend is a classical liberal like you, with whom I disagree, but he is not of the left.
	What advice would you give to my friend as the party becomes more and more radical?
	Yeah, well, classical liberal, the classical liberal set of ideas obviously is not a political party, so I think what he means basically is the guy thinks he's a Democrat still.
	I mean, if your friend actually is a classical liberal, there's nothing, that has nothing to do with anyone, anyone remotely that has anything to do with the Democratic Party.
	They brought in Biden.
	I mean, they dragged his old carcass out because they thought he's the last vestige of something that seems like a decent liberal.
	And you could probably argue for all the inconsistencies he's had over the 30 years, that there's some decent liberal somewhere in him But you can already see him going woke because he knows that now, if he does not do that, that the base will destroy him because he's an old white man.
	So what I would say is if you're a classical liberal, you have far more...
	Your example actually was the right one, that you guys all moderated on gay marriage.
	As far as I know, none of you are against gay.
	You may be a little bit different, but I think basically speaking, conservatives don't particularly care about gay marriage or have taken the libertarian approach or have said, I have my own personal religious beliefs, and that is separate from the way the government should adjudicate two people getting involved.
	I've never changed my mind on this.
	No, seriously, I've been...
	You were like the first guy...
	No, I was pro-gay in the 1970s.
	Oh, all right.
	People were calling me names when people actually called me names.
	Okay, great.
	But the point is that what I have seen in the last couple of years is that for every move that the left has gone, more bananas.
	With everything.
	I mean, absolutely everything.
	Abortion, you just go down the line, right?
	The right has actually moderated.
	Why is it that you have a different religious belief than I have, and yet I get no hatred out of you?
	We have a difference of opinion at a sort of high-level something that it's okay.
	You know what I mean?
	We want to live in the same society together.
	Why is it that when I appear on stage with you, or you come on my show, or I go on your show, the litany of hate that we get from progressives, in the name of tolerance, in the name of tolerance, Ruben's a sellout, and Shapiro hates gays, and all these things, in the name of tolerance.
	Yeah, two people disagree with each other and yet tolerate each other.
	They are intolerant.
	So think about it.
	One night when, here in L.A., when we were doing the Jordan Peterson tour, I brought Ben on stage, right?
	So there's thousands, it was, I don't know, three, four thousand people at the Orpheum downtown.
	I do my thing.
	Crowd's going crazy.
	I bring Ben out as a surprise.
	He brings out a little cupcake because we've had this thing on my show several times that Ben won't bake me a cake.
	So we go with Ben.
	I'll bake you a cake, not for your wedding.
	Not for my wedding.
	Or your anniversary.
	He'll bake me a regular kosher cake.
	Okay, fine.
	So he brings out a cupcake.
	The crowd goes absolutely bananas.
	We have some banter back and forth.
	People are going crazy.
	He walks off.
	I tweet out a picture.
	Oh no, I tweeted out the video of it.
	And then my Twitter feed blows up with literally thousands of tolerant progressives telling me that he's a homophobe and I'm a sellout.
	And it's like, this is what we've...
	I gave him a cake.
	Do I need him to blow me on stage?
	What are you talking about?
	I do draw some lines.
	I draw some lines.
	You dig it out.
	You dig it out.
	I get it.
	You have your cigars and your whiskey.
	You see what I'm saying?
	It's like, but these people are doing this as all guys intolerant.
	So, what I would say to the person that believes that they're the liberal is that there is a lot more that you can accomplish by building bridges with you fringe alt-right maniacs than you can ever accomplish on the other side.
	There is no evidence.
	One other example I give is that when I'm doing stand-up now, I usually do this thing about where I poll the audience.
	How many conservatives here?
	I make a couple jokes about conservatives.
	How many libertarians?
	How many liberals?
	How many progressives?
	One guy claps because they soy and they can't really do anything.
	But...
	And then I bring out some of the IDW crew.
	So I've brought out the Weinsteins and I brought out Kristina Offsommers and Michael Shermer and a bunch.
	And they'll talk about all their progressive views on the world.
	Brett will go up there and say, I'm progressive.
	And then my audience now is mostly conservative.
	They're mostly classical liberals or conservative.
	And they'll give us a standing ovation at the end.
	Brett will go up there and go, I disagree with you guys on climate change.
	I disagree with you guys on abortion.
	I disagree with you guys on death penalty.
	And then literally we get a standing ovation at the end.
	Now try to imagine the world where that was reversed.
	Yep.
	You can't imagine that world.
	It's actually impossible to imagine a situation where Sarah Silverman, who's a lefty maniac, could be doing a stand-up show at the end.
	Here's Ben Shapiro.
	Have Ben Shapiro come up there and go, you know, I'm pro-life and I'm for free markets.
	They'd behead you in the name of tolerance.
	So there's a real asymmetry.
	And I would say to your classical liberal friend, Bill Bridges with these guys and whatever the differences are, it's like, You know what?
	Even if you guys have some weird judgment thing, you may have some weird judgment thing religiously related to gay.
	It actually doesn't matter to me, though.
	But I really mean that.
	You're not coming to my house to attack me.
