A Washington Post columnist decides that calling for reasonable discussion is Hitlerian, James Comey gets slapped by the Inspector General, and we check the mailbag. Date: 8-30-2019
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
A Washington Post columnist decides that Hitler had a dog. You have a dog. Therefore you are Hitler, James Comey slap by the inspector general and will check the mail bag. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Ben Shapiro, show all right. We got a lot to get to today, but before we get to any of it, let me remind you that this month is indeed national life insurance awareness month. I know you would set them on the side to celebrate that. I know that you had big plans for national Life insurance awareness month, but since I've mentioned it now twice, I'm not in your head. So now is a good time free to get insurance. Because here is the reality. Are you in adult? Are you responsible human being make sure that your family is taken care of in case you get hit by a bus in the next ten minutes like go right now and by life and she and over at policy genius dot com right now is a great time to buy life insurance. It turns out, because prices are the lowest they have been in twenty years, and policy
genius has made it easier than ever. For you to get covered policy. Genius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online. In minutes you can compare, quotes from top insurers and find your best price. Once you apply, the policy genius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape and genius doesn't just make life insurance easy. They can also help you find the right home insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance policy genius makes it supreme really easy to do all this. You don't want to think about your impending doom for the rest of the entire month or next month or the month after that. Instead, what you should be doing is getting it done right now, then. You never have to think about this again until you plots at which point it won't help you to think about it. 'cause you'll be dead, but at least your family will have the money that they got from if insurance policy, your response enough responsible enough to buy through policy genius, become so head on over to policy genius. Dot com get quotes, apply in minutes. You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
I was a genius the easy way to compare and buy life insurance all right. So we begin today with a quick recap of the rise and fall of James Comey. We have a chance to do this on the podcast yesterday, because this news broke after the podcast was over. But here is the story, so James Comey, former F, b I'd hero of the republic for a brief moment in time brief shining moment in time. The report came out yesterday from the office of the inspector general over the Doj and basically, what it found is that he leaked classified information to the press through a friend that wasn't heavily classified. It. Wasn't super duper top secret classified it wasn't like he set up private server like Hillary Clinton or something. Instead, what happened is something fairly simple: he created a series of memos even leaked those memos to one of his friends who is outside the government. That person then proceeded to hand those over to the times, and that was in fact a violation of law, but not bad enough that I was actually going to get prosecuted now. James Comi declared himself exonerated there, so
the ironies in the story. It's like layer, it's an onion irony, you take off the top layer, other layer of irony and then another layer of all the way down to the core of granite iron. Irony is fantastic, so James Comey was he start if you'll recall as an enemy to the Democrats right because in two thousand and sixteen made grave error of going out in public and spilling on how Hillary Clinton violated the law six ways from Sunday and then he said, we're not prosecuting her 'cause. I've changed the law conveniently for her. I've changed the law now and rewriting it she's not going to be prosecuted, but she did some bad stuff guys and bad stuff, and Hillary Clinton campaign rightly said. Well, if you're not prosecuting me, then why are you spilling all this rap out in public right now, irony layer, number one. The entire Democrat Party was super happy that Robert Mueller then did the exact same thing to Donald Trump on the Trump Russia and obstruction of justice. Stuff. That's what the model report was. It was all the reasons why Trump is bad also are not prosecuting him, but here you are and just put vomit all
this material right out there in public. So James commented that in two thousand and sixteen it was very bad, then the Democrats flipped and by two thousand and nineteen it was really good. So that's irony number one. Then James call me before the election reopens the investigation into Hillary Clinton and has to notify the entire world about it, like five days before the election and then a couple days later, oh yeah, by the way that we don't really find anything and this really for Hillary Clinton. So he is the enemy right he's the person who cost Hillary Clinton the election supposed. Then it turns out that he's a hero of the republic. Why? Well because he started keeping tabs on President Trump you suspicious of President Trump, and because he was suspicious of president Trump, he started keeping memos and he refused to just say out loud what he'd already told Trump, which is that Trump wasn't under investigation. It turns out the reason he wasn't saying that Trump was kind of under investigation by call me and the FBI. The reason me keeping memos was presumably in order to provide the basis for an obstruction of justice charge
or in order to gather information on Trump Russia kind of stuff, so Comey was either fibbing to Trump or he was unwilling to say something that was eminently true to the american public. One of these two things was obvious: okay, so he ends up getting fired and now look easy hero of the republic again, so we went from being democratic enemy to democratic hero, which in and of itself, is a certain level of irony, especially 'cause. You probably cost Hillary Clinton. The election in the view of Democrats. Ok, so for two years is hero of the republic because he was fired by Trump, and this was obviously trying to stop the Russia investigation. A couple things happened, one Russia investigation comes to nothing, and so it turns out that James Comey is in fact a leaker and that he lied about leaking and that James Comey is in fact itself a grand izing tool, who is not very good at his job, which is unfortunate for James Comey, not great for James Comey, and so the Oig analysis comes out yesterday and James Comey in another layer of irony, then declares himself. Exonerated is the same guy.
