Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:00]
A
This movement is a massive movement.
- [00:03]
B
The left believes in a victim, victimizer complex. I can't even begin to speculate on the psychiatric state of Candace Owens. I think social media has been one of the worst things to happen to humanity.
- [00:20]
A
Hey, Bill O'Reilly here. Welcome to another edition of Will Do It Live. And we're very pleased to have Ben Shapiro. You know him, he's a commentator, dominates social media. He's a feud guy, gets in a lot of that. We'll talk about some of that. I can identify with the feud thing, that's for sure. But it's all different world out there than what I have done for 50 years and I want to learn about it today. So, Mr. Shapiro, thanks for helping us out. Number one, nice of you to do it. I know you're crazy busy. The first thing is that researching you, I go back to there's almost a constant theme that you are a defender of Israel and Judaism. Would that be true?
- [01:18]
B
I mean, it's certainly true that I defend Israel against people who would wish to destroy it. And it's certainly true that I'm a defender of Judaism because I'm an Orthodox Jew. I would not say that that is my predominant characteristic in the American public landscape. Now, obviously, I've been commenting on American politics, virtually none of it on Israel or Judaism for the past 25 years, since I was about 17 years old. The sort of attempt to pigeonhole me into just does Israel, just does Jewish stuff is sort of an oddity that's occurring online right now, I would say.
- [01:50]
A
When you were doing general commentary, did you have a direction? So we know the big commentators on television and they're either liberal or conservative or independent, as the case may be. What was your definition of what you were doing out there?
- [02:11]
B
Well, I mean, I was and still am a strong conservative speaking about conservative issues every single day, ranging from a sort of free market view of capitalism, very strongly free market view of capitalism, to hawkish foreign policy to social conservatism. I'm sort of a traditional conservative along Buckleyite lines. And the vast majority of what I talk about today on my show has to do with those principles.
- [02:35]
A
Okay, so you're a doctrinaire conservative. William F. Buckley, in case people don't know, was dominated conservative thought in America in the 50s and 60s, people have gotten him. But he was a brilliant man. There's no question about it. Now, Donald Trump. So you got an in and out relationship with the president. Would that be accurate?
- [03:03]
B
I would say that I've always called balls and Strikes with the President. As far as my own sort of voting pattern, I did not vote for either candidate in 2016. And then I voted for President Trump in 2020 and endorsed him. And in 2024, I did some campaigning. I did one event with him around October 7th and ran a fundraiser for him. So obviously, I've evolved in my views of his politics. I don't like everything the President does. I like most of what the President does. I think it's my job to sort of call out where I think he's doing things that are. That are wrong and then tout him for the things that he's doing that are right. And I think that there's more of the right than the wrong.
- [03:37]
A
Why didn't you vote for him? In 16, you didn't vote for Hillary, you didn't vote for him. Why did you send it out? Nope.
- [03:44]
B
In 16, my feeling was that neither met the minimum qualifications that I had to be President of the United States. I did not think that President Trump was going to govern conservatively. I thought that his ideology was all over the place. I thought that the way that he approached politics was not something that I appreciated. Obviously, I was never gonna vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm a doctor in Eric, Conservative, as you just mentioned. And so my feeling was that I would sit it out and wait for a better set of candidates to arise. Then the President won, obviously. And when that happened, he proceeded to govern a lot more conservatively than I thought he would, and he obviously won me over as a supporter. Between 2016 and 2020, what kind of
- [04:20]
A
relationship do you have with him? Are you friendly with him? Do you speak with him?
- [04:26]
B
We certainly don't talk. I mean, it's not as though we're on a first texting basis or anything like that. I've had personal contact with the President a total of three times. One was a fundraiser that we ran for him down here in Florida. One was that aforementioned event around October 7th at the Grave of Malcolm Endel Schneerson in New York. And the third was when he came on my show shortly before the election. That was the last time I had a conversation with him.