	It does not matter.
	This has always been my perspective.
	I got this question a lot.
	And I'm not coming to your house to attack you, and that's what the purpose of a free society is.
	Yeah, it's interesting because you get this question a lot because you're gay.
	I get this question a lot based on religion where people are like, well, you know, you're so tolerant with Christians and many Christians want you to convert.
	And I'm always like, yeah, and?
	Okay, so for all of Jewish history, basically, the way that people tried to get us to convert was to murder us.
	And then we got to this country and they were like, oh, you know what would be awesome is if you read this book.
	And we're like, okay, we read it.
	We're not super into it.
	And they're like, Alright, well, I'll talk to you next week.
	Yeah, peace be with you.
	This is kind of nice.
	I've got to say, this isn't bad.
	But I'm supposed to be all pissed off because people want me to think things differently than what I think or act differently than how I act.
	If you can't deal with the fact that there are some people in the world who want you to think or act differently but are willing to leave you alone and not bother you, And I don't know what the hell's wrong with you, honestly.
	It's also one of the great joys of life.
	Yeah, this is the case.
	This is what drives me crazy.
	This is one of the most fun things in the world, is to argue with a person of goodwill through the night, hopefully with a lot of alcohol, and really work out opinions.
	Look, I changed, I became, I'm such a libertarian, I became anti-abortion because I lost an argument.
	Me too, actually.
	Yeah, I argued for abortion all night long with a pal of mine, a Catholic pal of mine.
	I went to bed and I thought, God beat me.
	He beat me in that argument.
	And it took 20 years for me to change my mind, but it was because I could not assemble an argument against him.
	It's really funny, almost all of my...
	Almost all of my religious and political views can trace their origins back to a music teacher that I had in college with whom I would argue on a routine basis.
	I took a very traditional view.
	He took a more libertarian view in both instances.
	And we had these amazing arguments for two years.
	And at the three-year mark, I found myself arguing with other people.
	Only his ideas were coming out of my mouth, not my own.
	And it was a shocking moment for me to realize I have changed my opinions on the basis of hard-fought conversations.
	You know, it's amazing.
	So I get asked a lot, a lot, you know, have you ever changed your opinion?
	And I say, sure.
	There are a bunch of places I've changed my opinion, right?
	I mean, I changed my opinion on government involvement in marriage.
	Take an obvious one.
	I've changed my opinion on government involvement in criminalization of marijuana.
	To take another example.
	The way you framed the trans issue on my show, actually, was a huge divergence from what you'd been doing, where you admitted you had a certain public versus private version of that.
	That was big, though, because people thought you were a transphobe, and you said, well, if you treat me with respect, I'll treat you with respect.
	Oh, right.
	I mean, I'm not sure I actually even changed on that as much as I elucidated an issue before, but yes.
	But I think that I have never heard that question even asked to someone on the left.
	Mm-hmm.
	I've never heard somebody ask that on the left.
	And if it is, it's always in one direction.
	So when did you become more progressive and more liberal?
	When have you ever heard anyone in the media ask a prominent liberal figure, okay, so name an opinion on which you've changed.
	And it's not some sort of mea culpa...
	Barack Obama on gay marriage kind of thing.
	When was the last time they said, you know what, I really thought about crime and I thought that maybe we need more police in the inner city because the best way to have property rights and additional tax revenue is to ensure that there's safe streets.
	When was the last time you heard somebody on the left actually do that?
	Never.
	And this is the really big thing when you talk about the alt-right and them trying to castigate everybody on the right as alt-right and all of this.
	It's truly amazing to me.
	So I have a person with whom I'm friendly on the left, and they're constantly saying, why is it that the right constantly is policing itself and throwing people out for being alt-right and throwing people out for being too crazy and all this?
	Like, I can name them on my, you know, and they'll name a litany of names.
	You know, the Roy Moores of the world who are bad people, and you'll just throw them out.
	Why do you guys keep having, it's probably because there are so many bad people in your party that you have to keep weeding them out and throwing them out.
	And I said to this person, when was the last time the left threw anyone out for an ideological reason that was too far left?
	When was the last time?
	No, they throw the guy who's holding the line.
	Correct.
	They'll throw away Joe Lieberman.
	I think by the end of this, Joe Biden will be in that list.
	I think that they will take anybody who is too far to the right and toss them, but there is no such thing as a view that is too left wing for people on the left.
	There are things on the right where people will say stuff and you're like, that's too much for me, man.
	I can't do that.
	That's terrible that you said that.
	They defend Chavez and Maduro and Stalin in the New York Times for years and years and Castro in the New York Times for years and years.
	And then the only way to throw them out is by saying they're secretly right wing, right?
	So what they'll do with Stalin is they'll say, yeah, he was a super awesome left winger.
	I mean, future man and creating five-year plans and he's great.
	And then also, oh, so there was that Ukrainian famine and he killed like 20 million people and...
	You know, he's a right-wing authoritarian, actually.
	That's the real thing.
	He's a right-winger.
	But Andrew, I think, just real quick, I think you hit the real thing here, which is that it's the great joy in life to be able to sit across from somebody and either agree to disagree or not.
