[00:00] So, Democratic California Governor Gavin
[00:02] Newsome does these uh podcasts with
[00:04] people. He invites uh conservatives uh
[00:08] it seems quite often. Um and I think my
[00:10] sense is part of it is quite a clever
[00:12] political strategy to uh presumably many
[00:15] are talking about him running for
[00:16] president in the next election. And this
[00:18] is maybe a way of showing he's
[00:19] open-minded trying to win over floating
[00:22] voters pe you know people in the center
[00:23] grounds. Either way, really interesting
[00:25] to see people from different sides of
[00:27] the political aisle have a conversation
[00:29] together. And he pros Ben Shapiro here
[00:32] on Ben's big speech that he did that he
[00:34] did at Afest at that Turning Point event
[00:36] where Ben decided enough's enough. He's
[00:38] now going to call out explicitly people
[00:39] like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson
[00:41] for what he believes is infecting the
[00:44] conservative right with uh sinister,
[00:46] nefarious
[00:48] viewpoints, ideas. Um and uh Gavin in
[00:53] this conversation presses Ben on what
[00:56] what was really motivating you? What was
[00:57] happening behind the scenes? What did
[00:59] Ben make of the reaction where there
[01:00] were people that were criticizing him
[01:01] for it? Really interesting stuff. Have a
[01:03] watch of it and I'll see you on the
[01:04] other side for some further thoughts.
[01:05] >> You got a lot of attention for going uh
[01:08] recently uh to America Fest uh Turning
[01:10] Point USA. You made a terrible decision
[01:14] of being the first speaker. That's just
[01:16] me saying editorially what the heck
[01:19] that that is not that is not my decision
[01:20] right they invited me they gave me a
[01:22] slot that's that's
[01:23] >> yeah just your luck because then every
[01:24] speaker can come on and you know I got
[01:26] to say what I wanted to say and uh
[01:28] >> so paint the picture what did you say so
[01:30] people tuning in don't know what the
[01:31] hell we're talking about you went in and
[01:33] u a pretty somber time um you know
[01:36] Charlie's widow uh was there you had a
[01:39] lot of you know the the sort of branded
[01:41] celebrities in in the right and Candace
[01:43] Owens was there and
[01:44] >> Candace was not to be fair, but became
[01:47] part of the the conversation definitely
[01:48] was part of the conversation and and
[01:50] Bannon and Megan Kelly others so many
[01:52] others uh certainly Tucker Carlson. So
[01:54] give us a sense what did you say and why
[01:56] did you say it and why did you choose
[01:58] that moment to say it?
[02:00] >> So the the reason that I chose the
[02:01] moment to say it is that Candace Owens
[02:04] who has some issues of her own uh she
[02:07] has been saying since Charlie's death
[02:09] that there was effectively a conspiracy
[02:11] to kill him. She has implicated pretty
[02:13] much everybody uh ranging from, believe
[02:15] it or not, French intelligence to the
[02:19] Israelis to uh various friends and
[02:21] family members possibly of Charlie uh in
[02:24] in his murder. Um, and there have been
[02:26] an enormous number of people in the
[02:28] influencer space on the right who have
[02:30] gone along with this, who have massaged
[02:31] it, pretended not to notice it, uh,
[02:33] tried to defend her, tried to pretend
[02:35] that it was an aspect of that that
[02:36] questioning her was an aspect of free
[02:38] speech, which of course, uh, was a
[02:39] violation of free speech rather, which
[02:41] of course it isn't. You know, criticism
[02:43] is not a violation of free speech. It's
[02:44] a form of free speech. Uh and so I uh
[02:46] and so I got up on stage and I I
[02:48] basically gave a speech saying our
[02:50] responsibility as people with influence
[02:52] in the public space there. We have some
[02:55] responsibilities and those
[02:56] responsibilities include truth above
[02:58] all. We ought to give you we ought to be
[03:00] clear about what we believe. We should