- [04:49]
A
Okay, right now, we got a very intense situation with Iran that some. Some conservatives and almost all liberals are saying that the President cannot handle. Where do you come down on that?
- [05:10]
B
I think the President certainly can handle it. I think the question is whether he will handle it. So I think that the real question with Iran is, of course, what is the off ramp? The amount of damage that was done in the first six weeks of the conflict was to the tremendous good of the United States. We essentially wiped out their ballistic missile production facilities. We. We wiped out a good deal of their nuclear program. We wiped out their leadership cadre. We wiped out their air force. We wiped out much of their navy. We destroyed their capacity to produce new drones. All of that was to the good. And then we kind of unilaterally declared a ceasefire. And since then, we've been keeping on this blockade and a set of sanctions. Again, I'm very much in favor of the sanctions. I think that keeping the economy there weeks that they don't have the money to rebuild is a very good thing. What I object to is this idea that we ought to preemptively surrender to Iran, grant them control over the Strait of Hormuz, relieve sanctions, and allow them to run toward a nuclear weapon. I think there are things that could be done that range from striking their energy facilities and walking away to allowing our allies in the region, ranging from Israel to Saudi Arabia to UAE to have oversight over these particular areas to. I think we could probably just walk away, retain the sanctions, and then let the Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese deal with the Strait of Hormuz. I think the worst case scenario here is cutting a bad deal that ends with Iran and in a position to rebuild with control over the Strait. And that's the thing that I'm concerned about.
- [06:26]
A
Okay, are you concerned about it for both the welfare of the United States and Israel? Is there a nexus there? Because obviously, Iran wants to wipe out every Jew on the planet.
- [06:44]
B
So, I mean, obviously there's a crossing of streams there. My predominant interest is obviously that the United States wishes for there not to be a nuclear Iran. This is something that the President has said over and over again. Obviously, there are other allies in the region that are threatened by Iran, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, uae, Kuwait, all of which have been active in this conflict. And so I think there is sometimes an attempt to say that the only interest in the region is the Israeli interest and that if you are in favor of the President ending the conflict victoriously, it must only be on Israel's behalf. A strange contention, given the fact that if I'm sure that if you ask Prime Minister Netanyahu what he would want and you just, you know, what would he want in a utopian world, the answer, presumably, would be the toppling of the Iranian regime using whatever possible force is necessary, which is not something that I've actually called for. So, again, I think that America's interests here are pretty discreet.
- [07:34]
A
Look, if you know history, you know that the Iranian government, for 50 years since the Shah got booted out of there, has been hell bent on killing Jews. I mean, that's a fact. They got Hamas, they got Hezbollah, they got Houthis, they injected themselves into the Iraq war with the United States by making heinous bombs. And so they have a vested interest in killing every Jew they can kill. And, you know, they say death to America and this and that, but Jews are number one. So if you're the leader of Israel, you're going to certainly want the curtain to come down on these people. And that is just logic. But what happened was because of the loathing for Donald Trump, and this is my opinion now, by the left in America, they attached Israel to Trump, and that's when you saw the rise of antisemitism. Antisemitism has always been in every country, as you know. Okay. But the real intensity came when the progressives in America said, you know what, Trump, this is Trump's war, their words. And Israel was helping in Trump's war. Therefore, we're not going to like Israel. And, yeah, we'll throw in personal Jews, too. We don't like them much either. Would that be a wrong analysis?
- [09:19]
B
I think there's certainly truth to that. With regard to the current Iran conflict, I'd say that the radical increase in anti Semitism, particularly on the left, predates that. I think that there were roots of it in the Obama administration, but I think that it really broke loose after October 7th, when obviously the left decided that it wanted to form a coalition of people who really hate Western civilization, and that ranges.
- [09:40]
A
Why would they want to do that? Well, why would the progressive left want to throw in with people who want to destroy democracies like the United States and Israel? Why would they want to do that?