	You don't have to even do that, but just not to punch each other at the end.
	So I said to you last time when we were doing the gay marriage debate, I said to you, look, you can have your religious opinion and we have both taken the libertarian approach.
	But I guarantee, my belief is that if we do this for the next 50 years, that we remain friends and we keep having this debate publicly and privately, that I think it's possible that when I'm 93 and you're 86 or whatever it is, that you might go, you know...
	In all those years, I knew Dave and his husband and blah, blah, blah, and maybe I could have just baked the cake.
	I suspect that's probably where this would ultimately get.
	Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not.
	I don't need you to say anything right this moment, but that's the point.
	I always leave open the possibility that I could change I do think that it's extraordinarily unlikely.
	But that's possible, but there's only one way to find out.
	We have to be willing to keep doing that.
	Well, then that's fair.
	And also, by the way, the whole thing about the cake baking is to create a space where Ben can be Ben and you guys can still disagree.
	I mean, if he is forced to do that, you've lost that space.
	What situation would I possibly want Ben to bake me a cake?
	Or would anyone like that?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I see this on Twitter, though, a lot because I am, being an unrepentant papist, I am one of the last guys in America who doesn't, I don't buy the arguments for the new definition of marriage.
	And people see that.
	And then they are shocked to learn I have many gay friends.
	I have some gay married friends.
	I have many gay married friends.
	How is this possible that you could hold an opinion about an institution and an idea and a word and also be friends with a lot of other people?
	And I think, I like having a cigar and sitting around with people.
	That I agree with on everything.
	I mean, I guess that's okay.
	I much prefer to sit down and have a cigar with people that I disagree with about many things.
	And then maybe they'll change my mind.
	Maybe they won't, but I'll be sort of amused by new arguments.
	Or I'll think in a new way.
	Or I'll go and maybe I'll become even more certain of the view that I had before.
	But at least that does something.
	We're exploring some new ideas.
	That to me is a beauty.
	I think the belief in God, by the way, is a great backdrop for this because one of the things that, you know, people ask me this all the time, when are you going to convert Ben Shapiro?
	I think I'm going to smuggle Ben into heaven, you know?
	God's not going to, you know, that's not the way, it's not a game show, you know, it's not a game show, you didn't know my name, you know?
	That's not the way it works.
	And I think when you believe that God is going to sort things out, you know?
	You can live with a lot of difference in the world.
	You can live with a lot of difference in the world.
	I think that there are certain basic things that we all have to agree on if we're going to have a society together.
	And those are the things I see collapsing.
	And those things are that we are capable of having discussions with one another without it being an attack on identity.
	I think that is a huge, huge thing.
	I believe in same-sex marriage, but I don't think the government has a role in that.
	And we have a conversation about baking cakes or whatever.
	We can have that discussion without Dave taking it to mean I hate you and I think that you're a horrible person who ought to die.
	And that when you say, I think you're wrong about that, I don't take that as, and I think therefore that you're an evil religious bigot.
	- But Ben, when we have conversations, you tell me you think I'm a horrible person. - - It's fat based on facts. - Facts don't care about your feelings. - Facts don't care about your feelings.
	That's just the way this works. - Alicia, we're gonna get through a few more questions by hook or by crock.
	I mean, I also think Michael Knowles is a horrible person, so can I come in the room and debate him?
	Since you said he likes to talk to people who don't agree with him.
	Yeah, Knowles, thank God you got that Costco guy.
	Jesus.
	He just clicks my show like tens of thousands of times.
	Alright, next question comes from an amazing subscriber, Robert.
	I say that because, remember, only subscribers get to ask the questions tonight on Backstage.
	He wants to know if you guys think if Trump wins the 2020 election, will the Democrats reevaluate their stance in terms of socialism and free speech and everything they've been blabbing about recently, or will they go full-blown Looney Tunes on us?
	Can we all do this with a simultaneous head shake?
	Ben and I already did it, but no way.
	No way will they change me.
	No way.
	They have proven that no matter what.
	It's going to be four years of that lady screaming at the sun.
	It's going to be four years.
	Have you seen that graphic of her?
	Like 2016, 2017, 2018, 2018?
	I may disagree with you on this.
	I'm not big on predicting the future at all, but I think that if Trump actually wins in a big way in 2020, No way.
	There is no sign.
	Give me one thing.
	Give me the tiniest, most absurdly ridiculous evidence that ever in the last five years.
	Yeah, I'm with Dave.
	Or just since Trump, give me the slightest thing that they have done to show the most minute moment.
	Guys, maybe we should think this through.
	I will give you my example, okay?
	I lived through the Reagan years.
	When Reagan started, he was the end of civilization as we knew it.
	I mean, nuclear war was coming.
	This was the most hateful, evil person who ever lived.
	By the end of the Reagan years, when everything he said came true, like every single thing he said actually came true, you know, you got kind of a Clinton who was forced into the position of saying, I've got...
	Can I tell you why you're wrong?
	Charles Crownhammer, by the way, used to talk about this.