This is the same guy who declared president was supremely wrong for declaring himself exonerated by the Mueller report so which is it? Well, he wasn't exonerated here. Okay, not only was he not exonerated the ports pretty damning? Basically, the o I g found. This is a direct quote that consistent with the inspector general Acting department regulations. This matter was refer to the Oig in July, two thousand and seventeen by then acting F director Andrew Mccabe, following the FBI's determination that me we've shared memos that contain classified information with his personal attorneys. They say yes, the memos were number one FBI records, so he called them personal records. They were not. They were FBI records, second Comi violated Department and FBI policies pertaining to the retention, handling and dissemination of FBI, records and information. They say Comey's actions with respect to the memos violated department and FBI policies,
and then they say that he failed to return memos after being removed as FBI director. He improperly disclosed FBI documents and information through one slash three party to a reporter. They say that he improperly disclosed the presence of this information to attorneys. In other words, there are a bevy of violations here they didn't rise to the level of the criminally prosecutable, but he definitely violated a bunch of internal FBI regulations, his employment agreement and all the rest and the concluded that Comey's behave really damaged. The FBI they said quote the responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part. The employees of the FBI who have access to it through the daily duties on occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges or higher ranking FBI and department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even in some situations, distrust the legitima of those supervisory prosecutorial or judicial decisions,
but even when these employees believe that there strongly held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI dip is on them not to disclose sensitive information. Former director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility by not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI, employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action. Can we set a dangerous example for the over thirty five housing current FBI, employees in the many thousands, more former FBI employees and similarly have access to our knowledge of non public information? He was compelled to take these actions, but it doesn't matter because they have previously faulted for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with department policy, cummies, unauthorized disclosure, I'm sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn Investigation merits similar criticism in a country put on the rule of law. I mean this is the oh. I just slap and coming across the grill in a country built on the rule of law and so the utmost importance that all FBI, employees adhere to department and FBI policies, particularly one can
fronted by what appeared to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure what was not permit. It was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information obtained during the course of employment in order to achieve a personally desired outcome and the Doj declined to prosecute. But that is bad news for James Comey, and it also does speak to real question. Is that folks have about the honesty and objectivity of the FBI? It is just another black mark for the FBI on the left. The suggestion was that the F b I went after Hillary Clinton too hard on the right. The suggestion is that the FBI basically concocted the Trump Russia Investigation to go after the Trump campaign under the Obama administration, and we still are waiting in oh ig report about the origins of the Trump Russia investigation. There are two plausible theories about the origins of the Trump Russia Vesti Gation plausible theory. Number one is that was initiated in good faith based on in
information received by the FBI that there were several low level aides to the Trump campaign were me ing with russian sources and to the did the investigation, and then it spun out of control that confirmation bias people like Peter, struck and LISA page at the FBI who hated President Trump and who were deeply suspicious of him. They started to find information where they were seeing it, and then they were just looking for data and they found the data they were looking for it didn't matter. They were missing the entire forest. They spotted the trees that they wanted. They honed in on those trees right that his theory number one initiated in good faith but pursued wrongly theory. Number two was initiate it always in bad faith that basically, the FBI received information via the Hillary Clinton campaign, and then they initiated the investigation based on a desire to harm the Trump campaign, and they were planning to spring that on the Trump campaign late in the campaign, if they thought that he was going to, they thought that is going to win or post campaign. If, if he actually did win right, that is there a number two and we'll find out which one of these is true. What is certainly true is that faith in the F
buy in the competence core competence of the people at the highest level in the FBI has to have been taken by all of this mean seems to me was the head of the FBI, and it turns out that not only was he incompetent, he was happy to violate departmental policy in order to in order to pursue his own final agenda, which is exactly the accusation that critics of the FBI on the behalf of Trump are making, which is that the FBI is sometimes politically driven by the way left has had similar criticisms of the FBI going all the way back to the FBI target Martin Luther King Junior right. So this is a bad time for the FBI. Andrew Mccabe is the acting FBI. Director ends up getting fired for doing the same thing. He had leaked information to the media that he thought would help him and help his bosses in his job. He said that he did so at the behest of James Comi, Comi denied it. So the leadership of the FBI has a real problem, and this is not good. I mean if, if we've been talking this whole week about the undermining of faith in institutions, if people in power and institutions to a crap job, it turns out that does a fairly solid job of undermining faith in those institutions overall,
so that report very bad for Jim James Comey, naturally came out and said. Well now, I want an apology, dude you're, not getting an apology from anyone just go, take some more pictures of yourself standing over vistas of grain, such a weird dude, like now James Comey's, entire job, consists of taking instagram photos in front of nature. We watch his twitter feed. His entire twitter feed is like him staring up in a giant redwood or him standing on a road. Well, I guess he can go be a nature photographer or something because is never going to get a job anywhere near the intelligence community ever again, given his malfeasance here, okay. Meanwhile, I have to comment on a couple of pieces in the washing in post yesterday. So apparently was my birthday because the Washington Post decided to run not one but two editorials targeting me yesterday, which is just a party there's nothing. I love better, then just sitting here doing my job and suddenly there a couple of Op Eds in the washing in post, but thank you guys for really making sure that my exposure continues to grow. So
I appreciate that from the Washington Post we'll get to that in just one second, because not only are there too Op Eds that were directed against me they're, both awful, I mean just objective, I'm going to be trying to. I know, look I'm invested in this they're taking me, but I'm pretty sure these are bad up ads. I will explain why in just a moment. First, let's talk about how you sleep better as help as I told you many times, I am not good at sleeping I'm good at some things, I'm not good at others. Can't I don't the jump shot. I'm gonna talk with not good sleeping okay. So how can I make my sleep quality better? Well, I did this by going and getting a helix sleep. Mattress the beautiful thing about a helix sleep mattress is that it is personalized to you. That's quite wonderful. That means you take a two minute sleep quiz and they will match your body type and sleep references to the perfect mattress for you, no matter how you sleep on the side on your back hot sleep or whatever he looks, can make what your body needs just go to. Helix sleep, dot, com, slash, men, take their two minutes, sleep, quick and they will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep
of your life when I'm on the road. I have a really tough time sleeping because I'm away from my beloved looks sleep mattress, it's so good that I got one my sister and her husband upon the occasion of their wedding for couples. He looks, can even flip that mattress down the middle and then I'll give you the individual support, needs and feel preferences that you want for each side. I've got a ten year warranty. You tried out for one hundred nights, risk free, they'll, pick it up for you. If you don't love it, but you will. He looks is offering right now up to one hundred and twenty five dollars off all mattress orders for our listeners. It up to one hundred and twenty five bucks off at helix sleep, dot, com, Slash Ben again, he looks like dot com, slash men for up to one and twenty five dollars off your mattress order. So solid deal risk free, go check it out. I promise it's gonna, make your life a whole hell of a lot better okay. So let's jump into these insane editorials from the Washington Post. So this herein lies the Washington Post argument.
