On his podcast, Ben Shapiro pushed back on criticism from Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan, arguing his disputes with Tucker Carlson and others are not about Israel while accusing media figures of chasing “clicks.” “As for Piers, I’m still bewildered as to why Piers is so pissed off,” Shapiro said. “Seriously. Stop being a pissy little b*tch. Seriously. It’s really kind of ridiculous. I said that I don’t want to go on your show. Oh, I’m sorry. I said that I think your show’s Jerry Springer, that you fill up the screen with a six box of people, none of whom you would want to talk to in a cafe.”

BEN SHAPIRO, HOST: Josh says, quote, Dear Ben, I’ve been watching a lot of your adversarial interviews lately, and I’ve noticed that once they run out of arguments, they always fall back on the Israel issue. Yeah, I noticed that too. I noticed this especially in Megyn Kelly’s defense of Tucker Carlson, where she claimed that your issue with him and recently her all boiled down to Israel, which I believe is an incorrect characterization. They just find it convenient to blame Israel instead of facing the actual points you are making. My question is, how do you deal with people like this? People that anytime you disagree with them, just say the reason you disagree with them is because of Israel. I like the way Matt Walsh said it. People that are Israel First from the opposite direction, meaning the first thing they care about is being anti-Israel. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. So, yes, they’re lying. Megyn is lying and so is Tucker. I mean, period. They’re just lying. I started originally criticizing Tucker Carlson for his economic programs back in 2018. And then in the more modern post-Fox iteration of Tucker, I started criticizing Tucker over his going to Russia to sniff the bread and kiss Vladimir Putin’s ass. My generalized critique of Tucker in the last few months has been one, he hosted and glossed a Nazi, Nick Fuentes, which doesn’t have to do with Israel. It has to do with glazing a Nazi, Nick Fuentes. And then I did a speech at Heritage in which I went through the fact that Tucker Carlson is in no way, shape or form a traditional conservative. And he’s a conspiratorial near-anarchist at this point, seeking to tear down the fundamental ideas and institutions of the United States. Go watch the Heritage speech. I believe Israel is mentioned once in a 35 minute speech that is all about Tucker’s general view of the world and how it does not represent traditional conservatism in any way. Megyn is even more dishonest. I’ve literally never, not once mentioned Megyn Kelly, never in the context of Israel, ever, ever. My critique of began when, and again, go back and watch the tape because it’s all on tape gang, go back and watch the tape. Megyn wanted me to come and do one of her live events, which we did for free, obviously, and came down as a favor to Megyn because Megyn and I were friendly. And of course, we’d had a long, longstanding business relationship in which we had really, really helped her launch her business, which she freely admits or admitted at the time. I don’t know if she does anymore. She used to have me on her Fox News show sometimes. Now I see she’s taking credit for my entire career. Well, you know, congrats, Megyn, I suppose. I’m going to see if you’re happy about your decisions. I disagree about my career trajectory, but that’s fine if you want to take credit. Sure. In any case, my critique of Megyn on the stage was, why don’t you call out Candace Owens for implicating Erika Kirk in the murder of Charlie Kirk? That was my critique on the stage. And why don’t you call out Tucker Carlson for glazing Nick Fuentes, the leading enemy of Charlie Kirk, because Nick Fuentes hated, despised Charlie Kirk and the feeling was mutual. That was my critique of Megyn. And then she went on to claim that I was lying about Candace and that actually Candace was even, quote unquote, defending in her own way, Erika Kirk. Well, that didn’t age amazing, as it turns out. And then at TPUSA, I called out Candace and Tucker for refusing to call out Candace Owens for what she had been doing to Erika Kirk, for refusing to tell the truth on issues and instead programming toward the cliques, for their unique cowardice in making conspiratorial claims without evidence about, say, Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump. I did not mention Israel one time in the TPUSA speech. Zero is the number of times I mentioned Israel. So here’s what’s actually happening. What’s actually happening is that there is a game that has now emerged on this part of the right. The game goes something like this. I don’t accuse you of anti-Semitism. You instead claim that I did. And then you say, how dare he call me an anti-Semite? He’s trying to cancel me. It’s the Jussie Smollett of political claims. You attack yourself and then you claim that I attacked you as an