	Charles Krauthammer used to say, you can tell when someone's successful when the guy who comes after him is forced to adopt his opinion, even if he likes it.
	This is why you're wrong?
	I mean, there's so many reasons why you're wrong.
	I'm going to pull that lever.
	It happened once before.
	The reason you're wrong is because Donald Trump isn't Ronald Reagan.
	And I've actually been thinking about this a little bit lately that early on you fellers would confront me and say he's as unto David.
	- I would never say.
	- He's never been taken.
	- Oh, you could not. - Yes, he's a murderer and yes, he's a lout and yes, he's a warlord, but he's also a man after God's own heart.
	And I would say, yeah, but in addition to the murder and the warlording and the adultery, David wrote beautiful psalms into the Lord.
	And Donald Trump, eh.
	I didn't know that.
	I don't know.
	Unbelievable.
	Some people say.
	Many people say.
	Donald Trump is more like Henry VIII. And Henry VIII, listen...
	You're just trying to get me not to like him.
	Henry VIII did more to Anglicanize and therefore Protestantize the West than anyone.
	There'd be no America without the Protestant Reformation.
	We see what Catholic colonization did in South America.
	We see what Protestant colonization did in North America.
	Whatever your religious opinion notwithstanding, the fact is that the whole move toward human liberty...
	Starts basically with Martin Luther and proceeds forward.
	We can talk about this later.
	I therefore would say that one of the people in history who did the absolute most to create the framework of human freedom that we enjoy here today is Henry VIII. I doubt that Henry VIII could wax philosophical about Luther's treatise on the Book of Romans, however...
	And that's kind of Trump.
	Trump may very well be doing more for conservatism than any president we've had in history, but he's not doing it because of conservatism.
	He's doing it for the things that motivate Trump, which like Henry VIII are, he wants to have sex with beautiful women and see his name on a bunch of stuff.
	Right, like, he's a practical, self-advancing monarch.
	You're making my point, though, because I have to.
	But here's the reason that Reagan was able to fundamentally change the world in terms of who followed him, even, you know, the era of big government is over, Clinton famously said, because...
	The coalition that Reagan built was directly around a set of ideas.
	And he communicated those ideas so efficiently that it changed the way everyone in the country talked about the relationship between the individual and the state.
	Donald Trump may very well, in the final analysis, I'm not willing to grant it yet, may very well in the final analysis have done more to empower those conservative ideals in practical effect.
	But he has not built a coalition around the ideas themselves, and therefore those ideas aren't going to be able to...
	Trump was willing to do all the things that you good conservatives wouldn't have done.
	That's it.
	They tried it.
	They tried it already.
	I get it.
	Two people that I didn't vote for because I voted for Obama twice.
	So, alright, like, okay, can I say that here?
	No, get out here.
	Zipper crew.
	I know.
	But they tried it with McCain.
	They tried it with me.
	Trump was willing to do all those things.
	So I was at a YAL event, Young Americans for Liberty, right?
	So I'm at a YAL event about a month ago, and I'm sitting at this huge table, like 15 of us, circular table, all libertarians, everyone going on about the The debates that we've already had here about the tech companies and should we get involved in all these things.
	And we're always, what do libertarians do?
	It's idea, idea, idea, idea.
	And then somebody was kind of saying, well, Trump started, at least Trump made some things happen.
	And everyone's debating, but he's too evil.
	He says he speaks this way.
	He doesn't, you know, he does these things with women, all these things.
	And then finally, there was one woman at the table, actually, out of 15 people or so.
	Sounds like a libertarian.
	She stops everybody, and everyone's babbling on.
	She goes, you know what, guys?
	I think you're all overthinking it.
	I think Trump likes this country.
	I don't think the other guys do, and I think that's it.
	And I was like, you know what?
	I think that's basically it.
	But let me get back to the guy's question, because the guy's question was, if Trump wins, will that have an effect?
	So what you were talking about, this idea, is you're absolutely right.
	I agree with everything you said about Reagan versus Trump.
	But if Trump wins, you know, after Henry VIII, Elizabeth comes along and she says, I don't need a window to see into my subject's souls.
	And she says that after these incredible wars of religion and this incredible destruction of the abbeys that Henry VIII, that she understood that she had to live in the new reality.
	If Trump wins, it's a new reality.
	Joe Biden said this yesterday.
	I actually agreed with him.
	He said four years is an aberration, but eight years, well, he says America will vanish, but that's not what will happen.
	If Trump's daughter becomes president, it'll work out just like it did with Henry.
	But I do want to say one more thing, and then I'll kick it to you, Ben, which is that the fact that today, today, the majority of taxpayers believe that they paid more, a higher effective tax rate this year than they did before Donald Trump became president.
	The fact that my most thoughtful liberal friends believe that Trump gave tax cuts to the rich and not to the middle class, when the reality is...
	I am paying more in taxes.
	The rich are paying so much more in taxes because of the Trump tax cut.
	That's Donald Trump's biggest problem.
	That even when he does...
	No, it's not the media.
	Here's the evidence.
	It's not only the media.
	He's never made a case for himself.
	He's never made a case for his ideas.
