>> host: had the privilege and the joy of introducing ben shapiro with a new book called "the authoritarian moment." i've got to ask you the most

obvious question but it strikes me as not unimportant, your title "the authoritarianrt moment." it strikeses me as chilling and why is your book entitled "the authoritarian moment"? >> guest: what we are experiencing is this moment in time which is unique in american history the rights of the militant authoritarian movement in the united states seems to have taken over all of ourr institutions and i wanted to tackle the institutional takeover because people think of authoritarianism they think of it as pure government government in taking control of everything but the point is we are all experiencing it together not just the government has decided to take control over all of our allies because obviously that's not true. they are controlling every aspect of our life. it's really more about social

authoritarianism that we see all around us and that we can all feel on a day-to-day level great on social media from her bosses, that mail you is created, a feeling of oppression in the united states being held by a broad majority of americans and again i think it's a neat product. >> host: i think the older one is the more horrifying the current moment is and the more obviously an american it is to feel the way many people feel in that a lot of younger people just because they don't have the history that this may seem normal or they don't understandd how one precedent that it is for such a wide swath of americans to suddenly feel as they have to be careful what they say. in the book you talk about how

some people try to silence what you call the majority. i want to ask you about that but before that in the beginning of the book you talk about how we have to define who were the authoritarians. a lotit of people on the politil left which has become the left mostly they say viator at -- authoritarian impulses exclusively on the right and they cite what happened on january 6. how do you answer those folks? >> i'm not going to pretend that there are to our tans on the t right. they represent a small minority of a fragment of the country and they have no support. i do find authoritarianism pairs of phenomena that the left talks about a lot this idea being if you are rule following personen and you wish to help others all of the rules this is what makes

you in a dora terion on the right that there's a lesser-known phenomenon. for longtime social scientists said there was such a thing as left-wing authoritarianism. it was not connected in a way to a laura terionism. we know there 20 of left-wing authoritarians but because there are so many social scientists link to the left to the left there's a market attempt to avoid defining authoritarianism rather enough toar allow for the possibility of authoritarianism on the left. there was a political scientist who said there were three basic components in one basic components and one with this idea of anti-convention everybody who is not of my moral standard is somehow inferior and this obviously on the left edge if you don't believe it you are a racist sexist homophobe and your perspective you are not fit

company for anyone else and then there's the second element and that is top-down -- the idea that you have to be censored because of this and we will use it to shut you up to protect everybody else. and third there is an element of revolutionary koreshan that's connected to left-wing of laura terionism the idea being institutions need to be torn down.on the fusion of all of these things into traditional democratic party ideology and institutions have to be renamed and reset the idea that we needed to be if we you don't believe the way we do the notion that we don't give the institution they need to fire you or take you off facebook so decency may thrive all of these are aspects of left-wing authoritarianism. >> host: it's fascinating to

make cultural memory is so important anyone who's aware of what happened in the 50s in hollywood automatically and i think this is carried to the decades we tend to think of this kind of hager of blacklisting is fundamentally un-american and typically used against anyone on the left but it you describe in the book and what we have observed in america in the last few years it's precisely the opposite and they are scarcelyy any reference to the mccarthyist blacklisting that happened in the 50s. like it was just wiped away but there are parallels. >> guest: the reason for that goes back to -- as suggested in order to preserve democracy and liberalism that had to be something called reflective

tolerant that bad opinions are tolerated but that opinions mightd win and we have to reprs certain views in order to be more tolerant and right-wing views are intolerant and terrible and therefore they need to be repressed and when you repress them you are doing so on behalf of power. that's an orwellian twisting of language that becomes part of the go-to argument by so many people in society who say in order to protect brumby ideas we have to silence you. in order that their feelings aren't hurt we have to stop you and that's type more deeply to a change notion of what identity -- identity means. he usedbe to be identity was formed in ordination with politics in court nation with the rules of society and the way you civilized a child keeping a child from barbers and then you