- [09:53]
B
Because the progressive left, in its essence, really believes that America is founded and the west generally is founded in exploitation, in imperialism and colonialism, in white supremacy. Right. These are all things that they say on a routine basis. And so it's really an alliance of convenience. And when it comes to Israel, they just see the conflict in the Middle east as a sort of reflection of domestic political concerns. So if you talk to members of the radical left, they will say that the Palestinians, for example, in the Gaza Strip, it's just like black Americans in the United States. It's the same model. It's a model of exploitation and model of imperialism and settler, colonial. They use all the same buzzwords. And so this sort of alliance of convenience has Resulted in a made over Democratic Party which is moving very strongly in the direction of say, Zoramdani in New York or Abdul El Sayed in Michigan.
- [10:38]
A
I don't understand still though, what the benefit of the progressive left is for doing all that. It's happening, there's no doubt about it. But why this issue? Why? I opened my book Confronting Evil with the attack on October 7th, and I did that on purpose, obviously to show the reader of my book exactly how savage this attack was on unarmed civilians in the kibbutz. But now we have that because Israel struck back, that Israel is a villain. How many movie stars have you heard say that? How many entertainers? And if you go against that orthodoxy, you don't work in the entertainment industry. Look at Boy George. He, he got hammered last week in England for writing a pro Israel song. So this movement is a massive movement anti Israel, anti Jewish movement. And I'm sitting here going, I don't know what this does or what this gives the progressive communist socialists. What does it give them to hate the Jews?
- [12:01]
B
Well, I mean, it certainly gives them a unifying glue. I mean, historically speaking, anti Semitism has always been a unifying glue for radical movements. And so it gives you something else also to talk about that doesn't involve directly attacking the West. If you say that really what you're worried about is imperialism in Israel. Or what you're really worried about are these settler colonialists in Israel. Even though all those same arguments, by the way, appear they all map directly onto again the West. I mean, if you're gonna argue that Israel's a settler colonialist state, well, by the same logic, America is a settler colonialist state. And you know, the left doesn't really wanna talk about that because that would be awkward politically. So instead they sort of project that out onto Israel. Anti Semitism is typically symptomatic of a deeper malady. It is not sort of its own kind of free floating thing. And the deeper malady of the left right now is that the left believes in a victim, victimizer, oppression, oppressor, complex, right? In every conflict there is a victim and there is a victimizer. The victim is always the person who is less successful. The victimizer is always the person who is more successful. The victim is always the nation that is less successful, more violent, poorer. The victimizer is always the more wealthy and thus exploitative nation. That is the basic logic to our communist.
- [13:09]
A
That's a communist doctrine. It's very simple to figure out what Marx had in mind. There's. But I was Surprised. And I'm pretty, you know, cocky in my assessment of my own ability. I was surprised this anti Semitism thing took off the way it did. Now, I understand New York City. I understand Mamdani. I understand Columbia University, I understand Cambridge. You went to Harvard Law. I went to the Kennedy School at Harvard. I got it. But the media, the corporate media throwing in by looking away from. And they absolutely have the anti Semit Semitic, anti Israel cabal. They just, they look away from it. They won't confront it. They won't be honest about it. That caught me by surprise.
- [14:07]
B
Yeah, I mean, listen, an enormous amount of the legacy media is aligned with the political left. As the political left is eaten up by the radicals, then the legacy media have a choice to make. They can either condemn the radicals and maybe find themselves on the outs with the movement on the rise, or they can pretend the radicalism away. And so what you see is sort of old school legacy media figures who are just pretending that what's happening isn't happening. Great example of this would be Jon Stewart. So Jon Stewart recently was talking about people, people like Hasan Piker, who is of course a radical communist who also hates Jews. And he was promoting the idea that, say, Zoramdani or Hasan Piker, actually they don't hate capitalism. Now, Zoram Hamdani openly says he hates capitalism, but Jon Stewart was trying to fit that back in sort of the traditional Democrat box. And so I think that's what you're seeing from a lot of traditional Democrats, an unwillingness to confront the radicalism in their own party because to do so would mean they have to do something to stop it. And it's much easier to sort of give way, try to make common cause and hope for the best. You're seeing that in Michigan today, right? Abdul El Sayed wins this primary in Michigan while being pretty overtly pro terrorism. And Haley Stevens, who ran against him, immediately endorsed him for the United States Senate because it's more important that a Democrat win the seat so as to stop the evils of Donald Trump than to actually break up the party.