Everyone on the right is Hitler. Everyone is Hitler and they will make this argument till their face. Turns blue. It's one of the reasons why President Trump is president is because everybody who happens to be even slightly right of center is tired of sick of tired of being labeled, a white supremacist of tired of being labelled racist of being labeled, all the bad words in the universe, simply because they disagree with Nancy Pelosi on tax policy and abortion. And as we'll see, the left doesn't understand this. So when people like me say you know, what do you have a conversation with us because we actually agree on white supremacy being evil. We all agree that nazis suck we're all on the same page here. The first response left is, but aren't you a Nazi's, God bless it that you're making my argument for me. My whole argument is that we are having a tough time conversing with one another, and people are getting angry and they're, responding in dramatically reactionary fashion because you
calling them something they are not. If you keep calling people eventually, they just throw up a giant middle finger and the fifth and the middle finger it has a giant sea on it right, that's the front middle finger, that's what it was right! You you when at the right long enough, you keep calling us what you promise, that you can call us now and then Trump was out there. Basically saying you're, all schmucks. I find that guy. Do it eight, so the left's response to this is but aren't you, though, are you not just yet here is the greatest example of this I have ever seen so yesterday in the Washington Post, there's a piece by a woman, even Fairbanks, the piece is titled, the reasonable rebels motives, say: we've abandoned reason and civility. The old South use the same language to defend slavery. Okay, this is literally the Hitler dog argument. This is hit. I had a dog, you have a dog, thus by logical deduction. You are Hitler. What the
actually it turns out. You know who has called for a reason and civility like a lot of people over the course of all of human history have called for a reason and civility, and by the way I would note that the old south- I didn't not make its bones on calling for reason and civility. They made their bones gun firing on Fort Sumter, for God sake they initiated the largest war in the history of the United States, ending with the deaths of six hundred thousand people. That was not reason, instability. Also. No, I know that can service to. They are not like the old South when they call for reason and civility, because I'm not whipping black folks. Well, I'm calling for reason and civility a moron. I don't own slaves, you dumb ass. What are you even talking about it? It is exactly the dog argument. It is exactly the Hitler dog argument. Right Hitler used to eat vegetables. Do you eat vegetables?
Do you do you know more like art? Do you, like our Heller, listen to classical music, you listen to classical music. You keep saying reason: incivility, you know who else used to say re. Only incivility prince between you and the slaveholders is that they held slaves. Yes, that is a big difference. That is a very, very large difference. So I'm not exaggerating this is. This is a very, very long piece making exactly this argument already here. It is after the El Paso shooting Ben Shapiro, a popular conservative podcaster. Thank you very much asked Americans to draw a line between the few conservative is white supremacists and those who, like him, aren't it. First of all, no, I didn't ask Americans to draw the line between the few conservatives or white premises and those like what I I said that it is non conservative by definition, to be a white supremacist, because conservatism is about values. Conservatism is about the sacrosanct nature of the end.
Jewel conservatism is about judging individuals as human beings. It is not about group identity that cuts directly against conservatism, and so no you get it wrong in the first sentence and then it gets worse. Americans are on the same side, he said, and we should be morning together in his telling me aren't for one simple reason too many on the political left castigating the character of those who disagree, dumping, conservatives and political nonconformists together with racists and xenophobes, and then we get to the good part Iv Fairbanks. As I grew up in a conservative family, the people that talk to most frequently the people. I call when I need help. Are conservatives I'm not inclined to paint conservatives thought was bigots yeah, but a few years ago, listening to the voices in arguments of commentators like Shapiro, I began to feel a very specific deja who I couldn't initially identify. It felt as if the arguments I was familiar, I found my googling lines from articles, especially when I read the rhetoric of a group of people. We could call the reasonable right. These are figures who typically dislike president Trump
but often say they're, being pushed right word, sometimes wave from what they claim is their natural leftward, bent by intolerance. Extremism on the left, the reasonable right includes people like Shapiro and radio commentator of Dave, Rubin Legal Amy Wax and Jordan Peterson. The canadian academic warns about identity politics, the social psychologist, Jonathan Height than you times columnist, Barry Weiss and the American Entry Prize Institute scholar, Christina Hoff, Sommers Self described feminists who decry accesses in the feminist movement the novelist bread, yeast Nelson, the podcaster SAM Harris who believed important subjects have needlessly been excluded from political discussions. They present their concerns, as principally freedom of speech and diversity of thought has called them. Renegade ideological explorers who venture into dangerous territory despite outrage in derision directed their way by haughty social gatekeepers. So it felt frustrating when I read Weiss when I listened to Shapiro when I watched Peter Center read the supposedly heterodox online magazine Colette. What was I minds it off woo? I see why they gave her the space in the Washington Post because she was reminded of a thing.
What was the thing she was reminded of Hitler, she's reminded of slaveholders. That's what she was reminded of my childhood home is just ahead. Half hour drive from the Manassas battlefield in Virginia and I grew up intensely fascinated by the civil war. I love perusing soldiers diaries during my senior year in college. I studied almost nothing but Abraham Lincoln Speeches. Well, I wrote my thesis on a key link. Address civil war rhetoric was almost all I read not just out of the sixteenth president, but also that of his adversaries. Thinking back on those debates, I've finally figured out the reasonable rights rhetoric is exactly the same as the to Belham rhetoric. I'd read so much of the same exact words: the same exact arguments, rhetoric to be precise in support of the slave owning south. So I say that we're on the same side, not nazis suck- and she reads from that. I'm a neocon, accurate and so is Barry Weiss, and so is Jordan, Peterson and Jonathan Height. All
saying why don't we have like a conversation and talk about stuff we're just like the people who decided to fight the civil war to secede from United States? Well, insulating millions of black people exactly the same, the same guys because you're crazy, because you're and you're proving my point. My whole point is that you are separating America by calling me a slaveholder, a NEO confederate. You are separating America. That was my entire argument and your responses. But aren't you though, but aren't you confederate seriously? She says if it sounds absurd. Computer his compatriots aren't defending slavery. After all, it may actually be because many Americans are unfamiliar with the south's actual rhetoric. When I was naked in public school, I learned the arguments of Senator John Calhoun, who slavery positive, good and Stevens. The confederacies vice president, who declared that the S's ideological cornerstone rested upon the great truth
that the negro is not equal equal to the white man. But such clear statements were not the norm. Pro slavery rhetoricians talk little of slavery; instead, they know themselves the defenders of reason, free speech and civility. This is such unbelievable horse leap, hey. You know who else called themselves, defenders of reason, free speech and civility abolitionists? Okay, everyone was many people talk this way. Why? Because sometimes conversations a good thing like if she studied the period of the link, the the Antebellum South and be antebellum if she's talking about that period, you know it was one of the things that happened. There is this thing I hate to reminder called the Lincoln Douglas Debates or they had a conversation about slavery, and you know when things went wrong when people started beating the crap out of each other with canes on the floor of the Senate, when people started firing on each other,
when a whole group of people were enslaving in other group of people, that was the big problem, not the conversation guys, not the conversation. Ok, that was the problem, the war to be fought, because some people were holding other people in bondage and they weren't going to give up people who were in bondage without using violence. Hey that is not reason and civility on the part of the south. That's holding people in bondage do not know what slavery is you stupid ass. She says it might sound strange that America's pro slavery is pro itself the guardians of freedom, guardians, minority rights, and yet it did, and yet it did antebellum southern rhetoric Patricia Roberts Miller fester of rhetoric at the University of Texas at Austin, characterizes the story that Avery writers wanted to tell between eight hundred and thirty and 1860s's. Now, one of the men to more power but of David resisting alliance. They stress the importance of logic, facts, truth, science and nature.