[03:01] not hide the ball. We should not allow
[03:03] quote unquote friendship to trump what
[03:05] is true. Just because you're friends
[03:06] with someone does not alleviate the
[03:08] responsibility for you to say when
[03:09] they're doing something that is wrong or
[03:11] immoral. uh we should not engage in
[03:13] audience capture. Just because our
[03:14] audience wants us to say a thing doesn't
[03:16] mean that we ought to say it. Uh and we
[03:19] we ought to ensure that we are held
[03:22] responsible for the things that we say
[03:24] and also the people that we have on and
[03:26] how we question those people. So of
[03:28] course anybody has the right to have
[03:30] anybody on their show who they want and
[03:32] then they should treat those people how
[03:33] they want to treat those people. I mean,
[03:35] if if I were to have on somebody who,
[03:37] you know, in a deeply adversarial
[03:38] position, I think what's great about
[03:39] this conversation is you can see how
[03:41] adversarial we are with regard to some
[03:42] of our positions, but at the same time
[03:44] still have the discussion. Um, you know,
[03:46] if if you are if you are going to have
[03:48] on, for example, as Tucker Carlson did,
[03:49] Nick Fuentes, who is a self-stated
[03:52] Nazi apologist and and then you're going
[03:54] to treat him with kid gloves, then you
[03:56] ought to be held responsible for that in
[03:58] the court of public opinion. And if we
[04:01] as influencers do not do that job, if we
[04:03] if we lie to you, if we fib to you, if
[04:06] we make predictions, which we are then
[04:07] not held responsible for, if we hide
[04:09] behind quoteunquote just asking
[04:10] questions, this is one of my bugaboos. I
[04:11] hate it. You hear this a lot in the
[04:14] influencer space, mostly on the right,
[04:15] but some on the left as well. Uh this
[04:17] sort of, you know, I'm I'm I'm not
[04:19] putting out a theory. I'm just asking
[04:20] questions. Well, there's a difference
[04:21] between seeking answers and just asking
[04:23] questions. Seeking answers,
[04:25] >> that's what questions are for. It's to
[04:26] get better information, more
[04:28] clarification. You know, I should have a
[04:30] better idea after the question of the
[04:31] answer than I did before. Just asking
[04:33] questions is usually a guise for willful
[04:35] ignorance and for positing a theory
[04:37] without having to carry the
[04:39] responsibility for positing that theory.
[04:41] So if I say, you know, I'm just asking
[04:42] questions about whether you have
[04:44] peculiar sexual proclivities. I don't
[04:46] have any evidence. I'm just asking the
[04:47] question. And then you say, well, that
[04:49] what where is that even coming from?
[04:50] Listen, I'm just asking questions. I'm
[04:52] not asking questions. I'm obviously
[04:53] attempting to impute something to you.
[04:55] And so this is what this speech was
[04:57] about. I named names in it. I I
[04:58] mentioned I mentioned Tucker Carlson. I
[05:00] mentioned Megan Kelly who had sort of
[05:02] gone out of her way uh to massage
[05:04] Candace Owens in in her pursuit of
[05:06] bizarre conspiracy theories about about
[05:09] Erica and and Charlie's murder. I
[05:11] mentioned Steve uh because I think Steve
[05:13] has been doing many of the same things.
[05:15] Uh and and so that was that was the
[05:17] speech at Anthem
[05:18] >> and that you felt it necessary to name
[05:20] names as opposed to imply. You just felt
[05:22] it was important to be clear.
[05:23] >> Yes. because I think that I think that
[05:24] people should know exactly who they're
[05:25] listening to, particularly since some
[05:26] they're going to hear from some of those
[05:28] people at the at the same event. And so
[05:30] I thought that people should, you know,
[05:31] be forewarned about the people they're
[05:33] going to hear about. Then they can make
[05:34] their own decisions and determine
[05:35] whether my assessment of those
[05:37] personalities is is accurate or
[05:39] inaccurate.
