Michael Knowles (2:02)

So it actually give some context, Michael, so people know what the hell you're talking about.

Ben Shapiro (2:06)

All right, all right.

Michael Knowles (2:07)

If you missed me, you kind of need the context.

Ben Shapiro (2:09)

It's from a guy named Trevor Sheets. And he. I'm not gonna read the whole thing. It's just like a manifesto. But he says, and what's going viral is my wife was formerly promiscuous I was a virgin. She was then radically born again. Committed to church, evangelized constantly. All good. Then he goes, puritan books in her bedroom. Okay, that's not. A friend of mine said that Thanksgiving's a real holiday in the uk. Cause it's when they got rid of the Puritans. But whatever. We'll move past that. Prayer journals, grief over past sexual sin, et cetera. We got to know each other. We got married. She's purer than most virgins now. Because biblical purity has less to do with the past and with the future, we're too quick to forget the story of the woman labeled as a known sinner or prostitute. It goes on and on about Christ's redemption. And so we all agree. I say, that's really wonderful. Yes. The devil whispers in our ear, says, sin doesn't really matter. The minute we do it, he tells us we'll never get past it. We're bogged down in our shame. We can be redeemed. We can cooperate with God's grace. Should you really. Should you really call your wife a

Drew Hernandez (3:09)

whore to tell everybody who your wife slept with? This girl was terrific, by the way. I just want to stop. I'm glad she's been saved, but I have such fond memories. That's why it has 27 million hits. It's all those guys coming back. Oh, yeah.

Michael Knowles (3:31)

And then he put a picture of her up, too, which is just terrible because then it's like, not only is she a. Here's what she looks like. Yeah, that's, that's really. That's quite terrible. I, I, I hate that. I hate that so much. Like, if she were going to tell that story about how she redeemed herself and it made her marriage better, you know, pure, but, like, I'm sorry, dude. Unless you got, like, explicit permission from your wife to unearth every aspect of her past that she's humiliated by.

Drew Hernandez (3:54)

Yeah.

Michael Knowles (3:55)

I just can't imagine. Can you imagine any other sin where you would just do this to your wife? Like, my wife, you know, she used to be. She used to sell drugs to kids. She's really, like, the best. Like, incredible. Like, just selling hashish to children. Yeah.

Ben Shapiro (4:10)

My wife used to do drugs now. She still does, but she also used to do them, too.

Michael Knowles (4:16)

Yeah, yeah. Do not like. Do not like. And that's an overshare. That is a big overshare. And. Yeah.

Drew Hernandez (4:24)

And they put us in the position of being like, the older brother and the prodigal son thing where we're bitter that, you know, she's been forgiven. But we're not. We just don't wanna know about it.

Ben Shapiro (4:33)

That's right. I also, you know, it seems to me, yes, it's good to let people know, especially in our depraved culture, that there's redemption. You can accept God's love, cooperate with Christ, and that's all very important to tell people. But we also owe each other discretion, I think, you know, we owe each other the grace of moving on sometimes, you know, you owe your children, maybe something, your future children to say, hey, we don't want you calling Mommy a whore on the Internet, you know, like, don't we. Isn't there really a time and a. Isn't there actually. Isn't there almost greater sanctity in just carrying some of these crosses privately? I get it. If a porn star or something repents, obviously, this is already public and you can talk about it, but if it's just like Shelley was a bit of a bicycle, you know, then maybe just keep it to yourself. I don't know. Keep it a little relative.

Michael Knowles (5:23)

Totally agree with this. Totally agree with this. By the way, a bit of Jewish law. If somebody converts to Judaism, you are not allowed to talk about their past before they were Jewish, unless they wanna talk about it.

Drew Hernandez (5:33)

Really.

Michael Knowles (5:33)

You're supposed to, because. Yeah, yeah, Y. And so when you say that somebody's a convert to Judaism, you're not even in the community supposed to say they were a convert to Judaism. That's up to them if they want to talk about it. Because there is a baseline assumption that once you hear about somebody's past, you're going to judge them differently in the present, which I think is true. Like, now that you see her walking around church, I mean, don't think of a pink elephant gang, right? If she's walking around the church and it's like, well, what do I know about this lady? Well, I know a few things, and she knew many things. That's unfortunate. Just awkward.

Ben Shapiro (6:06)

It puts a lot of images in the mind.

Drew Hernandez (6:07)

It's a good rule.

Ben Shapiro (6:08)

No, I am thinking whenever I really pick the crime, whatever, like, the big crime that I commit is. I don't know whether it's insider trading, whether it's triple homicide, whatever. And then I just. I have that pocket yarmulke ready to go, and, you know, right when they're about to get me, I say, no, that was my past life. Shalom. We're done with that. It's Mikael now. Now, actually. Sorry, Ben.

Michael Knowles (6:32)

Yeah. Oh, yeah. No, I was actually just gonna say this is not the best tweet of the week. The best tweet of the week remains that story of the man with no arms and no legs who somehow was a cornhole champion, but also achieved the signal feat of driving a car and also shooting a man while driving a car. And I did tell that story to my kids. And I said, kids, don't you ever tell me that you can't accomplish anything in this life.

Ben Shapiro (6:56)

It was New York's very movie writing of the highest caliber. And whereas you make the point, Ben, now you got images in your mind of this lady because of what her husband wrote. I still don't have the image in my head of the quadriplegic midget murderer. Whatever. I can't figure out very soon I look like a chicken nugget in my head is sort of what I'm. Anyway, I don't know if everyone realizes this, speaking of religion, but the Passion of the Christ, one of the greatest movies ever made, is now streaming on Daily Wire. Plus you can watch. This is the movie to watch during Holy Week. We're in Passion Tide up to Easter. With Easter coming up in just 12 days, feels like the right time to talk about why this film still matters. So I will be joining my friends Matt Walsh and Isabel Brown for a real discussion about it. What it meant then, what it means now. I'm afraid the other Catholic, Anglo, Catholic and Jew of the Daily Wire are not invited. No, I actually think you might have been invited and just weren't able to make it up. But in any case, a few of you are gonna be in the room with us. Not just watching, but actually sitting with us, being part of the conversation. If you join DailyWire plus right now, you will be automatically entered if you're already a member. Congratulations, you are entered. Details are@dailywire.com passion shall we bring on. Is this enough babbling about paraplegics?

Drew Hernandez (8:19)

God, I can't wait for this.

Ben Shapiro (8:20)

Prostitutes. Yeah. Can we bring on Chris?

Michael Knowles (8:22)

No, no, I have to. No, no, no, I. No, no, no, no. I just have to ask one question. I have to ask a question. How was he able to accomplish this if he had already been unarmed?

Ben Shapiro (8:34)

You can never know.

Michael Knowles (8:36)

You want from me here.

Ben Shapiro (8:38)

Anyway, thank you all for joining Friendly Fire. We'll see you next week. We're joined now by Christopher Ruvo. It pains me to talk about something substantive on this show at all, but I believe you've done some original reporting, Chris, to unveil left wing corruption. Is that right?