Much more than northern rhetoric did. Does she have any like anything back us up at all? She says they tried their adversary here and also does that make it inherently bad to talk about logic, fax, truth, science and nature. Hey there again, this is the this is the problem. She said. Some people use these arguments in bad ways. They use these words in bad ways. Therefore, the very use of the word is bad. What what I mean? I can see why she doesn't like logic. I can see why she doesn't like fats or truth, because they cut really strongly against our argument. She says they what hyperbole events with most extraordinary spectacles, that it ever challenged the notice of the civilized world, two alarming and threatened to destroy all that is valuable and beautiful in the institutions of our country, all over they saw slippery slopes. This argument is literally a is, is a slippery slope argument. Her entire argument is that if you have a
conversation with me, you end up in jail confederate. Her argument is that I and Jordan, Peterson and Jonathan Height are all NEO confederates, which is about because it gets. This is all insane and self defeating. Of course, she says all of their. All of this is there in the reasonable right the claim that they are the little people struggling against prevailing winds. The argument they're the ones championing reason and common sense the allegation that they're interlocking they aren't so much wrong as as excessive they're, just trying to think freely and are being tormented. There will it's an hyperbole in slippery slopes to warn about their adversaries, intentions and powers, the depiction of their orb opponents as in orthodoxy, an epithet, the antebellum S loved. Okay, she is literally making the exact opposite argument of the argument she thinks she's making. So she was saying that all of this sort of rhetoric is unique to the south and also to the reasonable right. She is live really making that argument about the right in this article. Is it like everything that she says was the rhetoric of the Antebellum South is exactly the sort of
she's using in the article itself about her own enemies. She says in Ben Shapiro, who describes right wing anger to unwise left wing product nation. I hear a letter printed in the Charleston Mercury, which warned that if the bad career of the hotheaded abolitionist should lead to acts of violence on the part of those whom they so vindictively assail, who shall be accountable? Not the south. Oh really. Is that what you hear? Really that that's that's where you get that good good for you, lady. And then she goes on to talk about how we're not victims right, I'm not put on the right. Is I've never claimed that the right is a victim. I said that the left wing argument that everyone, the right lacks character, is a nasty crap argument and that this article is garbage that her entire perspective on the character of her opponents is malign, and it is terrible for the country that it prevents exactly the sort of political debate we need to function as public and she says. Is it true that it's career ending to be of the reasonable right,
Shapiro's recent? The right side of history was in New York Times number one bestseller? Yes, you know why not because of CNN, not because of the New York Times because of the Washington Post, but because you have size more than half the country by calling them racist, sexist, bigots and homophobes. So when I write a book that Expl it lead to rides sectional, does a man, tribalism and factionalism and explicitly rips on white supremacy, multiple time, there's a big audience for it? It's it. This article is insane, but don't worry, there's another insane article. You don't like that when I have another insane article for you we'll get to it in just one. Second, first, let's talk about finding the people on your staff. So I'll be honest with you. I have one good producer in one could producer only her name is Rebecca she's, the only serious person who's ever in the room for our shows, all of
the other producers they're good at what they job at their job like half the time and then on Friday they insist on wearing hawaiian shirts. It's very bizarre! Well, if you're looking to upgrade your staff, what you actually need is zip recruiter, dot com, zip, recruiter, dot com, Slash Dailywireinfo, back zip recruiter sends your job postings over one hundred of them leading job boards, but they don't stop there as apple things, come in zip, recruiter, analyzes, each one and spotlights the top candidates. So you never miss a great match. Zipper is so effective that four out of five employers, who post on did you get a quality candidate through the site within the very first right now my listeners can try zip recruiter for free at this exclusive web. Address zip, recruiter, dot com, slash daily wire, that is zip, recruiter, dot com, Slash D, a I L Y W. I r e zipper critter dot com, slash daily wire zipper. The smartest way to hire honestly everybody here is is fairly good and we're constantly adding new producers were constantly hiring and that's why we do use zip recruiter, dot com slash daily wire, but I want
everybody except for back in another job- is not safe, zip, recruiter, dot com, slash daily, why once again, zip recruiter dot com, slash DA I L Y W, I r E Rebecca, drew the short straw on that ad today, so so Rebecca is one of my insured today that totally undercuts my the premise of that ad rates. In any case, back to this article from the Washington Post, I love this. They say many reasonable right. Figures find themselves defend the liberties of people to the right of them, not because they agree with those people they say, but on principle they have Princip. You know who else had principles? Do you yeah principles? What the SAM Harris a popular podcast host has released. Three Lanka lengthy shows about Charles Murray, a political scientist was often booted campus speeches. His two thousand and seventeen talk at Middlebury College ended when students injured his host Murray argues that white people
test higher than black people on every known test of cognitive ability and that these differences in capacity predict white peoples predominant. Well, actually, that's not exactly what Charles Murray argues and if you read his books, what you would record is that he explicitly says that I could differentials among races are at least largely not due to genetics. Since we don't actually know what IQ differentials based on race are based on his malleability in IQ, not total malleability, but some malleability and I could be environment, it could be nutrition, it could be. A variety of factors could be, environmental could be genetic, he doesn't know, and that's what Charles Murray says, but SAM Harris is point is we actually have 2in estimate science and then use the best data available when we make arguments and she's saying that SAM Harris, defending Charles Murray, on the basis of we need to invest great science mean that SAM Harris is in NEO Confederate. His claim is implausible. Hundreds of scientists produced controversial work in the fields of race, demographic
in a quality. Only one, though, is the social scientist nationally notorious for suggesting that white people are neatly smarter than people of color well, because he wrote a best selling book on I q. That would be the why right there, but apparently she says, because Harris chooses to invite this one on his show suggest he is not merely motivated by freedom of speech. It suggests he is interested in what more he has to say. Ooh he's interested in social scientists examining data wow, that is, that he's a NEO confederate racist, obviously so much confederate racism, racism everywhere. So again, this piece started by pointing out that I suggested that we're all on the same side against white supremacy and that it is bad for left to declare everyone a white supremacist, because that separates us artificially and her responses. So who would say that white Supremacists
well done Washington Post, you stupid man? I want a course like Dave Chappelle here you stupid, M efforts. I mean really, you guys are just terrible your jobs, but we're not done so that what I told you there were two editorials in the Washington Post. That was only one of them. I got another one for you. Okay, you ready this one is just as good. It turns out aside from reasonable conversation. Being bad also debate is bad debate is also bad, so this article is by Donna's Sucker Burg, a Silicon Valley based classics, scholar and the author of it, not all dead white men. She says the problems with on online debate me: culture, woman, who regularly expresses ideas on the internet, especially women, who express ideas. Critical of men has in count that bane of online discourse, the man will appear seemingly out of nowhere to insist on a debate who scary men wanting debate. Catcalling is a as he would put it