[05:39] >> Uh and the reaction was exactly as you
[05:43] anticipated. Um, I think that the the
[05:45] reaction in the in the in the room was I
[05:47] think overwhelming because a lot of a
[05:48] lot of people were very upset that
[05:50] people had been saying this about
[05:52] Charlie's murder, which again was
[05:54] carried out by all available evidence by
[05:56] a person motivated by
[06:00] hatred of Charlie's position on
[06:02] transgender issues in particular. Uh,
[06:05] and you know, the all the evidence
[06:07] points to Tyler Robinson as being the
[06:08] person who shot Charlie Kirk. And so I
[06:10] think that a lot of people in the
[06:10] audience were deeply offended and upset
[06:13] correctly so at the kind of specious
[06:14] conspira conspiracy theories that have
[06:17] been promoted by this group of by the
[06:18] group of folks. Uh the the the sort of
[06:20] blowback that came afterward was was
[06:22] really interesting. Um you know there a
[06:24] lot of people who obviously were very
[06:26] upset and many of the people who had
[06:27] named I'm not surprised came back and
[06:29] you know fired back. I will say that I
[06:31] don't think any of them actually argued
[06:32] with the point that I was making. They
[06:33] seem to make collateral attacks uh
[06:35] imputing intent to me suggesting that my
[06:38] my speech had something to do with
[06:40] Israel, which is funny since I didn't
[06:41] mention Israel one time in the entire
[06:42] speech. Uh and uh and and I found that
[06:44] sort of bizarre. And then obviously
[06:46] you've seen, you know, sort of the
[06:47] influence of wars going on, but the
[06:49] whole point that I was making is here's
[06:50] a principle. Either you uphold the
[06:52] principle or you don't uphold the
[06:53] principle. If you don't uphold the
[06:54] principle, I'm going to call you out for
[06:56] not upholding the principle. And it
[06:57] really is quite simple. It's not about
[06:59] friendship. It's not about whether we go
[07:00] fishing together. none of that has
[07:02] anything to do with with the principle
[07:04] that's at stake because if we want to
[07:06] have an honest discussion with one
[07:07] another then we actually should be
[07:09] honest about the principles that we hold
[07:10] and if we disagree we disagree but
[07:11] clarity before agreement as my friend
[07:13] Dennis Prager says
[07:14] >> when were you close with Charlie
[07:16] >> um I don't want to pretend that we were
[07:18] best friends or anything one of the
[07:19] things I said in the speech is I think
[07:20] that it's pretty rare actually in
[07:22] politics for people say that they're
[07:23] friends in politics these are usually
[07:24] not people you're going and hanging out
[07:26] with on the weekends that's it's not
[07:27] real okay like whenever you hear
[07:29] politicians oh we're best
[07:31] >> is It's such I'm sorry. It's
[07:34] There may be a couple of exceptions.
[07:35] They're rare. Okay. The reality is that
[07:37] they are business colleagues and
[07:38] associates in the same way that most
[07:40] people have business colleagues and
[07:41] associates that they see at the office.
[07:43] We see each other rare more rarely than
[07:44] you probably see your business
[07:45] colleagues or associates at at the
[07:47] office.
[07:47] >> You respected how he organized in the
[07:49] campus level. I mean,
[07:51] >> all the echoes of things you were doing.
[07:53] >> Listen, Charlie was incredibly gifted as
[07:55] an organizer. I won't say that we agreed
[07:57] on on everything politically because
[07:59] clearly we didn't. Um, but I I I think
[08:01] that, you know, Charlie as a as a person
[08:03] who was willing to go into fraud spaces,
[08:06] obviously, and he was killed doing this,
[08:08] uh, and to and to speak his principles
[08:10] to people who disagreed and do so in
[08:13] what I think overwhelmingly was sort of
[08:14] an honest and and decent fashion, I
[08:16] think that was a very good thing.
[08:17] >> What um, Tucker Carlson and you history,
[08:20] do you?