Chris Rufo (8:56)

Yeah, that's right. I'M spending the next year plus looking into corruption in California. So it is a very rich territory. And to my surprise, it seems like nobody has been looking into it at all. And so we're starting to find some great stories of waste. They spent $100 million on a bridge for monarch butterflies. San Francisco is giving money to nonprofits that specialize in providing massage therapy for black criminals. A lot of things are happening in California that we're finding out.

Drew Hernandez (9:29)

It's gonna take more than a year. You're gonna need a bigger notepad.

Ben Shapiro (9:32)

I think this is the kind of the follow up to. Well, you had uncovered a lot of corruption in Minneapolis. And then Nick Shirley and other people went really viral going out, taking videos of this. This was a major, major news story. I thought this would be very helpful in the midterms to Republicans. Now I'm not sure if anything will be helpful to Republicans in the midterms, but we can analyze that in a moment. But I'm not really seeing a lot about this. I mean, I obviously follow you very closely, Chris, but shouldn't this be a bigger story?

Chris Rufo (10:02)

It should, but I think it just really depends on who is able to do it. So to her credit, Bari Weiss has forced CBS News to do some of this reporting, which seems kind of odd and out of place for a major news network to be looking into Democrat corruption. There are some people that are looking at it behind the edges, but the reality is that those of us on the right do not have the same kind of media apparatus that the left does. And I think, of course, Daily Wire is adding investigative reporting. We're adding it at Manhattan Institute. But it's going to take a bit more to uncover the corruption and turn it into these stories. The good news is, as we did in Minnesota with the Somali fraud, sometimes these stories can catch the public imagination in a way that has real political consequences. And so my own personal goal, I'll share it here, is to do to Gavin Newsom in California what we did to Tim Walls in Minneapolis. I think it's possible. And certainly California is providing a lot of opportunity to do so.

Michael Knowles (11:05)

Can I, Chris, I do have to ask about the monarch butterflies. Well, yeah, yeah. This is my question, too. Same question, Drew.

Chris Rufo (11:16)

So the notion of the bridge. Yeah, the bridge. So it's something we looked into. It's actually in Los Angeles, the governor unveiled this splashy project about five years ago to create a bridge for cougars, butterflies and other small critters over the 101 freeway, over this kind of 10 lane interchange. And so in other countries, in other states, even these things cost between five and $10 million. In California, though, it's cost about $114 million. They're behind schedule. There's really no end in sight. They put a radical environmentalist in charge of the project who wears, like, bright pink construction gear. She carries around a stuffed animal of a cougar. And they're doing stuff that's actually kind of amazing. It's a public private partnership where they have Native Americans performing sacred indigenous rituals. For this overpass, they're actually. They're sacrificing human hair, native tobacco. They're looking for magical mushrooms. They dispatch some environmentalists for months and months and months to find seeds in sacred solitude. The whole thing is like an episode of Portlandia. But then you realize, no, this is just how California builds its infrastructure.

Ben Shapiro (12:34)

Oh, no. I'm just a little confused, Chris. Cause I thought all the cougars in LA hung out at the W Hotel waiting for those hunky athletes to come on by, maybe buy them a drink. But you're saying that the bridge is not in downtown Hollywood. This is somewhere in the hills or something? Yeah.

Michael Knowles (12:50)

No.

Chris Rufo (12:50)

No, it's not the cougars at the Whole Foods in Venice. This is a different kind of cougar. It's a mountain lion. And even that is kind of amazing. You actually look at aerial shots of this bridge. They're building a bridge from this kind of untouched wildlands where the cougar has a natural habitat. And then they're building the bridge into a suburban neighborhood. So in some ways, it's like some environmentalist version of the Purge, where they're letting these cougars into this neighborhood filled with pets and children and elderly people. And look, in general, cougar attacks are rare, but they have been increasing over the years. And there was a story in la, they have these inbred cougars in the Griffith Observatory area that have been attacking pets, kind of chomping on Fido the dog. So it may be in our future. It may be some kind of depopulation scheme. Time will tell.

Michael Knowles (13:45)

They're eating the dogs. They didn't have a bridge.

Ben Shapiro (13:49)

Do you think that any of this will actually hurt Newsom? Because I think he's probably in the lead right now for the Democrat nomination. He's already leaning in to one of the attacks that we've made about him in recent years, which is that he looks just like Patrick Bateman and acts like Patrick Bateman and probably chops up hookers and has them in his freezer, allegedly. I know we have to say allegedly, but he leaned into it and he posted this picture where it was half Bateman's face and half his face. And I don't know, I get the impression that he is now comfortable as the front runner. So I think you're totally right to do some actual productive right wing operative work and try to take this guy down, because I think he's the biggest threat. But does anyone care he's such a failure if he's already the top of the heap? It just seems like nothing's going to take him down.

Chris Rufo (14:35)

Look, I don't think a stylistic critique will work. And in fact, what we're seeing with Gavin Newsom is the same thing we're seeing with the young looks, maxer, clavicular, where you're focusing on his physical appearance or his mannerisms or his aesthetic appeal. You're not going to win with Gavin Newsom because, look, we'll admit it, as some four very heterosexual men, Gavin Newsom is a handsome guy. He's a charismatic guy. He has some kind of magnetic appeal. And look, 50 shades of gray is a popular novel for a reason. I think he'd do very well with the women's vote on that. But I think what does have a chance to really damage him is if we can show definitively that what he's done in California is a disaster on an unprecedented scale. And so my team right now is finishing a report which should come out in the coming weeks, where we're tallying not just billions or tens of billions of dollars in fraud, but potentially hundreds of billions of dollars that has disappeared from the California state budget during Newsom's tenure. And so, look, Americans, they like their Teflon politicians, from Bill Clinton to someone like Donald Trump. I think highlighting that doesn't work, but I think highlighting and documenting concretely the disaster that Newsom has yielded in California could be, as we saw with Tim Walls, the thing that finally kind of tips the public opinion over the edge.

Ben Shapiro (16:06)

Are you guys still on?

Drew Hernandez (16:07)

I have a question. There's one thing I've always wondered. This happens in California, happened when I lived there, way, way back in the day. They send the money for a bullet train, for instance. The thing never gets built. I mean, not a single rail is laid. Where does that money go? Where does the money go? Nobody ever sees. There's not a single reporter ever seems to ask the question, where do these billions of dollars disappear to? Who's banking them?

Chris Rufo (16:34)

It's a really interesting question. And so there's kind of the direct beneficiary and the indirect beneficiary. So let's talk about Medi Cal, which is California's healthcare system for the poor. During his time in office, Gavin Newsom has almost doubled public expenditure on Medi Cal. It's something now like $200 billion a year in public spending in California, which is bigger than the GDP of many, many countries around the world. And we know from government estimates that between 10% and 25% of medical is lost to outright fraud. Criminals who take that money and in many cases send it overseas. And, and so you're asking, well, what interest does someone like Gavin Newsom or state Democrats have in allowing this to continue? And that's where you get the indirect beneficiary. One of the most powerful unions in California is of course, the Union of Healthcare Workers, which is trying to pass this wealth tax, which has tens of thousands of members that benefit from the system being engorged with public funds. And so in many ways, the unions see this as a form of corruption that simply expands the pie. And then they get a cut of that. They forward that cut, part of that cut to the Democrat politicians in the legislature, to the governor's reelection campaigns. And all of this money, oftentimes at arm's length, not directly, but indirectly, it really pays the bills and greases this corruption wheel. And the Democrats know that there's no political opposition, there's no media opposition, there's no activist opposition. They have virtually total control, like a Mexican one party state system over California, that they can operate a massive fraud scheme with impunity. Everybody gets paid, and all they have to do is just keep that lid on the pot, keep the corruption at a simmer, and hope that it doesn't boil over.