civilized them to societal institutions as this civilized member of society now the idea is you have to find a way to help find her authentic self and authenticity has to be found within. there's a whole group of people who say we don't like the way her acting and then it's an frenchman on the liberty of their identity. their liberty is threatened by the fact that some people disapproved of the way they are acting or they think that they arein saying said disapproval becomes an act of violence and then you require institutions to prevent such acts of violence. >> what you are talking about ia people are listening to every syllable is this idea that somebody might say that because of my religious views because serious question -- christian or jewish or s muslimi have views about sexuality for example. what has changed is i hear you describing it is that kind of

dissent is not something that somebody on the left might frown on that feels the need to cance. and feels the need to force people to be somehow unable in our society to hold those views for somebody that characterizes as outdated. we live in an air of what called expressive individualism where human beings feel that they are owed a certain amount of applause from the world and p people refuse to give that to them at that those people have a grasp on them and that aggression is seen in authoritative measures that people have to be silenced. we havess seen obviously high-profile cases in the united states of people who simply say i don't wish to bake a cake for

a same-sex wedding. in colorado jack phillips was persecuted by the state of colorado taken to the spring court and there's an overt attempt to suppress his ability to live life as he sees fit. if we are going to live in the country together a certain point with this they you get to live your life the way you want to think the way like and i will live the way i like to live and think the way i like to live. the definition of actual harm has to be re-vilified. actual harm is if i harm you and itsm not if i make you feel bad about how you feel about the y world. >> host: it's my contention and they say it on my own radio program that in public speeches that i believe most americans know what you just described. they understand that it's preposterous in america to be

able to get people to think a certain way and to force them to think a certain way and most americansk understand it but is what we might call the culturalg elite in forcing this new idea what i would say is not only un-american an american but anti-american so how do you. define freedom and what are the parameters here so someone tuning in right now would say if somebody has views that i don't like why shouldn't i be able to persecute them oro marginalize them? what are the parameters and what are the limits of that kind of behavior and when does it become authoritarian. >> guest: when his cancel culture appropriate in my basic idea when somebody for example loses their job is when it impacts a job that they are doing in a direct way. if you're a plumber you really don't have or you shouldn't as a

moral human being say that this plumber doesn't get to come to your house if he voted for a person different venue. let's say your perspective is your white supremacist. it's perfectly okay for people to say it don't be gauge of that person because it directly impacts what i do. there's now this threat to turn everything private into something public so now we dig up the facebook notes of your plumber and try to ruin his life. you don't like what he has to say on facebook and that could lead to darksa results posting something that cancelable on facebook or twitter a particularly egregious when these institutions of power doing this sort of stuff especially because it's not i would say morally neutral but very often or corporations have a specific point of view that they wish to mayor and if it's

not aired than you could find yourself in serious trouble so you're working in a corporation ins the middle of the black lis acmatter movement and everyone s posting a black square on your instagram page and you don't put a black square near instagrame page. you could find yourself in the boss's office and may be losing your job because you didn't mirror the priorities of people who work for your company and usually a small minority of people who work in at your company actually care per this is a point that is most relevant here when you look at institutions and how they change changed the renormalization of institution is a term that's used by scientists in the idea that you can take an institution and change the orientation of the institution. with facebook 20% doing all the work and everyone else is -- that's led to radical results from your innovation.

>> this brings to mind at least two things. the first thing, but people started talking about hate speech and i'm not sure when it was her hate crimes that to me was the dividing line. i thought to myself if i murder you because you are jewish and i hate jewish people how is that different than if i murder you because youe are white or becae i was crazy and i wanted to murder someone. what does that have to do with anything when we are talking about the law? that struck me as an odd moment in the culture way someone who committed murder committed a crime mattered and obviously it matters to some extent but in terms of the legality of it it's struck as fascinating that how

that would enter the law and -- >> guest: one of the things that's happened in use can see without legal debate is there's a theory that said hate crime should not get category and is not specific level prosecution based on hatred of race. that's an individual is and maye be ugly but here's why it's white except across united states. people have adopted these are verse these that if somebody -- if an individual right is misused by someone the individual right is to blame. you see this happening right now with regard to social media people who are misusing freedom