[08:21] >> Um, I mean, I'm not sure that we have a
[08:23] history so much as as Tucker seems to
[08:25] object to my politics, and I object to
[08:27] his. Uh, I think Tucker tries to
[08:29] personalize this. I think Megan has
[08:31] tried to personalize this. I I I don't
[08:33] believe in in personalizing these
[08:35] things. I was asked by somebody, you
[08:37] know, would Tucker and I ever be I'd go
[08:39] fishing with Tucker. I don't care. I
[08:40] mean, that doesn't matter to me. Uh, the
[08:43] question is his principles and the
[08:44] things that that he says. I think that
[08:45] Tucker I gave a speech right before TP
[08:47] USA at Heritage Foundation where I
[08:48] pointed out that that Tucker is not an
[08:50] advocate for conservatism in any way
[08:52] that I can identify conservatism. He is
[08:54] he's not in favor of a of a more limited
[08:56] government of checks and balances. He's
[08:58] come out in favor of feudalism fairly
[09:00] recently. Uh he he's not in favor of
[09:03] traditional institutions. He seems to
[09:05] think that they have lost their way. He
[09:07] is he's in favor of what appears to me a
[09:10] sort of horseshoe theory Noam Chsky
[09:11] foreign policy where America is always
[09:13] the the the bad actor in the world. And
[09:15] so I I think
[09:16] >> I read Mike Chsky back in the day. not
[09:19] be surprised
[09:20] >> and and and I think that you know when
[09:22] when the the biggest thing that that
[09:23] Tucker engages in I mentioned the just
[09:25] asking questions which which he's very
[09:27] fond of is and this is something again
[09:29] that is a both sides problem uh and that
[09:31] is a a general conspiracism about the
[09:33] world the worst thing happening in our
[09:34] politics so really interesting stuff
[09:36] there the first point that I want to get
[09:37] into is where Ben talks about you know
[09:40] prioritizing truth truth over loyalty
[09:42] and and friendship this is something
[09:43] I've spoken about as well because there
[09:45] have been some people are saying Ollie
[09:46] and often in the comments people are
[09:48] saying, Ollie, you know, there shouldn't
[09:49] be infighting. You have to stop with the
[09:51] infighting. There needs to be unity on
[09:53] the conservative right in America. And I
[09:57] I have to push back as as Ben is here
[10:00] and say, "One second, how far are we
[10:02] going to take that, does that mean that
[10:03] anyone that ident any big figure that
[10:06] identifies as being a conservative in
[10:10] America, just by identifying that way
[10:13] historically, that gives them a free
[10:15] pass to say whatever they want." That's
[10:17] point number one. Point number two is
[10:19] people like Tucker and Candace and
[10:21] others, they go after the other side, as
[10:23] in people like within their own camp
[10:25] like Mark Leavvin. They'll criticize Ben
[10:27] Shapiro. No one says to them, "Hey,
[10:28] you're stoking uh disunityity.
[10:32] It only seems to come one way. Megan
[10:34] Kelly only seems to attack the Mark
[10:36] Leven and Ben Shapiro's put a lid on it,
[10:38] but not the other side. So whatever
[10:40] happened to just this is not about
[10:42] deplatforming as Tucker framed it but
[10:44] it's about um free speech and a
[10:47] conversation of ideas. And then the
[10:50] third thing is this that I think when it
[10:52] comes to politics and having massive
[10:53] platforms that influence mass masses of
[10:55] people loyalty and friendship matter and
[10:58] they're important and they do play a
[10:59] role I think in making sure you know
[11:02] making sure that you don't that you
[11:04] treat your friends fairly when they're
[11:06] also in that same space. But that's the
[11:08] point. It's got to be fair. It can't be
[11:11] treating them as infallible and loyalty
[11:14] trumping the responsibility you have to
[11:16] your audience. And what's tricky here is
[11:19] that Ben Shapiro and others are meant to
[11:22] be commentators that are meant to focus
[11:23] on the news and talking about ideas and
[11:25] morality.
[11:27] But the the tricky thing is that the
[11:30] personas, the personalities have become
[11:32] the news. They've become the topics.
[11:34] Tucker's latest uh conspiracy theory
[11:37] about Israel. Candace's latest
[11:39] conspiracy theory about Charlie Kurt and
[11:41] they become the topics and Ben Shapiro
[11:44] his whole shtick is to talk about what
[11:47] people are talking about in the world,
[11:48] what's occurring in the news. And so we
[11:52] talk about loyalty to, you know, other
[11:54] conservative podcasters. What about his
[11:55] loyalty to his audience to provide them
[11:58] with moral clarity when you're having
[12:00] other people who are doing uh you know
[12:03] really nefarious stuff and and
[12:05] influencing all kinds of people to bad
[12:07] places, bad ideas. It's interesting to
[12:10] note by the way that the people that
[12:11] accused him of ulterior motives and
[12:13] protecting Israel, he never mention as
[12:15] he said he never mentioned Israel or
[12:17] Jewish issues in his speech at Amfest.
[12:19] He's talking about the conspiracy
[12:21] theories that Candace Owens is floating
[12:23] about Charlie Kirk. He's talking about
[12:25] Tucker Carlson and the fact that he
[12:27] often defends and has more moral
[12:29] sympathy for America's enemies than
[12:32] America itself.