Ben Shapiro (18:28)

Wow, what do you make? So Newsom, I think, is still in the lead. That's what a lot of this is all about. What do you make of the other potential candidates? So, like aoc, who I think is seriously talked about as a presidential candidate, she comes out this past week and says something that a lot of conservatives agree with. She criticizes all the various betting market sites and even sports gambling and just the now very pervasive gambling, even when gambling was very restricted until recently. And she said, this is sad. I'm gonna catch a lot of flack for this. That's not a left wing position. It's one that can cross party lines. It's kind of interesting. It actually deals with moral questions. Is that. Does she really believe it? Is it just a sincere thing? Is it a cynical play? And you don't think she. Well, then, is it about the presidential race? What's it about?

Michael Knowles (19:19)

Well, yes.

Chris Rufo (19:21)

Tell me why you say I think maybe. Yes, but I'd like to hear from Ben.

Michael Knowles (19:25)

Okay, so I think that the only reason that she's calling out the betting markets and the futures markets, right. The reason that she's doing that is because there are prominent Republican figures who are associated with some of our sponsors and are associated with sites like, for example, Kalshi. That is the real reason that she's doing this. This is why the Democrats have decided that, for example, Elon Musk was bad, he used to be good. This is why they've all of a sudden mobilized against crypto like that. That sort of used to be a bipartisan thing, crypto. And then it turned into Democrats hate crypto. Basically, anytime anybody who's a prominent Republican figure is associated with anything, they suddenly swivel and they turn and they hit that thing. And so, yeah, I, I, yeah, I do not think that a woman like AOC who believes that if we just shovel money at people, like if we just take money and we shovel it at them, that we can't do that because the people are going to be too stupid and they're going to gamble it, like that does not fit within her sort of purview of how the world works. Name another aspect of consumption that AOC is dramatically against. There's not a single one that you can name where she says this is a thing you should, like prostitution, drugs, alcohol, like name a thing that AOC believes there should not be a market for. The only thing she believes there should not be a market for is like a prediction market. And the only reason she's saying that is because of course Don Jr. Is associated with prediction markets. I think it's that simple.

Ben Shapiro (20:40)

Chris, you disagree?

Chris Rufo (20:42)

Yeah, I mean, I think certainly that's, that's, that's probably part of it. And what we've seen over the last five years really accelerating the last one or two years is that the tech industry has shifted or at least split. And there are certain industries, as Ben mentioned, of course, Space X crypto, prediction markets, you know, in other, in other parts of the tech industry where it seems to be kind of right. Coded Palantir is another company. And so, yeah, would she want to undermine the power of these cash generating machines that seem to seem to support her political enemies? Yes, but I think it's also just a kind of antipathy towards kind of bro culture in general. And so I think there may be some Non cynical, but simply kind of personal and authentic hatred for it. Because look, young men, and young white men in particular have been complaining for a number of years, sometimes in an exaggerated way, sometimes with some reason, that they've been locked out of prestige institutions. There was that great essay in Compact the Lost Generation about how white men had been frozen from ivy leagues, from media, from other prestige occupations. And one interesting wrinkle in that piece is they've found that they can harness their talents, make money, make a reputation in these new emergent industries. And so I think she does not like the idea of young white men, founding companies, making money, having some cultural prestige. She wants to shut it down. And so maybe there's a bit of both, but I don't think it's necessarily entirely cynical.

Ben Shapiro (22:23)

You know, I wonder too if there's a great.

Drew Hernandez (22:24)

I gotta break in here for just a minute guys, because I have to say this, you know, I haven't got much time, so I just want to talk about dying, which I think is something we all want to talk about. Actually. I've been, I've been around for so long, it's possible I may be an immortal demon. But I do know that those of you who will die are going to need some. I mean, you got to have insurance. And the best way to get it is to get it through our sponsor, policygenius. Because the responsibility for protecting your loved ones and planning for the future is a heavy and confusing one for those of you who die. Not for me, but for those of you who don't continue forever. Policygenius makes the process easier by acting as an online insurance marketplace, not an insurance company. So you can compare quotes side by side for free and actually understand what you're buying. Their license team works for you, not for the insurance carriers. And they help you figure out coverage, amounts, prices, terms, all of it. So there's no guesswork. I know back in ancient Egypt, you know, they got so tired of me, every time I fell asleep they would mummify me. And I used to have to have insurance to make sure that those who are buried with me would be able their families would be taken care of. Policy Genius will answer your questions, handle the paperwork and advocate for you throughout the process. Which is why they've racked up thousands of five star reviews on Google and trustpilot and even in ancient from people who found the right policy for their situation. Protect the life you have built. With Policy Genius you can see if you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for 1 million bucks in coverage. Head to policygenius.com fire to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com fire.

Ben Shapiro (24:10)

You know, there's one angle on the AOC thing that I think it might marry the. Since with the insincere, which is gambling used to be a wedge on the right, in many ways, I think it still is. I was given a speech at an Alabama think tank, like, six, seven years ago, and a real hot topic of debate was whether or not to legalize the state lottery. The lottery used to be run by the mob in New York. It was the numbers game that the mafia ran. And then in the 60s, 70s, 80s, they started to liberalize it. But, I mean, I think it was Mississippi, I think only legalized the lottery in 2019. So it's still this live issue whether to what degree we should regulate gambling. And so if I'm AOC and I'm looking at the right and I say, what's the good wedge issue gonna be? That's one of them that could. Even if it doesn't advance me, it can get my opponents fighting. We on the right used to do that to the left with Israel, because Israel was a wedge issue there. Now I think the whole left is basically anti Israel, but a little bit on the right too. But that was just one where you think, even if I don't wanna talk about the substance of this issue, I at least want my enemies to be fighting each other. I could see a little bit. I mean, she's a pretty sophisticated operative, even if she doesn't have a whole lot of book learning.

Drew Hernandez (25:20)

It's a difficult question, vice, because when you ban vice, the mob does take it over. That is what happens. And the libertarian side of the right is always like, why can't people decide to gamble? I myself, I kind of edge toward banning vice. You know, I think that it's just. It's just bad. It's better for society to say it's no good. You know, aoc, she can't possibly be sincere about this because she's the one who tweeted out to prostitutes, sex work is work, which is the same thing their pimps are telling them. So I think that she obviously does not care about vice. You know, the left is always happy for you to destroy yourself. The only way they want you to be free is in ways that make you a slave. They want you to have all the sex you want because ultimately that will enslave you, all the drugs and all of that stuff. So I gotta, I gotta say that Ben has got a very, A very convincing case here on this because I just don't see her being sincere suddenly about one vice that we shouldn't ban.