because, as we all know, the most vicious form of sex will abuse and harassment is to say, let's have a serious talk about marginal tax rates. That's how I hit on my wife by the way, that's how I first got started. She was walking about like I want to talk about some top marginal tax rates. I'd cut your it'll gain status. Let me tell you that one of the bay, the death penalty, that actually did happen on our second day. In any case, kids, this idiotic Washington Post column, the second one again on the same day, they're so good at their jobs. They say a classic example. Came a few weeks ago, after Barstow Sports founder and President Dave Portly threatened on Twitter to fire his workers, we tried to unionize after representative AOC joined the chorus of critics, suggesting that such threats violated labor law, Portnoy, fired back, hey else. Welcome to Thunderdome debate me. She ignored the request and a follow up tweet. He naturally suggested that she had run
from the challenge like a terrified child, apparently he's the bad guy, so she attacks his business suggested he's a criminal. He says: fine, let's have a debate over. It he's very evil. He initiated this, you see she yelled and then he was going to go to jail, and then he was like ok, let's debate about this and what a bad man he is very bad he's. The only bad man- and this is where I come in Ocazia Cortez- is a popular target of debate. Me dudes can be high profile, media figures or not entities in August, two thousand and eighteen. The radio in daily wire editor in chief Ben Shapiro, offered her ten grand to argue with him in a public forum well actually offered ten grand to appear on the Sunday special, which is anyone who has ever watched the Sunday special recognizes, is not actually a debate for him. It's actually a discussion for him. I know the left doesn't know the difference. She refused likening. The challenge to a cat call unworthy of a response, because that's may I am famous for my cat calls, the Orthodox Jew who slept with one woman in his life after he was married. That's my thing. I can't call women
all the time ask around the office man. It is me I am just that's. That's all. In fact, I just hire women like cat call them. That's like Mitt Romney have a binder full of them. Shapiro has long made to bait me part of his public persona, nonsense. Nonsense. I've debated a multiplicity of left wing finger figures ranging from piers Morgan on guns on CNN to Tranq Iger over a politican challenged. I believe precisely two people to debates ever one was a oc when it became clear that she was the fresh face so fresh, so things that credit party, the other, was Bernie Sanders was a man as it turns out. So it's not sexual harassment number one. I was not sexually harassing a number two. I certain they would never harassed sexually harass Bernie Sanders. It seems we in variety of ways
getting both men and women, although he himself has ignored debate requests. Yes, that's true, I have ignored many debate requests because again you know what happens in a free country, people challenge each other to debates. Some people say no. Some people say yes. This is not a bad thing, but according to this article in the Washington Post, it's a very, very bad thing, ah, very evil and very bad thing, and you know who is the worst? Here's where the article gets spectacularly great. You know who was the worst when it came to debate me culture and wanting to be a people. Socrates, Socrates is canceled, I'm not kidding. That's where this classic scholar goes. Apparently they were right to hemlock that old, Bastard, Washington, post man. They are great at their jobs over the editorial page. We'll get some more of this stupidity in just one. Second, first, let's talk about going to the post office. So the truth is I kind of like the post office, but it takes a lot of time to get there to get back. I have to spend money on gas. I have to wait,
and why would I do any of that stuff? I'll be frank with you, I am lazy and I like to do stuff from my computer. If you are like me- and you are also lazy and like you, save money and do stuff from your computer, you should be ing stamps dot, com, stamps, dot, com, all the amazing services of Us Postal Service, direct, your computer, there, a small office sending invoices and online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, stamps dot com we can handle it all with ease, simply use your computer to print official US postage. Twenty four slash, seven for any letter, any package, any class of male anywhere. You want to send it once your mail is ready and just hand it to your mail carrier or you drop it in the mailbox. It is indeed that simplestamps dot com is a no brainer. It saves you time it saves you money, no wonder over seven hundred thousand small businesses already use stamps dot, com, stamps, dot, com again save yourself a lot of time and a lot of money. I don't like going the post office anymore, 'cause, it's so much easier to do it right here right now, my listeners get a special offer that includes a four week. Trial, plus free postage,
send a digital scale, no long term commitment just go to stamps dot, com click on the microphone at the top of the home page and type in Shapiro at a stamps dot com enter Shapiro as your code already going to get you more from the illustrious Washington Post editorial page in just one. Second, Socrates guys is cancelled. Socrates, I'm sorry to inform you that one thousand years after his death, he has now been canceled, and it turns out that they were right to demand his suicide. According to this columnist for the Washington Post, because I once said that a OSI should discuss politics with me and so did Dave Portnoy, which is bad very, very bad. Can't do that get some more of that in just one. Second, first, you need to go over probablywear dot com. Why should you do this thing? You should do this thing because cancel culture is coming for everyone, including for this show, but you help protect us by becoming subscribers
we're growing by leaps and balance, our team and you should join up also because you get all sorts of goodies. For example, you get our Sunday special on Saturdays, which is pretty spectacular, so you should go check it out. We have a clip from this week's Sunday special okay. So let's play that thing. Everything that the left is trying to do is a threat to who we are as the nation. Everything that we are built on. All the principles that were built on is on the line when it comes to the poly sees that the radical left is putting forward, and if we don't stop those the next generation, our children and our grandchildren aren't going to know the same America that we know if you recognize that voice. That is indeed Liz. Wheeler. It's a good, far ranging conversation on politics. We disagree about Trump and his tweets she's a big fan. As you know, I am a little more divided on that question, but the discussion is really good. You get that early. When you become a subscriber, you also get all sorts of great stuff behind the will end. It is that glow
this time of the week when I give a shout out to a new daily wire subscriber today, it is Hunter Knox on Instagram who clearly respects are showing up to dress up for viewings in the picture hunter. I handsome german shepherd sits at the coffee table, dining a fantastic american flag, bow tie in elite beverage vessel at the ready right next to a laptop emblazoned with TED Cruz for Senate and taxation is theft stickers. That is one smart dog, good doggy. The caption reads: Hunter wakes me up in the morning to get to one get fed to get let out three watch the Ben Shapiro show. We can't wait for daily wear to move to the best country in the United States hashtag leftist years. Tumbler hashtag, tough as Texas, Texas, truly, is a fantastic place, and that is a spectacular dog, great picture, and thank you for sharing. You too can be future or your pet could be featured over, but if you have a pet, as we have already discussed, this means you're like Hitler. Hitler also had a dog. So if you have a pet, if you have a pet and you want to take a picture, your pet next, it, the tumbler- you have a great- are people who select.