	But here's the real evidence.
	When Ronald Reagan was president, he had a Democratic Congress for the vast majority of his presidency.
	With that Democratic Congress, he proceeded to pass two major tax cuts.
	Paul Volcker was able to radically keep down inflation.
	In other words, the Democrats made deals with him.
	There's not a Democrat across the aisle who is willing to make a deal with Donald Trump.
	If he wins again, did they moderate after two terms of George W. Bush?
	They went wild to the left after two terms of George W. Bush.
	But you haven't failed to stop Trump.
	You're shaking your head.
	Because I know the thinking.
	I really know the thinking.
	Again, I'm not trying to predict the future.
	I'm just presenting an alternate future.
	So I didn't vote for Trump, as I just said.
	And I kept saying to the left at the time, I kept saying, guys, stop calling this guy Hitler.
	Stop calling this guy Hitler because what might happen and what I predict will happen You can find videos of me saying this, is if you keep calling this guy Hitler, you've painted yourself into a corner, you can't now, if it turns out that he doesn't go into some crazy war and the economy's okay and taxes are lower and things are kind of chugging along, you can't suddenly be like, you know that Hitler guy, he's actually doing a couple good things.
	You just can't do that.
	And that's what they've done.
	They've already staked out, this guy's Hitler, his supporters are white supremacists, and the people who criticize him half the time are also white supremacists, right?
	So there is no, they've given themselves no out.
	There is no redemption now, if we were looking at this through a religious prism.
	I think that it's also that they have spent the last four years not just demonizing Trump.
	They spent the last four years demonizing everyone who has ever thought about supporting Trump in any way.
	And that is a difference.
	So during the Reagan administration, there was this feeling that Reagan was a crazy person and Reagan was a nut.
	But there wasn't this sort of antipathy for every Reagan voter, as though they were all insane, bigoted, nutcases.
	It kind of was.
	I mean, it's...
	This was George W. Bush, too, because that I'm old enough to remember.
	So George W. Bush lost a popular vote.
	He was considered illegitimate by the left.
	Right.
	Even then, there was a lot of dislike for George W. Bush, obviously.
	Even then, there wasn't this feeling like every single person who voted for George W. Bush, not just that they were boobs or stupid or something, but that they were vicious, evil racists.
	And this is the picture that is being painted.
	Everybody who has even...
	You didn't have to vote for...
	I didn't vote for him in 2016.
	But what happens?
	I'm a Nazi now because of these people.
	What happens, though, if...
	That's how I'm characterized.
	If then Trump wins, and if, for instance, something I've been kind of, not predicting, but kind of asking if it might happen, we find out that blacks turned up for Trump.
	Do the Democrats not have to reconsider?
	No.
	They've been tricked.
	They've been duped.
	Well, they can say that, but ultimately they want to win, right?
	I mean, ultimately they have to make a- And they'll figure it out through immigration or something.
	No, what they will do is they will say that the millennials turned out for them and that all they have to do is stick to the future and they'll win.
	And the future of immigration.
	Right.
	I mean, by the way, they came out this week.
	If you've been following this controversy over the census, Democrats really just let the cat out of the bag as to what the illegal immigration thinks about.
	Because they've been militantly opposed to the idea of the census asking people their immigration status, which seems like a perfectly valid thing to ask somebody.
	The reason that they don't want that done is because what they are afraid of, they say the Republicans, they're so evil.
	If they ask immigration status, they might redistrict on the basis of citizenship.
	Which I was under the impression that one man, one vote meant like that your vote was to count proportionally to our population.
	It's kind of like the slavery thing, isn't it?
	It's like giving three-fifths of a person to the citizen.
	I mean, right.
	I will always avoid any slavery comparison for the basis of our advertisers.
	But on a constitutional level, on a legal level, obviously, they're representing people who don't actually get to represent themselves in Congress.
	And that part of it is true.
	It is no taxation without representation.
	But they are afraid they will lose upwards of nine seats If these things are redistricted, and so they're like, oh, Republicans are only doing it for that.
	So let me just reverse that logic.
	You are increasing illegal immigration specifically in order to increase the population in specific districts so that we have to allocate a district that may have 800,000 illegal immigrants and 200,000 voters, the same as a district that has 800,000 voters and 200,000 illegal immigrants.
	That is actually how they want to allocate these things.
	So the cat's out of the bag.
	I mean, when it comes to illegal immigration, they are fond of illegal immigration because it does win them elections, even if the illegal immigrants are not voting, even if they never get in.
	But I will say, all-time low black unemployment and the Democrats openly basically telling their black constituents we want to replace you as voters for our party.
	No question.
	There could be a change.
	And I see Al Green, not the good Al Green, but Al Green from Texas, right?
	He came in and he said, well, he's a bigot, but he's a beneficial bigot, and that's a problem for us.
	I thought, what is it?
	Beneficial bigot.
	What the hell does that even mean?
	The beneficial bigot should be a t-shirt.
	I want to go back to Alicia, and I want to do something we've never done before, and it's because we have no discipline whatsoever.
	We're going to do a dailywire.com slash subscribe subscriber question speed round.