Michael Knowles (26:12)

I'm looking forward to a time when, when both parties are sort of authentically themselves as opposed to this sort of picking and choosing of the issues. So, you know, AOC here. I wish the Democrats would just say the thing they mean. The Democrats are fine with gambling. They're not trying to. Like, if you made the proposal that welfare dollars come with a proviso that you cannot use them on lottery tickets, which seems to me, by the way, a totally legitimate proviso, Democrats would oppose that. They would 100% oppose that, and that's our taxpayer dollars, and they would oppose that. So the idea that suddenly she's very, very anti the, you know, futures markets or whatever, she's very against prediction markets. I just find that totally unconvincing. But this is kind of where we are in a nihilistic political world where neither side will just say the thing it actually believes. Instead, they look for that wedge issue and they just try to ram a fist into the wedge issue without any belief system to back it. Like, do I really think that if AOC had the power to ban lotteries or ban gambling that you would actually do it? Michael, she's opposing it for a very different reason than you're opposing it, let's put it that way.

Ben Shapiro (27:09)

Right.

Michael Knowles (27:11)

I do not. I do not trust her motivations there. So, yeah, I mean, again, I think that that is totally insincere, but I think that that is the rules of the road for the Democrats at this point is utter insincerity on every topic.

Ben Shapiro (27:22)

Yeah, that's true. But, you know, I get it. Look, yes, I think you're right. I totally agree with you. The problem is, though, wedge issues are a lot of fun and we all love playing with them. And what's weird today is that like every issue seems to be a wedge issue, even down to the Iran war, which is we're now in our third week of the Iran war. The American right is still quite supportive of it. I think it's still 90% or slightly below that support nationally. Most Americans are against it and seem to be increasingly against it. I fear that that overwhelming right wing support is. So if something goes catastrophically wrong, it's not gonna dip a little bit. I think it's gonna swing very suddenly. Everyone agrees they want this thing wrapped up quickly and talk about futures markets. It could really mess up the economy globally. It could really mess up Republicans chances in the midterms. And I don't really know. The podcast class is anti Iran war. The voters seem to be pretty pro Iran war. But this seems to me like the biggest time bomb bomb, I guess being appropriate here for the midterm elections. I don't know, Chris, you're the most operative of any of us here. Am I misreading that?

Chris Rufo (28:39)

I mean, look, a couple things. So first off, if they are able to conclude the war and move on in a matter of weeks or a single digit amount of months, people will forget by the midterms. Politics operates on media cycles up until that last moment. And so when the president goes to McDonald's, when they have the eating the cats and dogs memes, I mean, we're talking about the October surprise. And so the public will make a late breaking decision. And if the war is still in the news, then I think it's potentially catastrophic. If the war is out of the news, they'll make a decision on a different basis. But the general tide and the general thermostatic effect of midterms when there's a three part control of government for one political party suggests that Trump is going to be, you know, kind of wiped out, at least in the House, I think that's still probably the best bet. But this, and this gives certainly some new uncertainty. And my big fear is that that uncertainty can spiral out into a number of different directions. A couple of those would be very concerning that you've outlined. And I guess the other side of the question, and I've asked this to hawks over the last few weeks, haven't got a sufficient answer, but is what does victory look like? How do we know when we've won and what do we get if we've won? And is it so kind of clearly and significantly better than the status quo ante prior to hostilities that voters will reward the president? Again, you should never analyze these solely on political considerations. But I think both the substance and the perception to me on that other side of the issue are still a bit hazy. The administration hasn't quite articulated them as I see.

Drew Hernandez (30:27)

I agree with you on this, Chris. Let me just because I want to hear you, Ben. But it's just I think that the time bomb analogy is a good one. I thought this for a while. I think Trump has about two weeks really to come up with something that looks like victory. And I think that whatever he does, of course the press is going to call it defeat. If he, you know, if they actually have regime change and an angel comes in and runs Iran in a moral way and turns over all of their plutonium, it's still going to be some. They'll still find a way to sell it as a loss. But I think that the one thing that I would like to see and the thing that I think he could do pretty quickly is if he buries even deeper the buried nuclear material that they have, which he could do with a bombing raid, I think that's going to be his last. The last thing he wants to do. But I think in the meantime, the idea that they're going to get regime change, I mean, they are hanging people in the streets. Very tough for those people to mobilize an actual rebellion with the way they're killing people. The Israelis have done a great job of killing off their security forces, but still they're just a brutal, brutal, terroristic regime and they're willing to hold onto it that way. I do not know if we can take control of the Strait of Hormuz, but I just. It's a nightmare to me to think of our troops going in there. It is so easy. The thing about the military. Love the military. I love the military, but they're a hammer and everything looks like a nail. And they're always gonna come back to the President and say, if we just do one more thing, this is gonna be fine. I just think. I think he's done a noble thing. I think he did a brave thing. I think he did the right thing. But I think it's a time game. I think at some point the time runs out.

Michael Knowles (32:10)

Well, I mean, obviously I think that everybody has their eye on the calendar, and that's what the polls show, is that the American people are supportive of this. So long as, as Chris says, this lasts a month and it doesn't last months. And obviously Chris is also right that if we're talking about this at election time, it's going to be a terrible thing for the president and for the party. I think there are a couple things that are happening here. One is a political thing and one is a not political thing. The not political thing is that I think President Trump looks at his presidency and he says, this is the last chance for America to actually end this threat. Because post his presidency, the chances are very good that whoever succeeds him is going to be incredibly soft on this issue. And then Iran is going to rebuild, it's going to remobilize, it's going to take additional Control. So if you don't like what Iran is doing in the Strait of Hormuz now, wait until they have ICBMs tipped with nuclear missiles. Right? I mean, like that. That is the thing that I think President Trump is correctly saying. And on a moral level, that's why I think it is quite brave what he's doing. As far as what does victory looks like, I think that there are sort of two things that we have to look at. What does not defeat look like, and then what does victory look like? I don't think those are quite the same thing. Not defeat looks like. The Strait of Hormuz is at least relatively open. If people, even if people are paying small bribes to the Iranian government to move through the oil starts moving again. The Iranian government is tremendously weakened. They don't have enough money to actually pay their IRGC members. And a year from now, the regime collapses. Which I think is all very much within the realm of possibility, given the fact that, again, the entire top level of the regime has been completely destroyed. Their missile facilities have been destroyed, their drone facilities have been destroyed, their nuclear facilities will be destroyed before this is over. And so the question is sort of a timeline, one we may see a delayed victory in that sense. A not defeat would be that we do all those things, and then the Strait of Hormuz is at least passable. And that is a not defeat. A clear victory would be something, you know, where we all get to cheer in the streets. And that would be, for example, the president takes Kharga Island. The IRGC completely runs out of money. The people go out in the streets and they take over. Right. That's a clear victory. I think that's like a 20% possibility. I don't think it's an 80% possibility. I think it's like a 20% possibility. I think the regime being on such unstable footing with the rest of the regimes in the area allied against them, because that's actually what's happened right now is the entire Gulf region is now against the Iranians, all of them. And so because of that, Iran is now more isolated than it literally ever has been. They have less revenue coming in than they literally ever have. They have less control on a street by street basis than they have for 50 years. They have less weaponry in terms of forward mobilization than they have in 50 years, and they have fewer terrorist proxies capable of doing serious damage than they have in 50 years. Is that a victory for the United States? It is a victory in a broader sense. Is it the Kind of thing where you can like run around with a big newspaper that says, you know, we win? I don't think so. But again, if we get that latter situation, which I think is probably like a 75% possibility, actually, if we get that and then President Trump walks away, I think that's a win for the United States. I think it's a win for the world. And even if he doesn't get the political credit he deserves for it, he will get that credit, or he should via history, if the regime ends up falling a year or two years from now.