- [15:18]
A
But I'm going to predict that Elsie is going to lose to Rogers, so that's going to come back and bite them. Now, Jon Stewart's a Jewish man, and you know that I have a long history with Stewart and we've always been respectful. It's always worked out well. But Stuart's a good example you bring up. There are many famous, influential Jewish Americans. I'm not going to say they justify the anti Semitism And I think that's.
- [15:52]
B
Oh, no, they do. I'll say it. I'll say it. They do. I mean, they do.
- [15:56]
A
You and I would would probably differ. Then they enable it. Okay, so I don't see Stewart going back to his nice place on the Jersey Shore, jumping up and down that anti Semitism is on the rise. I don't see that.
- [16:15]
B
But I see John Fetterman.
- [16:16]
A
I see Jon Stewart defending the radical elements, as you just pointed out, not going to turn on them, mainly because of his audience. But the larger question is, Mamdami got the majority of Jewish voters in New York City. That's stunning. Is it not?
- [16:39]
B
So? Well, I can explain this pretty easily. So this is a category error. So Jews, they kind of cross a variety of categories, right? The big question about Jews, are Jews a religion? Are Jews an ethnicity? Are Jews a tribe? Like, what exactly are Jews? So when we talk about Jews and how Jews vote, typically we are talking about people who self identify as Jews, meaning they were born into a Jewish family and maybe they had an occasional bagel. If you are looking at people who actually care about Jewish practice, who care about Jewish philosophy, who care about Israel, which is a part of Jewish practice. Right. I mean, as an Orthodox Jew, we pray, for example, for the restoration of Jerusalem three times a day. This has been a regular thing in Judaism for centuries, several thousand years at this point. And so if you're talking about Jews who have no association with Judaism and then you say, why do those people vote for Democrats or back secular Jews like Azramidani? So secular Jews. But the thing is that when people say secular Jew, they fail to understand that what they're really saying is about as coherent as atheist Catholic. Right. Like, if you're talking about people who are born into a Catholic family, Right. If you're saying, like if you're born into a Catholic family and you're a lapsed Catholic, nobody says, oh, look at, why are all these lapsed Catholics voting for Democrats? I mean, the answer is because they're lapsed Catholics. They're not actual practicing Catholics. So Jon Stewart is about as Jewish as a ham sandwich in practice, even if he was born into a Jewish family.
- [17:56]
A
All right, I'm going to defend Stewart because I don't know that. I don't know how he really feels about his ethnicity. And I'm not going to hammer him for it. Now, you have gotten a lot of attention with feuds. So Megyn Kelly, you were angry at her, I guess, for failing to condemn anti Semitic conspiracy theories. Is that True.
- [18:28]
B
No, I mean, the original condemnation of Megyn Kelly was because Megyn Kelly. This is her attempt to misdirect the original condemnation. The original condemnation was of Megyn Kelly defending Candace Owens, who was busily attacking Erica Kirk over the murder of Charlie. Right. That was the thing that I was attacking Megan.
- [18:44]
A
Okay, was Kelly defending Owens? And again, I'm not in your world. Was Kelly defending Owens because of freedom of speech, that she has a right to put her opinion out, or was she enabling, as the word I use with Jon Stewart?