	The way this is going to work, Alicia, I'm going to have you give us five questions.
	Only one person gets a crack at the bat.
	Okay.
	So no matter how much you want to disagree with Drew when he gets an answer, it's his answer to give.
	Alicia, rattle off five of these for us.
	Oh, this is going to be really fun.
	This comes from subscriber John who wants to ask you guys specifically about new platforms.
	He said that Jordan Peterson recently came out with a new platform for free speech.
	What do you think about new platforms for these free speech people?
	Dave, you probably know more about Jordan Peterson's platform than we do.
	I think there is a chance that the new platforms will take off.
	That would be my preference, rather than any other option that we have laid out here.
	I mean, we've all talked about this.
	There are massive technological hurdles.
	There are terms of service hurdles.
	There are legal hurdles.
	There are optics hurdles.
	You create something that's really for free speech, and congratulations, you're now the home of the alt-right, and now the credit card companies crack down on you.
	I mean, that's why this is so complex.
	Because it's not just about building something that's good or doing something that is legally sound or is defending the First Amendment or any of those things.
	It's about doing something that is so holistically sound that you've insulated yourself from all of the problems that seemingly no one can figure out.
	That being said, there is a magic around Jordan, and I think he is the right person to potentially lead us out of this mess.
	But it's going to be a huge lift.
	Alicia, question number two.
	Question number two comes from Dave.
	He says, if you guys are okay with Hobby Lobby making decisions about birth control for their employees because they're a private company, why are you so upset with YouTube that it's also a private company regulating who uses and doesn't use their platform?
	Hobby Lobby is not making decisions for their employees about birth control.
	Hobby Lobby is making a decision for itself that it won't pay for the decisions that its employees make about birth control.
	If Hobby Lobby were trying to forbid its employees from picking up birth control on the free market, I think we would all probably come out against that to the extent that Hobby Lobby is simply saying we won't pay for it.
	There's actually no contradiction here whatsoever.
	All right.
	Julian says, if there's such a thing as objective truth, is there such a thing as objective hate?
	And by extension, objective hate speech.
	Who wants it?
	I'll take it.
	Well, I guess the premise of this question is that hate is the opposite of truth, which is not the case.
	The opposite of truth is falsehood, and there are things that are objectively false and things that are objectively true.
	There is certainly speech that we would call hateful or mean or cruel.
	Good luck defining what that is or deciding who even gets to decide what that is.
	But it has nothing to do with being true or the antithesis of truth.
	It's a matter of opinion and preference and point of view and premises and ideology.
	And the people who are trying to codify hate speech as a way to deplatform you have a very particular ideology and they want to make sure that we all agree with it.
	The dog's drinking my whiskey.
	Is that a problem?
	Is he drinking whiskey or water?
	Not for the dog.
	It's water!
	Come on, I guess I'll let your dog get drunk on my whiskey.
	My dog did just steal Dave Rubin's water.
	It's pretty, pretty fantastic.
	Alicia, question number three.
	Jasper's smart enough to not try that crappy, you know, drink that Ben has.
	But anyway, next question comes from Sean.
	Question number four.
	Yeah.
	With the left aggressively perverting and inverting language, attempting to change words' meanings, do you foresee original written definitions eventually changing in the dictionary in the near future?
	Ooh.
	I feel like we have to let Michael take this one, too, because he's actually written eloquently about this topic and made a video for Prager University, our pals over at PragerU, I believe.
	True, and I wrote a book with the fewest words ever published, so I also did that.
	Words change over time.
	Of course, that's true.
	Words evolve and our understanding of language evolves.
	What the left does is something different.
	The left changes language radically, and they change language radically because they know that when you change language, you change the culture.
	I think we have all at various times observed that the left uses, they change a word to mean the opposite of what the word is.
	So we have justice, which means getting what you deserve without favor, and then you have social justice, which means getting what you don't deserve because you are a member of a favored group.
	This is true of politically correct, right?
	There's correct, which is true, and then there's politically correct, which is false.
	They use that language, and more than just changing language, because we all use words creatively.
	They make you use that language.
	And if you don't use that language, you will be ostracized, you will be demonetized and deplatformed, kicked out of polite society.
	It's why I care about the pronoun thing.
	Now with the transgender issue, you have to use the she to refer to a man who now thinks that he's a woman.
	Do I really care?
	Absolutely not.
	How many people does this affect?
	Like five people in the whole country.
	So why is the left so insistent on this?
	They're so insistent because if they control that pronoun, they control the ideology, they control the culture, and ultimately they control politics.
	Well said.
	Alicia.
	Alright, next question comes from Michael, and this is to anybody who wants to answer, or anybody who the God King tosses it to.
	He wants to know the last time you guys changed your mind on something.
	Ben gave us a few examples of places where he's changed his mind.
	I'm in the middle of really thinking through this question of big tech and what we do about it.
	I have come to believe, as a free speech purist, I have come to believe that the internet is doing something to us that goes beyond the content of what's involved.
	That our actual interchange with the internet is changing our brains, changing the way we think.
	And I don't think that needs to be regulated.