Ben Shapiro (35:03)

But then, Ben, to Chris's point, if he says, all right, what can we bring to voters to say, see, the intervention was worth it if the real victory here we install Ayatollah Rubio and he takes over and it's all great. If you say that, look, there's 20% chance that that happens. More likely, probably best case scenario, we just have not defeat. And we can go to voters and say, hey, look, we went into Iran and blew up a bunch of stuff, but then they closed the Strait of Hormuz, which could have been a complete disaster in perpetuity, but we got the Strait of Hormuz reopened again, and your gas prices are gonna come down hopefully before November. Please reward us at the ballot box. Is that.

Michael Knowles (35:47)

Well, no, I don't think it's. So this is what the thing. I think that what Trump is doing is a thing that nobody has recognized in American politics for literally decades. He is doing a politically brave thing. Yes, I know that we're not allowed to talk about politically brave things right now, but this is a politically brave thing, because what he is doing is he is saying, listen, even if it costs me at the ballot box, even if my party doesn't do as well, if I get this threat neutralized for the foreseeable future, that is worth a few losses. And to me, that makes it more brave actually than. Because here's, here's the problem that I have with this sort of logic, Michael. There is literally no war that you can fight short of a full scale regime change war. Short of that, there is no war that you can fight that resonates to the American public as a victory, which means that you end up in a position where you are gradually ceding territory to literally every enemy. Because we're not going to regime change China, we're not going to regime change Russia, we're not even regime changing, really. Venezuela. Right. We kind of regime behavior changed Venezuela. And so if the idea here is that the only way to win a victory is to win a full scale victory. The result of that will be a breaking of the American hegemony over the rest of the world in the name of political gain. I think President Trump is actually fighting back against that. And so Even in my 75% scenario, that is what's best for America, even if it's not what's best for the Republican Party in the midterm elections, by the way, again, I think if we get that 75% scenario, that's assuming the war is going to be over in the next six weeks. So I don't think that that's the thing people are talking about in November anyway. Yeah, I think they're going to be talking about the economy. Speaking of which, I think this is President Trump. Will he visit Iran before the end of the year? This is the open question over at Kalshi. Kalshee has A shockingly apparently 11% of people believe that President Trump is going to visit Iran before the end of the year. That would be a midterm campaign stop for sure. They are one of our sponsors, obviously. They also, by the way, are saying Tulsi Gabbard out as Director of national intelligence. 60% prediction, she does not make it into August. I fully agree with that. I think Tulsi Gabbard is on her way out as dni, especially given the shenanigans of Joe Kent, who's making an absolute ridiculous fool of himself right now. Anyway, back to the conversation.

Ben Shapiro (37:49)

Well, actually, the joke of it all does kind of tie in. But yes, Drew, you were making a point.

Drew Hernandez (37:54)

Yeah, I want to say that, you know, I think that what Ben is saying about the courage of Trump, the political courage of Trump, is absolutely true. And I think it is incredibly frustrating to have a press corps which, as Chris says, still has a lot of power, more power than the right wing rebel media selling this as if it were some kind of military catastrophe. It's almost comical to read. I read the New York Times every morning for my sins. And it's gotten to the point where it actually makes me laugh out loud to watch what they call the news over there, which is just one defeat for Trump in Iran after another. But still in all, I mean, that is part of that is part of the way the electorate feels. And we do have to deal with that because the people who are in the Democrat Party are no longer the Democrat Party of old. They're no longer people who want to push the ball a little bit left of the 50 yard line. They are full scale anti Americans. And it's. I feel like some kind of right wing nut when I say this, except they keep proving it. There is nothing they will not do that that puts this country last. And their attempt to destroy ICE so that they can keep all the people that came into the country under Biden. The fact that they won't cover the murder of a young woman in Chicago by an illegal alien because they don't want to put illegal aliens in bad odor. The fact that they won't point out what Zoram Mamdani is doing in New York. I mean one of the most evil politicians I've ever seen in this country because they're afraid of its being Islamophobic. This is a party that is not for our country and we have to keep them out of office as much as is possible.

Michael Knowles (39:38)

I totally agree with this. And obviously, you know, the political considerations do matter. And I will say that what I'm afraid of is broader than just the Democratic Party. I think there is an America Last segment of the body politic that I do think has infected a segment of the right. I don't think it's a huge segment of the right, but it's certainly infected a segment of the right. I don't know what else to call it when Tucker Carlson is having on full scale Chinese propaganda to discuss why America needs to cede power to China while this schmuck who's going around declaring that the Illuminati run the world. I mean this is literally who this guest was. The kind of the rise on the right of this America last ideology where America is a nefarious force in the world and thus its impact must be minimized. I don't want to conflate people who are asking, I think serious and decent questions about the war and where it ends. That's a normal thing to do. And of course we should do that because it's all a risk reward scenario. And how do you think it's going to turn out? That's a different thing from the idea that America has done something morally evil in what it is doing right now. And that America in joining with Israel to take down Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear facilities is doing something quite terrible. And actually what we really need is Sharia law in American cities to make them cleaner and better. That seems to be a thing.

Drew Hernandez (40:45)

I'm trying to believe that Ami Kozak has just perfected his Tucker Carlson imitation and that's no longer actually Tucker talking.

Ben Shapiro (40:53)

We know there's always been this kind of American opposition to America. Probably the clearest example is Jane Fonda sitting at the anti aircraft in Vietnam. But you would sometimes get some of that on the right. Now maybe it's a little more pronounced in more public aspects of the right, even though it's a relatively small percentage. But the question that I have to ask is if I'm not trying to examine motives, if I'm not trying to get into the psychology of what's prompting these kinds of attacks, is there a legitimate, is there a sincere reason that someone would say, hey, we actually do have to cede a little bit of our international ambition. China's gotten too strong, or America's lost the heart for these protracted military conflicts because of Iraq and Afghanistan, or we need to rethink how we do regime change. So maybe we need more of the Venezuela model where you're not uprooting the whole civil authority, but you're just putting a gun to the Vice President's head and saying, do what we want or we'll shoot you. Which I think has actually worked out very well. Is there, sure, there's always gonna be the Hanoi Jane, but is there a sincere and even admirable or respectable kind of restraint view on foreign policy?

Michael Knowles (42:07)

Well, I mean, I think you can make the argument that this sort of restrainer point of view, which is, yes, America is, Is losing ground and therefore we need to reconsolidate, we need to restrengthen, and then we can try to re. Establish hegemony because the world actually is better with broader American power. Sort of a more in sadness than in pleasure perspective at the possibility of multipolarity. But that's not what I'm seeing from a lot of.

Drew Hernandez (42:28)

That's not what he's saying. That's right.