ofga speech to post on social media something that maybe folks on the left don't like or maybe there using racist information. there's a hard push to curtail your ability on social media without someone looking over your shoulder. this is a core component of a left-wing authoritarianism it that goes to the topic of censorship the idea of censorship and critical race theory the idea that individual rights are threatening the utopian regime and individual rights have to go away and individual rights are hierarchies of power designed to discriminate against other people. >> host: wee are talking about cultural -- and you've referenced the frank vert school and what strikes me as if sending us these ideasas which e pretty much relegated to the

academy how finally over the decades have trickled down so to speak into mainstream culture in other words the idea that if i don't post the blm square on my social media that somebody might look at me funny in any previous generation that would have struck people as fascists and the kinds of things the did if you didn't say heil loud enough and that kind of thing most americans view instinctively. they knew instinctively that was deeply un-american. what do you think has changed the particular young americans don't seem to recognize that as a threat to government? >> a lot of americans because they have grown up with -- they fail to see the imports of their rights. people on college campuses

whether they complained to a professor or fellowof student isn't something offensive whether they believe this student should be barred from campus, these are say first amendment notions and a huge number of young americans just don't believe in them or believe in economic rights and don't adhere to people and the collectives in charge of economic and big resources and, that -- some of that comes from ignorance but if you grew up in american you've never seen how system works so you have with different view of other systems especially if they have been taught from youth all the flaws of american little of its greatness. there's this idea that their duty in life is to find her appendix to find their appendix up anyone who pats them on the back isfi good and everyone who does not is bad. what we need more than anything else is validation from people around us so people don't delegate you if the economy or the job market doesn't validate

you there's a problem with you. anybody who threatens that has to be silence but it's not that we were guaranteed life liberty and happiness but happiness is defined by us. we are redefining economics and government and it's really dangerous. >> the book of course is entitled to "the authoritarian moment" in their something chilling andli yet hopeful in te title because it strikes me an authoritarian moment is the high point of the way where there's a moment and suddenly enough americans wake up to the significance of what's happening and begin to move against it. i can't help thinking not the least because i wrote a book on the parallel but we are

experiencing out there there was a moment in germany in the 30s where people had the freedom to push back against what they saw. they didn't recognize where it thwas going and they didn't have fixed historical reference to understand where might go. chairman leaders have been basically good so they didn't act when they had that moment to act. i wonder if that's the same today in america when someone gives you social pressure you don't realize how it is and how anti-american it is edwards going so you say nothing for now and then the question is will you be a will to say something tomorrow or will you be totally silent so when you save the torit terion moment in the title you have hope that some americans are waking up to where we are.f >> i think a lot of americans are waking up to where we are.

if you look at chairman history the consolidation of power created and his complete takeover of power. he was operating quasi-dictatorship in 1930s and leading a government government that wasn't as threatening as history was given a go ahead by the huge swaths of the people. that sort of thing is pretty common in human history that the adjournment of destruction is made available and it's only when someone dangers takes it up that it becomes truly dangerous. it's made available and all the institutions of society being weaponized to that particular point of view. right now there's nothing is as the left can't wield thatrt powr so even the left should be scared of the power that's being wilted. you are seeing it in the broad national movement in critical race theory and you're seeing it in the newfound willingness to

advance corporations involving themselves in political predation and political -- i think there is a burgeoning movement even among traditional liberals against some of the stuff but i said before i think the future the company is not going to rely on the hard hard work the conservatives work the conservatives do think the future the company flies with the radical left and the question is where the country lies. you mayg agree with the radical left utopian goals and that ratcliffe's willingness to -- if liberals say we agree with you and things like health care and higher taxes and redistribution of income we agree with all the things that you don't get to destroy it individual rights and get people fired for no reason and you don't get to destroy the whole class because you don't agree.e. we are going to move along with

the left to cut the more important to reach utopia than to observe an open society and things will get really ugly really fast with the complete subjugation of the right. it's going to end with subjugation of the right and there has been more and more talk about this overtime in there's a recent poll that showed people in southeast asia which tend to be more red 50% of republicans in the states are saying we'd be happy to see you keep keep pushing this the hot more they write the -- the left pushes the more the right. >> host: you talk about how to silence the majority. talk about that because a lot of people are wondering how this happened and we care about things like the long march to these institutions which has been happening but suddenly it seems recently people are feeling it and they are feeling it now. 10 years ago, 20 years ago that was in the precinct of the