	I'm not going to a regulated place.
	But I think it needs more competition, more different kinds of approaches.
	So I'm in the midst of thinking it through.
	I don't know where I'm going to come out.
	I'm really happy to get to talk to people who have different points of view and hear about it.
	But I think that that's like You know, a lot of my ideas are in flux.
	As things change, as technology changes, the world changes.
	We have to come up with new ideas.
	Blocked.
	I want to take one more question.
	I want to take one more question, and then I want to talk to you guys before we go about my favorite news story of the week.
	Alicia, give us one last DailyWire.com subscribers question.
	Awesome.
	Anonymous has a very Prager-esque question for you guys tonight.
	He wants to know, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of America and the West in general?
	I'll put that as Prager.
	Are you optimistic or...
	We're left with Ben.
	You know the answer.
	I mean, so...
	It's actually a more difficult question than it seems, because I'm pessimistic for the future of the country as it currently stands, just because the level of polarization is something that I haven't seen in my lifetime in politics.
	I'm admittedly young, so I don't remember the 1960s, but still, the fact that the 1960s took place in the I mean, civil rights was a real issue.
	The Vietnam War was a real issue.
	The sexual revolution was a real issue America was coping with.
	And the fact that we're savaging each other over whether a gay flag should fly over the embassy in Botswana, and we're doing it with pretty much the same levels of passion that people were doing so in 1964, that seems pretty disturbing to me.
	So I think that there's a lot of people in the country who are itching for a separation, and the people who want to keep the country together Are located in areas that don't seem to have a lot of the political power.
	A lot of those people are located in the middle of the country or in suburbia, and those people seem to be kind of getting cast to the side.
	I'm optimistic in the sense that I think that the left is pushing so far that a backlash is almost inevitable.
	I think the left is boring.
	They're censorious.
	They're irritating.
	They are nasty as all hell.
	I think there are a lot of people out there who are looking at The nature of the left, which is to shut down debate and make life less interesting and to bully you into taking their woke, scold positions and to ruin your life if you disagree with them.
	And to make rules that are so unclear that they shift on a moment's notice.
	I mean, these rules shift daily.
	Literally daily.
	I mean, I said on my show when the whole Crowder thing happened, I don't know when I'm allowed to use the Q word.
	I said on my show, is it the Q word?
	Is it queer?
	I don't know.
	I was just going to ask what the Q word is.
	I literally don't know what the rule is going to be because my feeling is that I sort of get what the rule is, which is that you're not allowed to use it as a slur.
	But if you say that somebody is queer and you just mean that they're gay, then that's okay.
	But I also have the feeling that if I say that, then I will immediately be boycotted the next day and the rule will have radically changed on me.
	And suddenly it will be out of bounds.
	I think most people feel this sense, this unsettled sense, that things that they feel are fundamentally normal are going to be denormalized and then stigmatized, and then they will be forced to abandon all of those beliefs.
	And it's hard to blame anybody for believing that when you are literally saying to them that a man is not a man and a woman is not a woman.
	I mean, the most basic things in life are not actually things in life.
	That the most existential crisis ever facing humanity is the weather, as opposed to, you know, I don't know, like a Nazi horde coming and trying to kill everyone, right?
	Like a Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at your major cities.
	Like the biggest threat, the existential crisis, is that people will move over the course of a century away from the coasts a little.
	Like this is the really devastating crisis.
	With all of that, and with all the social sense, like I don't know what comes after the transgender thing, because every time I think that they've reached the logical endpoint of what they've reached, It disappears on me again.
	In fact, I have a feeling that this may horse you all the way around.
	And once you get through the gender fluidity and the sexual fluidity, that will be illegal to be gay.
	Because then it will be, you're so discriminatory for being gay, how can you prefer a man over a woman?
	That is inherently...
	Sorry to make you straight here, Dave.
	They're segregating college campuses.
	It is coming around.
	Right, exactly.
	It's all coming back around.
	And so I think that there's going to be a backlash where people just say, listen, enough.
	Just stop.
	Just like for half a second, just stop this shit.
	Like, for a second.
	But they don't have any adults to tell them to stop, and they'll never listen to you guys.
	That's the thing, right?
	So I've been, for a long time, I tried to do it from the left.
	Guys, what's going on here?
	What's going on?
	I mean, you see the way they treat me now.
	So there's no adult that they respect, because part of the ideology is not respecting things that came before you.
	But I think what you see in the Democratic primaries is that Biden, when people perceive him as just an old guy who, Who isn't particularly radical.
	He's winning like 40% of the primary.
	And then as soon as he talks and he starts going woke, he starts sinking back into the field like the swamp monster being dragged back in.
	It's pretty astounding to watch.
	I think that there are a group of people who eventually are going to get so alienated.
	I mean, this is why Trump is president because there were just enough of them to make him president in 2016.
	As the left moves ever further to the left, people have a high tolerance level for being pushed.
	But I think that there will come a point where people push back and they're like, I'm just not going to do this.
	Biden's big problem is that...
	If he runs a return to normalcy campaign, he can win a general, but he can never be the nominee.
	Well, this is what's happening to him.