[12:34] I think once you go out and speak in the
[12:37] public sphere about ideas, then you you
[12:40] what you say, not your whole personality
[12:42] and and and character assassinating you.
[12:45] Benpur never did that. But the ideas and
[12:47] the things that you say they become fair
[12:50] game.
[12:53] I think that has to be has to be the way
[12:56] we look at it otherwise
[12:59] we go down a very dark path.
[13:02] So that's why when JD Vance later spoke
[13:04] and went on the stage and he said, you
[13:05] know, I did not come here with a list of
[13:07] conservatives to denounce,
[13:10] that was really like a it was a bit of a
[13:12] final straw for me with him because that
[13:13] is such an unfair assessment and immoral
[13:17] assessment of what Ben Shapiro was
[13:19] doing. You should know, by the way, Ben
[13:21] was holding back for such a long time in
[13:23] talking about this and just playing the
[13:26] the ball, not the man. But the problem
[13:28] is that the two have kind of kind of
[13:30] overlapped because the things they are
[13:33] saying
[13:35] are so centered around their
[13:37] personalities, Candice and Tucker, etc.
[13:41] And again, Ben was not saying they these
[13:45] are bad people. He was saying what they
[13:48] are saying are bad ideas. And we can't
[13:50] simply have this principle of you get a
[13:54] free reign to say whatever you want in
[13:56] any in any political movement simply
[13:58] because you identify as being part of
[14:00] our tribe. Otherwise, if you do that,
[14:02] then you're going to end up losing any
[14:04] sense of morality.
[14:06] The only kind of uh unity that can work
[14:09] is unity around a shared moral code. You
[14:12] can have disagreements about the
[14:14] specifics and the details, but if you
[14:15] can't agree on that, then uh then you're
[14:19] you're in real trouble. Just hang on for
[14:20] a moment. After covering Israel for
[14:22] years, I've realized that most of the
[14:24] lies boil down to one simple tactic used
[14:27] by Israel's enemies from the very start,
[14:30] the deliberate reversal of cause and
[14:32] effect. And our new documentary exposes
[14:35] exactly how this works. Have a watch of
[14:38] our trailer for our new film called The
[14:40] Great Reversal. and you can watch it in
[14:42] full right now by clicking the link
[14:43] below in the video description. For
[14:45] decades, one idea has shaped how much of
[14:48] the world understands the Israel
[14:50] Palestine [music] conflict. Israel did
[14:52] something wrong and the Palestinians
[14:54] simply resisted. Whether it's 1948 or
[14:57] the recent war in Gaza, the story is the
[14:59] same every time. Israel provokes,
[15:02] Palestinians resist. Israel oppresses,
[15:04] Palestinians fight back. This narrative
[15:06] dominates campuses, the media, and much
[15:09] of global politics.
[15:10] >> [music]
[15:10] >> It feels familiar. It feels intuitive.
[15:12] And for many people, it feels true. But
[15:15] what if the sequence is backwards? What
[15:17] if the origin point and every [music]
[15:19] major chapter that followed has been
[15:20] told in reverse? In the wars of 1948 and
[15:24] '67, in the collapse of Oslo, in the
[15:26] suicide bombings of the Inifard, in the
[15:28] rockets after Israel withdrew from Gaza,
[15:30] in the massacre of October 7th, and the
[15:33] global narrative that followed. In this
[15:35] JTV Plus documentary, we're going to
[15:37] expose the great lie that has reversed
[15:39] [music] cause and effect. A narrative
[15:41] engineered to help the real aggressors
[15:44] erode Israel's legitimacy. [music] will
[15:46] trace the conflict from its origins to
[15:48] the present day, revealing how at every
[15:50] stage the true sequence of events
[15:53] [music] was inverted, how aggression was
[15:55] reframed as resistance, how defense was
[15:57] recast as provocation, and how a
[16:00] conflict rooted in hatred of Jews was
[16:02] deliberately twisted into a story that
[16:04] blames the Jews. Join us as we restore
[16:07] the story to the order in which it
[16:09] actually happened and uncover the truth
[16:11] hidden beneath a century of lies. To
[16:14] watch this JTV Plus documentary and
[16:16] access much more premium content, click
[16:19] on the link in the video description.