Michael Knowles (42:29)

And by the way. And by the way, I will say that, you know, I don't want to get into psychology, but some of these people just appear to be nuts. Okay. Joe Kent appears to me to be a nut job. Okay. Joe Kent is like how that schmuck ended up at the national center for Counterterrorism as the director of it is absolutely beyond me. And I can do two things at once. Totally respect his military and CIA service and also believe that guy's a kook and a nut and a schmuck. Because, I mean, today he literally apparently said that he would try to help out the defense of Tyler Robinson if called upon to do so in the shooting of Charlie Kirk. I'm sorry, that's crazy.

Ben Shapiro (43:03)

So he believes that is cray bombs. I haven't followed it that closely. He believes that it was. He doesn't think that Robinson was the shooter, obviously. He thinks it was a foreign op.

Michael Knowles (43:13)

He thinks that there are nefarious outside actors. Yes. And then there was this whole story about how Andrew Colvitt of TPUSA had texted him messages concerning Israel and Charlie's relationship with pro Israel donors. And he had texted that to Joe Kent because he thought maybe it was relevant. And then somehow Candace Owens ended up with those magical messages and no one knows how, but it certainly was not from Andrew Colbert. I mean, like the fact that he's under investigation. Joe Kent, for now, leaking information, classified information, which I almost certainly went to one of these podcast bros. You know that that is the part that's astonishing to me. And I do think that we have to talk again. It's not a podcast war thing to say that people who have high levels of influence in American life, we should. If they're saying crazy and nutty things, maybe people should stop listening.

Ben Shapiro (43:55)

And also, when we're talking about government officials,

Michael Knowles (43:59)

I mean, he was a government official. But I will also say that they almost staffed part of this administration directly from the guest list of, like, the podcast bros. And you can't staff a good government this way. I'm sorry, you cannot, like, you should not use Joe Rogan's guest list as your way of staffing an administration. I mean, Joe Rogan was spending the last two days talking about how Benjamin Netanyahu is dead and Erica Kirk has crazy eyes like, well, there is a brain rot that is setting in and it has infused all the way up to the governmental level. That's the part that's scary. Michael, the argument you made last week, when, of course, it made all sorts of headlines because we were beating the crap out of you and you were fighting us back, and it was fisticuffs all the way around. Agreed. But the argument that Michael was making that these are sort of the podcast wars, that's a legitimate argument until you get to Joe Kent. Right?

Ben Shapiro (44:48)

Yeah, it's totally different. I agree. I totally agree.

Michael Knowles (44:52)

Right. And when those government officials are basically acting at the behest of podcast hosts and podcast hosts are visiting the White House and shaping policy, then you start to ask some serious questions about, like, who knows what, when and why are they there and who's staffing and like.

Ben Shapiro (45:04)

Well, one correction, one correction. I'm a strong defender of podcast hosts visiting the White House. I think that's a very important, tried and true tradition that should continue. But I did see that Kent has denied that he was leaking. But then you raise the question, okay, well, who leaked it? So obviously there's going to be some kind of investigation. And I guess you could have a world in which the director of the Counterterrorism center is indicted. I mean, you could. This seems to be something that's impressed me a lot about this Trump administration in particular is there's been a ton of unity, even among people who would seem to be rivals or vying for position. The vice president and the Secretary of state could both run for president. They seem to have a lot of unity. They're unified with the president. This seems to be the first break where you say, okay, you have this official who wasn't a super senior official, but he was there coming out. Now he's kind of running against the administration. Are you gonna see more of this? Is this the beginning of division, or are they gonna run this guy out, investigate him, maybe indict him, and then keep the team together?

Michael Knowles (46:07)

Well, I think one of the things that you're seeing here that's really fascinating is that there's a sort of. As the Trump administration draws into, you know, it's sort of late stages, right? We're three years away from a new president, as that happens. I think that Trump staffed the administration figuring, hey, I'm the president, all these people work for me. They can say whatever they want. In the end, I'm the one who makes the call. And then you have a bunch of people in the administration who are gaming for their own political futures, and they recognize that a very lucrative way of being able to draw your own sort of political future is to break away from the administration and be critical of the administration. That is an excellent way to sort of launch your political career. Which is why there's been all these rumors about, you know, Tulsi Gabbard over over at dni. Because, of course, people widely perceive her to be at odds with the president's foreign policy. She's sticking around for now, but I think that there are a lot of good rumors that she probably will not stick around for.

Ben Shapiro (46:55)

For very long.

Michael Knowles (46:55)

And so I think you'll see more of that as the administration gets later and people have their. Their kind of next step. You're gonna see people start to use the administration as a stepping stone rather than as an umbrella. And I think that could be a real problem. I wanna get to more of this with all of you in a second. First, your reminder, by the way. Daily Wire plus members can chat live with both me and Michael Knowles, in the middle of our show. That's a thing that we actually are doing now. So you don't just watch the conversation. We want you to be a part of it. It's a thing like we'll actually stop in the middle of the show and answer your questions in the middle of the show, interrupting our own thought processes to make these things happen for you, the people. You can get answers right here as we go. Head on over to DailyWire.com subscribe, become a member today. Okay, Michael, go for it.

Ben Shapiro (47:35)

Yes. Well, before you know, this actually brings us all the way back to the top of the show because we're talking about how many people slept with some lady that some husband was talking about on the Internet. Well, when you want to sleep in a much more wholesome and comfortable way, you gotta go check out Helix. Okay. Helix is just absolutely magnificent. I'll tell you what a great, great father I am. I got Helix mattresses for both of my sons that are out of the crib. You can go take the Helix sleep quiz today. It's terrific. You can figure out how to get a customized bed that is scientifically selected and perfect for you. Uses your sleep preferences, position, firmness, other factors to match you with the right mattress. Far more rational system than wandering around the showroom and laying on random beds. Okay. Which is one of those phenomena that we were talking about earlier in the show. Halex is an award winning mattress brand reviewed by outlets like Forbes and Wired. I love it. I think all of us have slept on a Helix at some point.

Drew Hernandez (48:37)

I don't sleep on them. I don't sleep anywhere. But I do lie awake on them and they're incredibly comfortable. I pity the fool who buys them because they're so comfortable they fall asleep. I don't have that problem. I'm just awake all night and I just sit there going, this is a great mattress. It really is too, because I'm very sensitive about this because I'm awake. So I really like this mattress and it's been great. We've had them for years now.

Ben Shapiro (48:58)

They ship directly to your mattress.

Michael Knowles (48:59)

Well, if you're not a living vampire like Drew, you should go get a Helix sleep mattress. And that way you can actually sleep on your mattress and then you'll be able to give an even better deal than Drew about how it actually increases your sleep quality as opposed to you just being very comfortable while lying there awake all night and never dying, according to Drew. So you can go check them out.

Ben Shapiro (49:17)

Free shipping 120 Night Sleep Trial Limited lifetime warranty means you test it risk free and it is magnificent. Ben, do you have anything else to add? No. Okay. Go to helixsleep.com no, it's okay.

Chris Rufo (49:31)

It's fine.

Ben Shapiro (49:31)

I think we're good. Helixsleep.com FriendlyFire 20% off sitewide helixsleep.com Friendly Fire 20% off sitewide make sure you enter our show name at checkout so they know that we sent you. Helixsleep.com FriendlyFire Chris, I'd love to get.

Michael Knowles (49:45)

I'd say the production quality on today's show has been excellent.