I really like the pets, so go check that out right now, at leftist years, Tumblr also more good news for you. The daily wire has turned four years old. As a thank you to our fan. We are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses the code birthday for all of August. As we see liberate this milestone, we've been giving away that free first month for our new premium monthly subscribers bad news August is over like right now so go. Do it right now again, just use the code birthday time is quickly running out. There's only one day left one day more to get this deal so subscribe today and come join the fun having such a good time everybody's wearing hawaiian shirts. That could be, you check us out a daily wired dot com, where the largest fastest growing conservative podcast in radio show in the nation uhhuh. So, as I say, this Washington, Post, Op Ed continue with us. They then decide that debate me culture. You know where you say we should have a debate or discussion.
That's real bad and you know who is the best example of a person who is constantly trying to bait people that old bastard Socrates at jerk. You know the guy from Plato's republic, who is of the foundational figures of western civilization, that guy really bad. It turns out really messed up. According to this brilliant classics, scholar that sucker in the Washington Post the editor of an online publication that runs articles about the intersections of classical antiquity in the modern world, often from a feminist and progressive perspective. I've got my fair share of debate me challenges. Any of these have come after. I began writing about far right interest in ancient Greece and Rome in two thousand, and sixteen talking some of my would be adversaries on Twitter seem to just energize them and convince them. I was afraid to engage a poor. You poor, you poor baby. A call to debate may seem intellectual, even civilized in theory. Well, Sir ruptured and respectful debates are an ideal opportunity to reach an audience that isn't fixed in its views. In reality, however, most debate me types
seemed to view the mainly as a chance to attack their opponents. Credibility. Their model is not Lincoln and Douglas, but rather Socrates, wow terrible using Socrates is a model also just to get this straight. Apparently. According to that, you guys like walk down the hall to that other Op Ed columnist, because the other was saying that Lincoln Douglas Debates were bad because a lot of slaveholders he wanted reasonable civil discussion. Now this one is saying that Lincoln Douglas debates. Those are over slavery by the way the Lincoln Douglas Debates were good, but Socrates was bad. So can you make up your mind like which discussions and debates are allowed from classical literature? And you make up your mind? She says: Socrates was bad by middle he's cancelled by nibbling their interlocutors with rapid fire questions. They aim to reveal, as they see it, their opponents, ignorance and stupidity and their own superior intelligence and logic. Then she talks about how one time a white Nationalist Youtube personality decided to appear in her twitter mentions and insisted that she called the classics. Inherently fascist should.
My actual nuanced argument is that the long in measurement of the classics and white supremacy both Nazi Jew money and then the pre civil WAR American South, continues to in form how we understand the ancient Mediterranean Mediterranean that progressive, classical scholars should discuss that legacy and confront it. It is no surprise that someone like this is my ignored, withdrawn stoicism, which has emerged as the favorite philosophy both of corporate executives and the far right uh the Stoics Arcand Old, Marcus Aurelius has canceled guys this. This caller says it. I guess we're done. She says these modest men also identified with Socrates. The original debate me troll show Socrates pulling any number of Athenian since debates and although some are eager to argue with him, others can hardly wait to ask him by the end of the dialogue. Plato's you rip throw concludes with rip through insisting he has to leave. While Socrates calls after him complaining, they haven't yet figured out the nature of piety. Many of the dialogues end when the interlocutor has been bludgeoned into submission and seems to find it easier to agree with. Socrates. Then continue further. Every debate me man's dream. Soccer
tease is canceled. Guys, Socrates is canceled. It's just this is so insane is, but there is a deeper agenda. Okay, the deeper agenda is, we can't have discussions right. That really is the deeper agenda. If you call for a reasonable discussion, it's cause you're a Nazi. Also, if you say, let's discuss or debate it's because you're, like Socrates and saw SAW ocrates was a pre nazi, so you're a Nazi. In other words, there is no argument to be had with you, because the very very fact that you are asking for a reasonable conversation shows how unreasonable you are. You see and the very fact that used to engage with you shows how reasonable I am on the left because premise, reinforced you're, a bad person guys. And then, when all of us out here like ok, okay, well, I guess we can have a conversation with you right now. You don't have a conversation with me. You're bad people, you. Obviously this is not good for the country. It's actually kind of dangerous to suggest that every one of your political opponents actually is a white supremacist for wanting a reasonable conversation or that if somebody says
you know what you have a different idea than I do, let's get together and discuss it or debated publicly that that is inherently an act, violent male oppression. How the hell do you think republicanism works. Discussions are inherently, but this is unfortunately becoming a thing on the left and I'll provide you. A perfect example is there is a really fascinating study that came out yesterday, hey, I know about the study a few weeks in advance because I I it actually talk with one of the people who helped conduct the study, who is not on the political right eight well. This study was all about the genetics of same sex sexual now. My perspective has always been that homosexuality homosexual activity in orientation that this was like most uman activity, a combination of genetics and environment. I was never a believer because the evidence did not support it, that you quote unquote born this way in a binary way, meaning that genetics determines one hundred percent of your sexual orientation. I think for some people that may be true
for the broad majority of people. That is not true, that genetics interact with environment interact with epigenetics and that you come out sort how you come out right. I mean that that seems like a perfectly reasonable position and the fact that there are already twin studies that showed that, among genetically identical twins, only half of those you medically identical twins ended up either, both straight or both gay right. When you had one gauge win half the time, the other twin was straight, which suggests obviously that this is not genetically encoded, the same way that, for example, race would be, but if you are genetically identical one of those black genetically, I do tickle the other one of you will be black right. I mean that's just the way that genetics works okay, so this new study comes out and the new study. Basically, we suggest that this stuff is kind of nuanced, just like most things in life, and this should not be particularly controversial. Frankly, they should not be like a big deal, because what exactly does it undermine? I mean? Is it the suggestion now that we should
now prosecute people again for homosexual activity, like that? Doesn't undermine the libertarian argument that, if you're doing something consensual that doesn't harm anybody else, you should be able to do what you want, but the left is very unhappy about this study very, very unhappy. So what does this study say? Well, there's an op ed about it by Stephen Phelps and Robert widow. Phelps is a biologist. We douse a sociologist in geneticist in the New York Times, and here is what the study found. A study published Thursday in science looked at dna and sexual behavior of nearly five hundred thousand people and found that the sex, your sexual partners is in fact influenced by your genes, but it also found it was not possible to predict your sexual behavior from your dna alone. The study suggested, in other words, that biology shapes our most intimate selves, but it does in tandem with our personal histories, with the idiosyncratic cell. Is that unfold in the larger cultural and social context? The researchers who included one of US doctor, Widdow analyze, the Jeanette markers of people who responded to the question, have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex from these data? The researchers estimated that genetic differences account