academy and it wasn't taken seriously and main street america. what happened? >> guest: the answer is we have allowed it to try and put the small minority of people. here's an example. let's say you have a familyeo of four and one of the kids in the family said the daughter decide she's a a vegan did but she coms from jesus listen mom cook whatever you want for dinner but i need -- if she can neither cook two meals one for the three members of a family and a meal for her daughter or she can cook one big vegan meal for the whole family. she may say it's no big deal we will go vegan for one night. now you have one daughter who is in the position and everyone else in the family is going along. a barbecue involves five

families so now this family are doubters begin we have been eating began to support her so we come to the barbecue and the host of the barbecue says i understand people want to meet but do i want to go to the market let's do it all vegan and they do begin for the entire swap and now you have people who are re-normalize by one person. it's a creeping movement where0 you take minorities who are unwilling and a bunch of people who are going along to get along to be nice and that's what has happened to virtually up all of ourwi institutions. aloud minority is threatened people in the middle by saying they will call you racist and sexist and we willl boycott you if you don't go along. if you go along for truth is you are being nice and you really should just be quiet and cordial. you can see it on college

campuses but it went from don't say anything that might offend somebody else on matters of any put akel state. it you're talking about race and you talk about crime statistics people say don't mention that because you'll offend people when you talk aboutt that. don't go there because it offends people. just be cordial and that turns quickly into speech your form of speech is aggressing me. you are doing something that harms me. many of us say why can't you be nice to? your speech is a form of violence when i wentnt to berkey outsideere literally chanting speeches of violence and then you get to the third step. here the idea is not enough.

step two was shut up and listen step one was -- in step two was shut up and listen. step three was a must hear what we are saying and become part of the mob or obviously you are the opposition. either you are going to mirror what we say or we will take the opposition and destroy you. each step of the process doesn't feel like a lot of being alpha view but at the end of the lobster is boiled. plus i think the reason so many americans voted for trump and why so many americans love him and have an emotional connection with trump is that he seems in his way to fundamentally understand what w was happening and was willing to fight against it. a lot of people who want to be seen as civil, they don't

understand there is a time when you need to take that seriously. things have taken it more seriously than most of the republican party. where do you think this goes and where are our politics today because i think your average american who is listening to a conversation like this or does not the time to worry about it they just know it's horrifying and this is fundamentally un-american and maybe they can explain why but if somebody is fighting for these basic values whether in an interested way or not they want to champion that person as a leader. >> guest: i think there's a lot of truth to that. to a certain extent donald trump was basically a lot of people's pulsating middle finger to the establishment.

trump was punching a lot of the people that they wanted punched and trump was the hammer and when he hit the nail was really satisfying. there were a lot of people who -- where so many politicians would say i'm just going to concede the argument. what the republican party and conservative to do and frankly what americans need to do more genoways not make the mistake of identifying civility. it can be civil and you can also stand your ground.no you can say and not owing to use that word or t insult you i'm jt going to stand my ground and say no. i will say no and i don't acquiesce and if you call it racist maybe it's because you are a fool or maybe it's because you don't have any identity. if people begin to do that

whether politically or socially that will make enough the big difference and i think you you're starting to see thist an reflected in the politicians who are rising on the republican side of the aisle. it's been quite militant in standing up to the media. he's not vulgar but he stands up to him. i don't think interpublic and gets nominated again who is perceived as for agility first. that era is over and frankly i think that there should he over because we are long past the notion that the best way to win over people in the middle is by being completely conciliatory with people who disdain your lifestyle to want to change some aspects of your life. >> host: let's talk for a minute about the media's inclusivity in this. i always knew they leaned left

that during the trump era i was continually horrified to see the front page had become an editorial but a horror not that it's an editorial but it's pretending to be journalism. what do you think happened in the american newsroom? it strange to me and journalists class you'd expect people who really understood that there are fundamental values about how we do journalism and how we do democracy. almost no one in the mainstream media or the mainstream journalistic classes have talked about this issue at all. guess that the people who'd do talk about these issues end up losing their job or quitting. in her times was essentially