Ben Shapiro (49:47)

It's magnificent.

Michael Knowles (49:49)

Really on top of it the whole time.

Ben Shapiro (49:50)

Great prompting, guys.

Michael Knowles (49:51)

So good all the way through.

Drew Hernandez (49:52)

True.

Michael Knowles (49:53)

Yeah. The line delay isn't affecting us at all.

Ben Shapiro (49:56)

No,

Michael Knowles (49:59)

the ad text has been just like the echoes on the mark.

Ben Shapiro (50:06)

Well, the question is, is this setup functioning as well or better than the White House right now with all this consternation? And Chris, I would like to get your take on it because wrangling Republicans is truly like herding cats. They all want to go off in their own different directions. There actually are lots of ideological disagreements. There has long been an anti war right. There's a more pro war right. There's a tariff right. There's a free trade right. It's hard to see what keeps us together other than parted hair and garish neckties. But right now we're looking ahead at the midterms and then at 2028, is that Trump cohesion destined to fall apart? Are we gonna lose the dni? Are we gonna lose? Who knows? Secretary of State? Is this it?

Chris Rufo (50:57)

Certainly, I think it's possible. I think there are, look, frankly, some members of the administration who aren't performing who should be let go. Kash Patel, it would be high on my list for that to happen. But the broader picture that I think we need to understand, and we're kind of dancing around the edges of is the relationship between the rights media apparatus and the right's political apparatus. Look at their worst. These things are in tension or in contradiction where you have the political apparatus oriented towards power and the media apparatus oriented towards money, monetization, audience, et cetera. Sometimes those things overlap in a healthy way. Sometimes they point against each other. And we're entering a media moment where, and you can see it, I mean, it's just getting bigger and bigger and bigger where the incentive systems are not overlapping and integrating in a way that advances the public good. And I'll give you a specific example of what I mean, my specialty, what I do Is I take investigative reporting, I turn it into kind of media campaigns that try to drive public policy. And I'll tell you, the last three to six months have been very difficult relative to say the first three to six months of the administration, precisely because the conspiracy podcasting, the anti Semitism podcasting, the kind of general, just psychotic or schizo breakdown of the right's media apparatus in many quarters, not, of course, in these quarters, has degraded the ability for the right to be effective. And what happens is that political leaders often, often respond to and follow media narratives. If the media narrative is get rid of critical race theory, abolish dei, you know, stop kind of trans insanity in schools that leads politicians towards a greater understanding of reality and towards some sort of positive policy outcome. If the media narrative is did Israel kill Charlie Kirk? Not only is the breakdown epistemological, meaning we can't actually see the truth, we're not tightly kind of clung on to reality, but there's no positive outcome that can emerge from that. There's nothing we can do. If the premise is false, the conclusion is impossible. And so every media cycle that is dominated by the interpersonal tabloid drama or just the kind of brain addled conspiracy is directly harming the Trump administration's ability to succeed and therefore directly harming its political fate.

Ben Shapiro (53:30)

I gave a speech on this topic to members of Congress two weeks ago. There was a GOP retreat and it was on this exact point. I said, guys, the problem is invective against the podcast wars. It's not actually because of any of the personalities, all of whom I at least have been friends with, almost all of whom I have been friends with at some point, some of whom I'm still friends with to this day. But I said, the problem is structural. There's this moment where when the media and the political, the elected types, where their incentives were really aligned in 2024, we called it the podcast election. But increasingly you're seeing a divergence of their interests to the point. I mean, I can even see it sometimes in my own views or in my own ratings where I think I know if I talked about this sensational thing or if I said something that I actually think is unjust, or if I even talked about all the people who were saying and doing the unjust things that are politically irrelevant, that have nothing to do with advancing the administration's priorities, but are just kind of titillating, I know my ratings would go up and I'd make more money, but I don't wanna do that. I'm more of a political animal. I wanna advance the political good, but it doesn't matter what I do or not. If that is the case, that for the right broadly, you have a media machine that is incentivized one way and you have a political policy machine that's incentivized another way, it's just not gonna work. And it's so painful to me because,

Drew Hernandez (54:54)

you know, yeah, I don't wanna beat up on you again. Cause it just makes you look so bad. But I think that the problem is that it is structural. You're right about this, Michael. It is structural. But part of that structure is that falsehoods get out by powerful podcasters into the general public and you find yourself talking to people who think that Winston Churchill put his opposition in prison, which is simply a falsehood. And I think that is something that it is our job to correct. And listen, I agree this is not something I want to see. I don't want, do not want to see us arguing about this stuff. But I do think that it's, you know, it's incumbent upon us to speak the truth when other people are speaking lies, especially when they're speaking lies that are very popular.

Michael Knowles (55:41)

I mean, the other thing that I'll add here is that it is not just a matter of topicality. That is incentive misaligned. So, yes, you will get more views talking about, you know, the Candace Owens latest crazy theory than you will talking about, you know, the, the immigration fight that's currently happening over funding of dhs. Obviously that's true. However, there is another incentive structure that is significantly worse than that, which is if you are the person who exposits the insanity, you will get exponentially more traffic than the person who bunked the insanity. Right. That, that is, that is a. That is a. There's a difference there. So lumping. It's almost a category error to say.

Ben Shapiro (56:16)

Yeah, it's two levels.

Michael Knowles (56:17)

You know, on the one side you have the people. So yeah, and so like I would put closer to the. Basically I would say the rational and the irrational. What we're. The incentive structure right now is toward the irrational. It is toward black pilling. And that is the opposite of the stuff that Chris is doing. I gave a speech in Manhattan Institute a few weeks ago and this was basically the topic of my speech. It was, you know, one of the things that we ought to do as conservatives is be solution driven. Why? Because solutions, number one, help people. But number two, if you can solve things within the American system, that does uphold the American system, which is an inherently good thing to do. Cuz the American system is a good thing.

Ben Shapiro (56:51)

Thing.

Michael Knowles (56:52)

The black pill that people are taking right now says the system is unfixable and inherently bad. And therefore any solution that you effectuate within that system is upholding an unjust and terrible system. And that right now is incredibly sexy to people because people have decided that the institutions themselves are bad. And so what's really selling is people saying even the institutions used to trust they're lying to you. And they're not just lying to you about some things, they're lying to you about literally everything. There is nothing you can believe. And what's even better for the podcast bros is they can say the only person you can trust is me. And the way that you can trust me is because you know you can't trust any of them. Because I'm saying you can't trust any of them. And you know the institutions are all corrupt. And the way you can tell they're corrupt is because I'm about to tell you that aliens killed Charlie Kirk. And they would lie to you. They Right the unspecified. They, they will lie to you about this. They will tell you that there's an actual evidentiary system required. But I. I know in my heart the dream came to me that actually it was somebody else who did it. And I'm so honest and authentic that I can't be controlled this way. I'm free. I'm free to say what I want. I'm not being paid. I'm not being controlled by anyone. Now, of course the answer is all these people are being paid.

Ben Shapiro (57:57)

They're making ungodly viewers.

Michael Knowles (57:59)

The idea that. Yes, correct. I mean, the idea that they are doing it for poverty, Right. That these are some sort of priests wandering in the wilderness begging alms on behalf of truth. Like it's such horseshit. I can't even express how horseshit he is.