roughly one slash three of the variation in same sex, behavior, okay, so not an extraordinarily high percentage like eighty percent, it's not ninety percent. It's like one slash three and, as the study actually says, somewhere between eight percent and twenty five percent, the study also identified several dna sequence variants associated with having had a same sex experience. In other words, there's not a gene that turns on and now you're, gay or you're straight instead, their genes that that rain from associations with more risky sexual behavior to to sort of a certain level of fluidity in terms of sexual desire. Again, all of this is nuanced, which is fine and can be nuanced right. So, yes, your sex life is influenced by your genes. Again, I'm not sure who is arguing. Your sex life is not influenced by your genes. I mean, I think that again, as biological entities would be bizarre, if your sex life was not influenced by your jeans at all the tire binary argument that either you are born, one hundred percent this way or you're born one hundred percent. This way- and you just choose to be gay or something I always thought it was a dumb argument and a waste of time. This conclusion fits with our
personal experiences and intuitions sexual is typically stable. Someth, we are often are aware of from our first longings. Furthermore, one of the several dna variants identified in Thursday study is involved in GO development which accords with previous research that I think sexual orientation so hormone exposure. But the studies findings also complicate the relationship between genetics and sexuality. For one thing, the results make clear there: those single biology of sexual behavior. It turns out, for example, that the jeans influencing same sex behavior in females are often different from those that shape behaviors in males okay. It also turns out that the genes associated with having a case same sex experiences are unlinked to having exclusively same sex experiences, so in other words, people who are bisexual have a different genetic profile. Then people who are exclusively homosexual or people who consider themselves straight but have straight into same sex territory, briefly have a different genetic profile than people who exclusively are interested in same sex experiences. In addition, only occasionally have same sex partners tend to have genetic
variance associated with having more sex partners overall and with personality traits like openness to new experience, which makes perfect sense again. If you are a person who is it experimenting, you would imagine that your genetic profile would probably be more risk seeking right. In contrast, the study found that exclusively same sex behavior had little correlation with the biology of personality for some people same sex, behavior- maybe a form of exploration for many others. It is not okay, so this seems like a study that is interesting. It does give why to the lady Gaga baby, I'm bored this way. Therefore, I have no influence over my human behavior kind of stuff, but it doesn't under any of the arguments for it same sex civil rights, for example. It doesn't undercut the Liberty Aryan argument again. The non harm Js Male principal John, Stuart Mill Principle that you should be able to do what you want so long as you're, not hitting me in the nose right what it does do. Is it undercuts one of the key arguments that the has been holding for forty years, and that is not true by evidence, and that argument is again that
sexual orientation is just as genetically encoded as race. Injustice by an binary away in the sexual orientation is just as immutable as race, which again was fairly obviously not true, because we have seen generationally is vast changes in sexual behavior and I'm not even talking homosexual or bisexual versus straight I'm talking, even within straight communities, you've seen vastly more sexual partners the last forty years. It was that or environmental. I had something to do with the environment. We're seeing dramatic, esque nation in same sex. Experimentation in recent years. Is that a great shock considering how the media has portrayed this sort of exploration? No, not really I mean the only people who are undercut by the sergeant are the folks who suggest, on the one hand, that sexuality is entirely a choice, which is not true. I mean it is. Your drive is not entirely a choice and the people who suggest that sexual is not at all a choice for anyone that it
is entirely ingrained in genetically based, entirely know. Environmental, no choice, aspect of it at all, it turns out again like most things in life, is a nuanced topic. Now. Why is this important? What's important number one, because it does have some public policy ramifications. So, for example, you are a young person who is experiencing same sex design here and you don't want to experience same sex desire, and so you go see a psychologist to talk about that. The entire lot says waste of time. You can't do that. It will damage you, it's really bad. The evidence is not necessarily there for that when this is why the left likes to when it talks about, for example, gay conversion therapy they like to go to elect shooting people which is insane and ridiculous and horrible they're not talking about the seventeen year old who's conflicted about sexual desire and they have desires in multiple directions and wants to talk to somebody about it right. But more than that, the reason that this is relevant is because there is a push by the left to shut down the study. Yes,
New York Times piece today how many genes influence of same sex sexuality, not a single gauging the pieces by PAM about. And Benjamin Neil a geneticist at the Broad Institute of M, I T and Harvard one of the lead researchers. He said. I hope the science could be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same sex behavior is now again. Natural and normal does not mean moral in the traditional religious sense, because lots of people have lots of desires that not necessarily mean that the billing, those desires in action is not simple, but sure I mean, if you want to say genetically normal, let that at least it is genetically based was certain extent. Of course, that's true. Homosexual activity exists in the animal kingdom as well. Benjamin you as it's written into our genes and it's part of our environment. This is part of our species, it's part of who we are okay, that's fine and then again I don't really see the problem with that, but there is a problem with study and it's the left of even before its publication, Thursday. In the journal science. The study has generated eight and concern, including with
the renowned broad institute itself. Several scientists are part of the Lgbtq community. They were worried. The findings give ammunition to people who need to use science to bolster biases and discrimination against gay people, in other words, shut down the science because it might not achieve the result we want. If the results had been that there is one gauging and that sexual orientation is immutable on changing an entirely genetically base, not entirely environmental, then you release this the findings, but it cuts against that. Then you can't release the findings because it undercuts our argument. Here's an idea have a better argument that plenty of good arguments for same sex civil rights. I've made a bunch of libertarian argument on that basis. I think those are perfectly valid arguments, they're worthy of debate and disagreement. But if you're basing your bad arguments on bad science, maybe should change your argument instead of trying shut down. The science, unfortunately, is the tendency of a lot of people on the left. No debate, no discussion. Whenever things get