anti-Semite. That’s absurd. I think that Tucker Carlson has fostered anti-Semitism by having on some of the worst anti-Semites in America over and over and over and then essentially laundering their views. I have never remotely called Megyn Kelly an anti-Semite, nor, by the way, did I call Piers Morgan an anti-Semite. I said that his show is the Jerry Springer of politics, a clown car of stupidity, and it is. That’s all. That’s literally all. I didn’t say that he should be taken down. I didn’t say that people should stop watching his show if they want to. I said I did not wish to appear in the clown car of stupidity, which seems to me an aspect of free speech. I don’t have to associate with Piers’ dumb show. I mean, lots of people like it. Good for him. And Piers measures his morality by clicks, and so I assume he sleeps fine at night. That’s fine. That’s his prerogative. It’s a free country. But let’s be real. The tactic that is currently being used by all of these figures is a preemptive claim that people are calling you anti-Semitic. And then they say, and I’m not anti-Semitic. Really, they’re just mad at me because of Israel. So it’s a two-step, none of which is true. I didn’t call Megyn anti-Semitic. I didn’t call Piers anti-Semitic. I didn’t critique Megyn on her Israel position. In fact, Megyn and I have had many conversations off the air about Israel and the situation in the Middle East, in which I have said to her that I think that many of her critics over her policies on Israel up till now were wrong and misguided. In fact, I said that on show. But again, honesty is not a top priority for many of these people. The grift is the priority. The clicks are the priority. I stand by every single word I said at that TPUSA speech. There are an enormous group of people in the commentariat, an enormous number of people in this space whose chief desire is for fame and clicks. That is what they care about. And so their principles morph over time. Now, listen, I don’t think Piers’ principles ever morphed. I don’t think Piers had any principles. I think his principle was always clicked. I think that for Megyn, maybe she had principles at one point. I’m not sure anymore, because again, this would all stop very easily if, for example, Megyn Kelly had the stones to actually just condemn Candace Owens for what she’s been doing. That’s been my critique for months, and she still hasn’t done it. She said she would die before she did it. That’s her principle. Okay. All right. And again, as for Piers, I’m still bewildered as to why Piers is so pissed off. Seriously. Stop being a pissy little b*tch. Seriously. It’s really kind of ridiculous. I said that I don’t want to go on your show. Oh, I’m sorry. I said that I think your show’s Jerry Springer, that you fill up the screen with a six box of people, none of whom you would want to talk to in a cafe. And then you have them argue with each other and yell at each other and scream. You have Cenk Uygur with his head blowing up like a red balloon on the air next to Norman Finkelstein, next to whatever kook you found on a street corner, next to maybe one legitimate person. And then you’re like, this is a solid debate. Okay. You want to do that? That’s your choice, my dude. You can. But I don’t understand why it’s not my choice to say I don’t wish to participate in your dumb show and why that somehow represents censorship. That is not censorship. You don’t have to come on my show. I don’t have to come on your show. Nobody has to go on anybody’s show. And I’m not saying that people can’t watch your show or that you should be deplatformed. The expansion of censorship to include, I’m not allowed to somehow criticize Megyn Kelly for her cowardice. And she’s a coward. Or that I’m not allowed to criticize Piers Morgan for being a click whore. And yes, he’s a click whore. Or that I’m not allowed to criticize Tucker Carlson for being a nut because he’s being a nut. And that somehow these critiques amount to a campaign of cancellation or censorship. That’s weird to me. One final note here. I saw that Megyn yesterday suggested that I’m in a mood to just throw people out of the conservative movement. People like Piers. Piers Morgan was never a conservative. What the hell are you talking about? My entire point at the Heritage Foundation speech that I did last December, and again, go back and listen to it, was any movement must have ideological borders. If people reflect views that are not inside those borders, they are not in the movement. And they certainly are not leaders of the movement. They can be fellow travelers. They can vote however they want. It’s a free country. But the fact that Megyn is considering Piers, quote unquote, part of the conservative movement is astonishing to me because Piers holds almost zero seriously conservative positions. But, you know, I guess that they have locked arms because it’s all about the clicks, baby.

RealClearPolitics Videos