Ben Shapiro (58:12)

This is part of the structural issue too. To your point, Ben. Now it's all these independent voices because in the new media that the networks don't. We're one of the last networks of new media organizations. And so everyone's independent now. So that too creates different incentives. At least if you're on a network, if you're on a network, you can get fired. You know, if you're on a network, there are kind of standards, there's cohesion among the different shows. And so. So in the old days, back in TV or radio, if someone was saying something that was beyond the pale or the standards, there'd be a campaign to get that person fired, they'd leave. Now, it seems to me the whole structure of the media is anti institutional. So you've got the trauma of COVID where you realize that big institutions were actually lying to you about a number of things. You've got the decay of our political institutions generally, which is manifest and has been for decades at this point. And then you have this new media ecosystem which is intrinsically anti institutional. So something, Chris, that you do very well is you say, all right, well, if I don't like what's dominating the news, if that's harming my political prospects, I'm gonna change the news. I'm gonna go do an investigative report, and then I'm gonna lead a media campaign about that to get people focused again. That has worked a number of times, but I just wonder if it's kind of a tragedy, really. The right wing media began because the old terrible establishment news media shut us up and lied about us and censored us. And then we had this independent media and we kind of rode that, and it was great. We got the podcast election, it was great. And then the thing that made us great ended up being our own downfall in the right wing media. Is there any to get to the point on structure, is there any way to fix the incentives?

Chris Rufo (59:50)

Yeah, I mean, you have to understand that the structure is new. And so it's not just Fox News, NBC, ABC that have standards and practices, they have legal review, they have an audience that is aggregated and then sold to, you know, Fortune 500 company advertisers. The new structure, and the structure we're not talking about is the algorithm. And so the media and technology companies are, you know, the technology companies are not media companies, but in a sense, they've replaced the media companies. And it's like looking into a black box. And I know there's been a lot of talk about the Twitter algorithm, how that's changed. I think there's been a lot of talk about the YouTube algorithm and how that's changed. And look, what happened after Covid was censorship, especially censorship against the right, against dissident voices, was wrong. We shouldn't go back. But paradoxically, by Elon opening up the algorithm, by YouTube loosening some restrictions on the algorithm, you have now a new problem that needs to be solved. And again, I'm not endorsing censorship, I'm not saying we should go back, but we have to grapple with the fact that if you're on Twitter right now, like truly psychotic narratives gather steam at a rate that cannot be kind of debunked in a cool, calm and sober way. And that has downstream effects on all of various platforms. And then what's happening is that people in the legitimate media are sensing the feeling of the algorithm and they are chasing the algorithm because that's where the audience is that were, that's where the ad revenue is, that's where their narratives are going to. And so look, is there, are there nefarious things happening with the algorithm with foreign influence? You hear a lot of whispers about this. Nothing extremely concrete, but we should inspect at least at the theoretical level at this point, that we are becoming creatures of the algorithm and we have to understand the algorithm at least as good as we understood the old networks if we want to understand how to triumph over some of these blatantly false and conspiratorial narratives and create a right wing media machine that is once again oriented towards achieving things in the public arena that advance the public good.

Drew Hernandez (62:01)

You know, I have to say that I, I'm. This is actually something I'm worried about in the short run, but not in the long run. I mean, gatekeepers come back. The important thing is that we make sure that we are at the table when the gatekeepers come back. The appointment of Barry Weiss at CBS is a perfect example. She's a liberal person, but she is a fair person and she understands that news goes cuts in both directions. And the fact that she's being attacked the way she is shows you how desperate they are to maintain the power that is already crumbling. I'm not as worried of this becoming pure chaos. What I'm worried about is who makes it to the table a little bit. I'm a little bit more worried about that. I'm very disappointed in people following the algorithm and getting on board the conspiracy train and the crazy story train and all that stuff. But eventually, eventually things have to congeal. They always do. And the people start to be in control again and start cooler heads start to control things. What I think we have to do is we have to make the case that fair news is good news. That doing your job, doing your job, not changing the world, not telling us the truth, but getting the facts, gathering the facts, telling us the facts are the important things. I think, Chris, you know, I admire you. I think you've done a tremendous job of being that kind of voice. I think the Daily Wire now is hiring the kind of people who can help us become that kind of voice, gathering news. I mean, from the very beginning, my argument has been we need two Things we need entertainment and we need actual reporting because we've got the opinions, we've got good opinions, we've got good outlets and outlooks. But I think that I'm not as worried about this. I think that the thing is, if we keep doing the job we're doing, which is investigating, gathering news, shaping the news, eventually we're gonna win. Because the fact is we're telling the truth. You know, some of what we say is opinion, but a lot of what we say is just the facts.

Michael Knowles (63:54)

The thing that I'm afraid of is really not the algorithm, which, again, I think will shift over time. And I think, again, chasing clicks is a fool's errand because the algorithm will shift again. And if you've lost your sensor, you know, but for whales, right? You're selling your soul. But for whales, you know, the. I think that the thing that concerns me and that I'm seeing in the conservative movement is I've watched as the conservative movement went from a conservative movement to a broader anti left movement to an even broader anti, quote, establishment movement. And once you move all the way from conservative, all the way over to anti establishment, this is no longer conservative. Because the reality is that when you are conservative, there are certain institutions, not all of them, but there are certain institutions that you believe are core, that must be conserved. Right. That actually remain established. And so, you know, so I think that that broader thing, I think that what the Trump era did is it shifted the conservative movement into the anti left movement. Right? Rush Limbaugh said this famously, Right? He changed the advanced. The Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on his show into the Institute for Advanced Anti Left Studies.

Ben Shapiro (64:58)

He switched it. But he did switch it.

Michael Knowles (65:00)

Yeah, he did switch it. And I think it was indicative of kind of where the movement was like, we can't win as pure conservative. So now we're just gonna become broadly anti left and we're the anti left alliance. And then after 2020, it turned into the we're the broad anti establishment front. And I think one of the problems that the Trump administration is having is now their establishment. So what happens when you are an anti establishment front, that is the establishment, and the same thing happens that always happens, which is you start to eat your own. And so I think that that is an inherently unstable coalition. There's no such thing as an establishment anti establishment coalition. It doesn't work that way. And so that's why I think you're seeing a lot of the chaotic ideological breakdown that you're watching right now.

Ben Shapiro (65:36)

Yeah, that's true. And, of course, we have to continue to appeal to a populace that does feel like they were jilted by the establishment. But you can't just be chasing that algorithm because the most clearly guaranteed way to go viral on Twitter is to call your wife a whore. And none of us wants to do that. Gentlemen, wonderful to be with you, Chris. Thank you for joining. Thank you to all of you for being here. See you on the next one.

Chris Rufo (66:00)

It's good to see you.

Michael Knowles (66:05)

The undisputed, undefeated weed whacker guy. Champion of hurling grass and pollen everywhere.

Ben Shapiro (66:13)

And in the blue corner, the challenger, Extra Strength Hannity.

Michael Knowles (66:19)

Eyedrops that work all day to prevent the release of histamines that cause itchy allergies. G eyes.

Ben Shapiro (66:25)

And the winner by knockout is Patterny.

Michael Knowles (66:30)

Bring it on.