persecuted. one of the great mistakes made by the country and by conservatives 20 or 30 years ago when people were worried about the trump university they said when they hit the real world it will go away. they'll have to engage with the rest ofes society but what if ty brought those values along with them and normalized all these institutions. that's what seems to be happening in the major newspapers for "the new york times" is run by the nicole hannah jones lang which handles people routinely and when pulitzers for it. if you don't you might undo yourself out. that line could move it anytime and the editorial page editor him might find -- you can be donald met neal and be a science

writer for the near times and find yourself out of a job. on a school trip a while ago you said to a student that there were citizens of -- uses the van word and the newspaper can't fire you over that. this comes to the nature of a bunch of liberals with run these institutions. the problem is liberals who didn't have the courage of their convictions and saying the radicals you don't get to destroy individual rights and individual freedoms and freedom of the press and the abilities think broadly you don't get to destroy that in the name of your agenda. they decided that the wolk have a point. the near times editor says i did

inherit this newspaper so how can i prove his white person say to nicole hannah jones put my standards of individual rights are correct while she iss arguig those rights are arranged and met of the hierarchy and there's this level of guilt and what shelby steele called white guilt and that means there is a lot waiting and surrender caucus. >> host: you believe in god and i believe in god, physical god. you have hope that we can get through this as a country and as a culture and a sure hope strictly limited to the sphere of this world or is your hope anchored in your faith? >> my hope is always anchored in my faith. god makes promises and keepsy

those promises that as far as hope for the country americans ared getting tired of this. it's boring and irritating and so far there hasn't been a mask movement to reject it. i think a mask movement is coming and i can't tell you how many people who disagree on nearly everything about politics i've talked to lately her resume with the message i'm saying. it is that we can't have an open conversation and it is that they want to bite me on the show and the audience getsng so angry. that's untenable. i've had this experience many times personally where people on the left will call for happy birthday problem. on my birthday happy birthday messages from loved roll and left-wingers.

the reason they won't say happy birthday publicly and twitter -- all of your fans might think you are sympathetic to the liberal position. it's pretty dramatic and astonishing so we need for people to consider themselves to say this stuff out loud.lo i talk in the book in the introduction a situation that is a perfect example of this. and actor writer producer and tractor in hollywood e-mailed our company maybe three or four years ago i wanted to do a documentary or show. he said i want to talk to somebody who's pro amendment so i can get their perspective. it's nice that somebody cares enough to want to talk about these issues so he came in and we spent an hour and a hour and a half together we talked through the 2nd amendment.

he said listen for your own good but may give you piece of advice. you got what you needed and nice to meetee you and a couple of weeks later he decided he was going to be a nice guy so he went on twitter into something like i agree with what most of ben shapiro have to say needs a good hearted person and he did me a favor just because he's nice. he got so hit i the left he pulled down his page. he said i didn't realize that i don't side with racism and xenophobia bigotry and i'm still the process of learning. this is happening all the time. when people came after him that's all he had to do was say i'm friendly with him and i don't agree with everything he says but so what are their people on the left who are brave enough to do that.

i've lots of left-leaning people who come on my show and everybody ate the comes on the show would get blowback and the want one to come on the show theybane say go i don't care the blowback and it's over. that's the thing is that's so amazing aboutth this. summarized with i the notion tht the small group of people should be able to cancel anybody and it's that you should lose your job. it's insanell and it's somebody shouting that the emperor emperor has no close particular from the left. >> host: i always think of reagan at the brandenburg gate when he gave the speech mr. gorbachev tear down this wall and the reason i think of that as it strikes me as a m moment of real leadership ther folks at foggy bottom told him over and over and over again you cannot say that. you must not say that.