	I mean, this is what I've been saying is that I said from the beginning, I thought his best day was going to be his first day.
	It basically has been.
	And he is what will allow him to win a general election, which is being just a human.
	folks will not let him do it. - That's right. - He's been forced in the Hyde Amendment, a position he held for 46 years, and that virtually all Americans hold, by the way, that even if I am pro-abortion, I don't necessarily think that taxpayers should pay for my abortion.
	That is considered so impolitic now that he reverses himself in the course of 24 hours because AOC hits him on Twitter.
	There's no point, really, I think that the American people are not gonna stand for this interminably.
	And I think especially when you look at the living in the big cities right now, New York, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, how these cities are being turned into cesspools.
	I think that there will be a Rudy Giuliani moment where the people of Los Angeles say- Well, that is the wonderful thing about leftism.
	It doesn't work.
	That's the one thing that really- They're trying rent control now.
	I know.
	They're like, oh, there's so many homeless people.
	You know what we'll do?
	We'll make it impossible to build a new building in Los Angeles, and that will solve it.
	Did you hear this one?
	In California today, they were trying to push a law that would prevent the police from towing cars that people are living in.
	If the car is there for 72 hours, they're saying you cannot tow the car or find someone.
	It's what the state of California wants to do.
	Even the City Council of L.A. voted 15 to 1 against this.
	Because they're like, hold up a second.
	So you're saying that Barbara Streisand, who's my friend Barbara Streisand, some homeless guy can camp in an RV outside her house and we just have to leave them there?
	And the Radical Democrats are like, yeah, man, let's do this thing.
	Even leftists are beginning to say, you know, this is a little too crazy for us.
	Douglas Murray has the best line on this to me, which is, he says, you know, the barbarians are going to be at the gate, so it's going to be like the wall in Game of Thrones, right?
	And we know the White Walkers are on the other side, and we're going to be debating what pronouns they have.
	We're not going to be defending the Republic.
	We're literally going to be like, is it a he out there?
	Is the Night King a he?
	So, the most important news story of the week.
	Twitter refused to verify my account officially.
	No.
	What?
	They officially refused to verify me.
	I got a notice from Twitter.
	So you got the blue check of refusal.
	I got the blue check of refusal.
	So the facts are these.
	Our friend Tyler Carden, CEO of The Blaze Media, the merged entity of Glenn Beck's Empire and CRTV. Tyler...
	Works, you know, figures out sort of the process, exactly what you need to say in your bio, and you have to include these certain kinds of links.
	You know, I've changed my Twitter email address to my official Daily Wire email address, and I link to the fact that I host a podcast that's downloaded a million times per episode, and, you know, some stuff.
	And then I find the guy at Twitter, and I send it in.
	Tyler gets verified with 750 emails.
	Twitter followers, with my exact same job, but without hosting a podcast that's been downloaded a million times or having produced some feature films that are out in the marketplace.
	Two weeks later, I get We are unable to...
	I'm sorry.
	Your account is not eligible for verification at this time.
	So my question is this.
	Do I just have to start a public campaign?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Do we have to start making Daily Wire shirts that say, Verify the God King?
	We'll sell two of them.
	More than Daily Wire, two soccer t-shirts that we sell.
	Oh, watch your mouth.
	We have to start a public campaign.
	It is outrageous.
	It is actually.
	Because blue checkmark Twitter is very fun in so much as you can get Patricia Arquette to yell at you.
	You can just get celebrities to yell at you if you have a checkmark.
	Yeah, I feel like I'm missing out on basically my birthright.
	I have verified several times that I am in fact me.
	I've actually been banned from Twitter, if you'll recall, for suggesting that the proper way to eat Brussels sprouts is to cook them up with salt, pepper, a dash of Worcestershire, then dump it in the trash and sear your face off.
	They've banned me.
	You're actually a god king.
	I am an actual lowercase king.
	I will say your power seems limited.
	You know, in the Twitter's defense, though, the blue checkmark is for verification.
	But in some cases, like for the alt-right white nationalist guy, Richard Spencer, he had a blue checkmark, and then they took it away because I guess he stopped being Richard Spencer or something like that.
	And so what I think it might be, they just don't know that you are the God King Jeremy Boring.
	That's the shape of the beard is, I think, what it comes to mind.
	But if they took away Richard Spencer's, why can't they give it to him?
	That means there's one out there in the ether.
	You could be Richard Spencer now.
	You are, in fact, verified because you're Eric Swalwell.
	Oh, I am.
	We're all Eric Swalwell.
	We're all Eric Swalwell.
	I only want the blue checkmark because Tyler got the blue checkmark, guys.
	It's just not there.
	I want to thank all of our DailyWire.com subscribers for supporting the show, our sponsors, for making it possible for us to do what we do, and everyone who's watching or listening to this content.
	We really have a lot of fun sitting down and shooting the bull.
	We can't believe that any of you watch it, but we're grateful that you do.
	Thanks to Dave Rubin for sitting in with us.
	Thank you to you crazed Nazis.
	What a joy this has been.
	We hope we've radicalized you right and proper.

▲