for your see, you just try and shut it down, shut that stuff down, cancel it down. Riley, geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who's on the Steering Committee of the Institute, Lgbtq affinity groups, said quote: I deeply disagree about publishing this. It seems like some. We could easily be misconstrued in word without any discrimination understanding. Human behavior is a noble goal, but we don't live in that world. In other words, the narrative should trump science. This is not a scientist is a political activist. In the whole goal of science is to achieve objective, verifiable facts about the world that we can operate within those facts, and you can still pursue exactly the same agenda that you're pursuing Steven Riley, but maybe for arguments have to suck less. Maybe your arguments should be based on. I don't know the science, since you are, in fact a Jeanette assist. Discussions between Doctor Neil's team and colleagues who questioned the research continued for months, Dr Neil said the team which included psychologists and sociologists. You suggestions those colleagues in outside Lgbtq groups to clarify wording and highlight caveats: that's amazing,
so they were pre screening. The results with activist groups can imagine this happening on the right. Can you imagine it truly pre screening scientific results with advocacy groups for a particular political narrative. This is insanity. It truly is we're, seeing this happen more and more broadly, if they're doing it in science, they will certainly do it in politics. They'll do it anywhere. Neil is gay. Okay, Doc, Neil, who is one of the leads on the study, is gay. He said I definitely from people who are kind of. Why do this at all, and so there was some resistance there. Personally, it's gonna be deliberately misused to advance agendas of hate, but I do believe that the sort of proactive way we've approached this and lot of the community engagement aspects that we've tried were important. The moment it was published online Thursday afternoon. The broad institute took the unusual step of posting essays, Doctor Riley and others who raised questions about the ethics, science and social implications of the project. Call researcher at the Broad institute said quote as a queer person
and a geneticist. I struggled understand the motivations, the genome, Wide Association study for non heterosexual behavior. I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms, since, when is the study of science about the potential benefits versus the potential harms? Really, there is a solid case to be made in the eighteen fifties by every religious person across the world. The potential benefits of discovering evolutionary biology outweighed that that that the the harms outweigh the benefits should that have shut down the study of evolutionary biology in no way should that happen. But this is the left censorious nasty attempting to shut down debate in dramatic ways pretty incredible again. That's so he does not undermine any of the case for same sex rights at all on a libertarian basis, but you can't make the argument the same way. You are making it before so change. Your argument guys don't shut down the science, and now
it becomes. If you even discuss this stuff publicly, then you will be talked about as a NEO confederate, because after all, discussing publicly, as we have learned, makes you announcing unbelievable stuff, okay time for things I like and then a quick thing that I hate so things that I, like my wife and I I've been going through all the old, Alfred, Hitchcock movies and so the other night we watch a Vertigo Vertigo has become sort of a a it's. It's become a fascinating piece, because so many people, I think over Rey this film. Some people write this the best film ever made. I don't see that at all it certainly got some creativity to the direction of it. Jimmy Stewart is great innit. Jimmy Stewart is a really underrated actor just as an actor, but the film is good and interesting. It is very slow if you watch a lot of Hitchcock's older films. They tend to be pretty slow. Here is a little bit of the trailer for Vertigo, which is still as enjoyable as it go feeling of dizziness a swimming in the head,
figuratively, a state in which all things seem to be engulfed in a whirlpool of terror as create by Alfred Hitchcock. In the story that gives new, meaning to the word suspect, all of the all of the old previews are so cheesy and wonderful. So you should go check out vertigo if you have time. Also I'll give you a preview of next week's things I like, if you have time over, we can go watch Dave, Chappelle, special because WO. I cannot believe that dude got away was saying that some okay time for a quick thing that I hate I'll tell you the thing that drives me absolutely up. That is corporate virtue signaling. So one of the new things is that corporations personal of capitalism always wins right. Capitalism always wins because the capitalists are going to find a way to profit off
of your own desire to virtue signal. So do you really think that Cadbury Chocolate is involved in the anti racism fight like who thought who looked at the chocolate bar and they're like this chocolate bar seems like it doesn't care about racism enough and who does that exactly so Cadbury has now pushed, but they called the unity bar the unity bar which, like what are we going to have I'm waiting for rock no dot com to engage in racial statements about like mufflers? Why would you expect your corporations to engage in political, eight minutes about Rick? I think we can all fairly assume the Cadbury opposes racism since pretty much everybody dies. Who is a good heart, and I know reason to suggest that the Cadbury, like the the old kind of eggs, the chocolate eggs it does suggest some deep dark plot against by people. In any case, Cadbury pushes the unity bar in India, and we have a little a bit of their ad for this.
It's in India's first chart chocolate, dark, blended milk white, it's a bar that has united in one bar and in one bar amazing the unity bar guys universe. There are a couple of problems with this made to celebrate India and her people, because sweet things happen when we unite a couple of problems with this are segregated at all of all of the squares are in their proper place. It makes it all in swirl it all into one melting pot of chocolate. No, you have the dark chocolate on the opposite end of the White Chocolate and can't come anywhere near each other. They're separated, dramatic Klay by race, their unity bar was kind of a failed also. It is amazing to me, if you're buying your product, based on the virtue signaling of your corporate of the corporations that pushed push this sort of stuff you're an idiot. If you, I believe that Nike cares about Colin Kaepernick kneeling your moron
about, and I can't tell you shoes if you really think that Cadbury is like sitting in the back office going. How do we fight racism today? I know the unity bar as opposed to a lot of people out there, keep talking about this racism and you know, be a viral marketing campaign. If we did something about racism, which do you think, is more accurate,. But hell you wanna, buy a chocolate barks and makes you feel good about yourself by getting all fat enjoy yourself. Alright will we'll be back here a little bit later today for two additional hours of content. Otherwise, we'll see you on Monday. What we won't actually forget it, I'm not senior on Monday, will see here on Tuesday. This is the best show, and if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and if you want to help spread. The word. Please give us a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe to we're available on Apple podcast, Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts, also be sure to check out the other daily wear podcast, including the Andrew Clay than show the Michael all show, and
that Matt show. Thanks for listening, the Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling directed by MIKE Joyner executive producer, Jeremy, boring senior producer, Jonathan, they are supervising, producer is Mathis Glover and our technical producer is Austin. Stevens edited by its audio is mixed by Michael Mina, hair and makeup by Joshua Olvera Production assistant Nick. She him Ben Shapiro Show is a daily wire production. Copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen we'll show we're not just discussing in politics we're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you so come join. The conversation.
Transcript generated on 2019-09-14.