and he said it. he didn't listen to them even though they tried hard. he simply did it. there were some blowback and then it was over and he's recognized as a hero and a leader in the demons tremble because when you have a leader like that a leader like that can defeat communism and can defeat the evil totalitarianism that was in the soviet empire. seems to me individually pleased to have a class of americans understood that and live like that and that's the reason we are where we are because most people today would say if the folks at foggy bottom say i can't say this i better not say it. what do you think has changed fundamentally and let me say i think it is 50 years of

hollywood singing a different song. we don't have john wayne films. we have a different kind of film that the antihero and on and on and in fact has set up a powerful culture of what people think it needs to be an american that's my guess. d let's go something you mentioned earlier the decline of the legend. so long as you aren't harming somebody you should consider them a member for your community. essentially what we are talking about right now is this authoritarian movement is a religion without god. long time andr aa it's a pagan form of religion and you must be answerable to an ever moving mob. you must continue in that sacrifice otherwise you won't be part of the mob. it's a shifting authoritarian

politics is really ugly. it's the decline of family that's been a serious issue because again when you have a collapse of the family social media has exacerbated this because social media it used to be you had to go out and go door-to-door and be like you know what this thing happened. let's lynch that guy because they are people. you'd have to coalesce around particular cause benign of a mop on line waiting to coalesce. it's easier to mobilize and find it on a national scope. all it takes is one bad thing and they have 10,000 people tweeting at them about how terrible they are and they lose their t job. and when you talk about hollywood there's something there too but i don't think it's necessarily focused on an

antihero i think it's the nature of how heroic has changed. the people who are supposed to the felt for her victims. victimization and heroism become the same thing. normally in a hero's journey joseph carol -- it's an obstacle that they are supposed to be fighting on behalf of something of value. a person is victimized anytime their authenticity is threatened and living your most authentic life is what makes us -- and every hero from her past. we are wrecking statues of george washington. what happened to george floyd is awful and i think everybody says what happened to george floyd was awful but the notion that he

was 80 civil rights hero. he is the victim of police brutality and that does not mean her victims. >> host: i have to ask it seems to me the reason so many apeople are foolishly drifting along with the zeitgeist of the speakers because they don't seem to have the knowledge, they were not educated to understand where this always goes to do anything about what happened with the french revolution and the cultural revolution of china under mao it's so when you see where it goes and what it does to human beings. anybody with any knowledge of those things would see that were we are now that is exactly where does. why do you think people, adults

who are ivy ivy league educated seem to have no idea? >> guest: truly good authoritarianism has never been tried. in the past these things have been used for bad. those who does anybody believe that mao was evil or the people prosecuting his agenda was evil? is there anyng question of that? >> no and that's the point. people are doing this stuff on behalf of angels. for people in the middle the notion of a free and prosperous life that we've been granted building on the shoulders of giants this incredible blessed life that we live it's an

unbelievable privilege. it's proven historically and contextually like it's an amazing place to be and to livee because we take that for granted the verse from the bible comes to me from deuteronomy is what it d is. we are and happy and lazy we have all the things we want and that's the way normality is. normal life is what we have w right now which means any movement for normal can only be good. it isn't just the baseline. this is where the natural statuses and you hear this from the left. one of the dumbest quotes of reseen this is something like prosperity is a natural state of man and poverty is not the natural state of man i thought that is ridiculous but that's the philosophy of so many people indicted state that all the good things we have in the united states is not the product of the

individual right is the natural state of the world. thel individual rights and systems have caused the bad things but no things that are uniquelyal good about america ae not unique. they are universal and all the things that are universal are bad. >> host: everywhere i go i bump into people i from cuba or the former soviet union and they see what we are talking about with crystalal clarity. the reason i see more clearly than my friend is because my mother grew up in east germany and my father grew up where calmness tried to take over after the communist worker they raised me to know how particular wicked and cruel communism is and therefore love america obecause freedom is the antithesis of that. i am kind of amazed at what you

say that americans somehow are so myopic, so blessed that they think this is normal.e they think what we thought it had here is normal rather than a wild idea that shouldn't have succeeded but it did and we should be grateful we should keep theee republic. do you have hope because of where we are now people are waking up to this? >> guest: i think they are. the other day was speaking with someone who is a professor at a major university campus and he came up to me said i disagree with everythingi you say but i wantnt to have conversations wih it and i think my team should have a conversation with you about n it. i've never gotten notes from people a4 who say yeah i used to disagree with all the things you're saying and i disagree with a lot of your politics that i'm living in fear. when he realized people are living in fear that are the

majority and not the minority every single american political group with the exception of people who compare themselves to the far left say they are comfortable to say what they say in public or that includes mainstream liberals. there's a broad majority of the people who are feeling uncomfortable this moment. one is complete surrender and the other is a consolidation of push back. that can't politician and push back and push back comes in a positive way and one of the problems with the authoritarian push from the left is how extraordinary with reactionary directive it is. you could get a reaction that's uglier than liberalism and adherence to individual rights. it could be something that looke more like government and corporations to cram down the values. that would similarly end up with the breakup of the country and many people who were happier in

the right than that prospect and the people of the left are happy with the prospect right now but the question for people that stem cells is do you wish to live in this country with these these people and the answer is yes you have to make a concession that neutrality ought to be the default when it comes to the institutions rather than the institutions being weaponized.he >> which is have a few minutes left. talk about your chapter on science and you have -- so how is it science defeated actual science? >> guest: science itself is a process in every scientist will tell you this.el there's no institution called the science. there's no repository of thehe those lines but there's a scientific russ is that comes to the conclusion that it's either verified or not verified.rt that's normal science and then

every time you jenna but pandemic listen to the science or the time you heard during all the global warming debate they don't mean follow the data and follow the process but what they mean is there's this guy over here and you need to agree with him and if you don't agree you are a science denier and that's crystal clear when it came to covid for example where the science originally you aren't supposed to get together with each other in large numbers. you shouldn't go to church and its dangers because this thing is passed an airborne fashion. within a couple of weeks they switch to as long as you are protesting for george floyd you can v be in large numbers of people. you have a duty to protest for george floyd in the middle of a pandemic. you have scientists saying it's a public health duty to do this and with regard to the vaccine

it was obvious to anybody who followed the date of the best way to give out vaccines weregio the older people first. there was no other calmed down became close. people who are older were the most at risk and yet there is a push and set a biden administration to instead put out the vaccine on the basis of racial equity. we would have given a lot of vaccines to black people so this is aas hijacking of the processf science and legitimacy that we all feel. science is terrific because it has resulted in new jersey very don't see the transitions away from science as a process is about a people who must be listened to at m all points andt leads to specific problems. one is science is speaking outside of their area of expertise and science says i'm in epidemiology is that but i

have real thoughts about racial justice and it undermines science and that leads to what i call the bleed over effect which is where you have people who are political speaking about scientificsc issues and this has an impact where scientific's bring politics into their own science ofes us lead to things like nature magazine declaring there's no such thing as boys and girls and they were only ppublished papers based on the impact of the paper which is totally antiscience or scientist declaring with certainty there is no such thing as biological gender and it's in the mine. if you don't listen to the science this means obviously you're a science denier. >> is horrifying to me to think this is happening in america and the west and because i wrote bonhoeffer and i'm familiar with that period.

it's exactly what happened in germany. there was area and an in national scientists insisted there was this new science of and we don't want to listen to the old science anymore want the jewish scientific peer area and science and so they started pushing preposterous racial dairies t and so on and so fort. this is happening in the west right now. astonishing to me that science is undermining science and journalists have undermined journalism. how do we get back to any sense of objectivity in either of those spears? >> guest: scientist because they understand science is the most trusted institution in america it gives them extraordinary power to yield the social change that they want to dangerous.t's really

they are acting outside their area of expertise and their actual purview and that is dangerous stuff and journalism in the same thing. as a journalist say it's our job to effect social change. yourl job to explain the facts are happening right now that's literally your job. yet they take it upon themselves to say we are instruments of change in making the world a better place. you can make the world a better place by doing your actual job but once you decided your job is not your actual job you're job is to provide social change that comes second and their job was to follow the process and now you have an important job changing the world at a social level. this is happened in totalitarian regimes in the past. the willingness to overlook basic economics in mao's china led to the great famine and the willingness to destroy science

in soviet union led to -- it doesn't mean that people feel the ring of power they decide let's keep it around for while and see where it goes. this was great to talk to you ben shapiro on your book "the authoritarian moment" but i have a couplet' questions. what happened in north dakota? in the second question will you appear with me on my tv radio program very soon? >> guest: i'd be happy to do that. let's do that was so easy. ben shapiro congratulations on "the authoritarian moment" and all that you are doing. >> guest: thanks so much.