- [18:59]
B
I mean, absolutely enabling. Absolutely enabling. Refusal to condemn. Listen, I defend Candace's freedom of speech. It's a free country. She can say whatever the hell she wants, no matter how crazy it is. That's not what Megan was doing. Megan was saying that she refused to condemn Candace Owens on any grounds whatsoever. That Candace has her own questions that are maybe worthy of pursuit. She understands why Candace is doing what Candace is doing and all the rest, which, of course, is absolutely asinine. Candace Owens has been cruel and vindictive and quite evil toward Erica Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow, spreading at this point, for nearly a year, completely unverified rumors and utter trash about how tpusa and Erica personally, and pretty much everybody, it turns out, is. Except for the actual murderer of Charlie Kirk, was probably involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk. And so the fact that. That Meghan, you know, pretty militantly refuses to condemn anything Candace says along these lines seems to be a moral deficiency.
- [19:47]
A
All right, so she is a part of whatever is going on. In your opinion, have you ever talked to either Kelly or Owens about what they're doing?
- [19:59]
B
I mean, I did have a text conversation with Megan about, you know, some of these issues. You know, I would say prior to this all becoming quite public, as far as Candace, obviously, Candace used to work for a company, and we fired her. So, you know, the. The. The relations there are not exactly the best.
- [20:16]
A
No, I mean, I'm just curious as. As a journalist or lawyer, what, whatever you want to categorize yourself as. I always like to know the mindset of the people that I have to confront. And you know me, I mean, more than 50 years of confrontation. But I like to know before going in why they're doing what they're doing, and that's why I asked the question. And I'll seek them out through my producers and things like that and say, look, is there something I'm missing here? You know, do you think you're missing anything with Kelly and Owens?
- [20:55]
B
No, I really do not think I'M missing anything with Megan or Candace. I think that Megan's motivation is generally that she would like clicks and that she would like friendships inside the so called movement. And I think the motivation for Candace. I can't even begin to speculate on the psychiatric state of Candace Owens. I will say that she has humored legitimately every nutty conspiracy theory it is possible to humor and she is uniquely capable of coming up with new ones at the drop of a hat. I'm frankly astonished at her creativity and, and innovativeness when it comes to making new conspiracy theories appear out of thin air.
- [21:28]
A
Does that matter to the country? I mean, you think anybody pays attention to that?
- [21:33]
B
I mean, she has, yes, millions of people pay attention to her, unfortunately. And I do think that brain rot. Unfortunately, unfortunately is infectious.
- [21:41]
A
Brain rot?
- [21:43]
B
Yes, like the rotting of human brains with stupid ideas. Bad ideas are infectious and they rot the brain.
- [21:49]
A
All right, now, Tucker, Carl's a little bit different, but again, it was a feud and got into social media and everybody takes sides even though they don't know what going on, including me. I don't take sides, but I don't know what's going on. So apparently this is about isolationist foreign policy. Is that what this, this thing with Tucker Carlson's about?
- [22:13]
B
Oh, I've critiqued Tucker on a wide variety of grounds going back for years. I mean, I've critiqued him on economic grounds because I think that in essence, Tucker is a bit of a statist. I've critiqued him on foreign policy grounds because I think that he says things that are unrooted, in fact, and humors conspiratorial musings of utterly uninformed people and brings them on his show to repeat the same. I think that Tucker is deeply involved in a sort of what we would say in the online world, black pilled effort, meaning a sort of depressive effort to undermine American morale on pretty much every score.
- [22:47]
A
But why would a guy do it? His father was in the establishment, he's successful, he's wealthy. Why would he want to undermine the system that's in place?
- [22:59]
B
I mean, I think that he has a very, very negative view of what America is and has become. I think that he believes that the American system is rigged on behalf of a particular cadre of people. Rigged presumably by Israel. That's something that he has guests on to suggest all the time. And so he has been sort of mouthing those nonsensical ideas for quite a while, while at the same time praising Vladimir Putin traveling over to Moscow to praise the subways and the quality of the bread, heading over to the Middle east to talk about the wonders of Islam. All of this seems worthy of critique. One thing I will say, Bill, is that for me, none of the things that we've talked about are personal feuds. Tucker may be a very nice guy. Last time I talked with him was at Charlie Kirk's memorial. We got along fine. Meghan is a very nice lady. Interpersonally, this has nothing to do with sort of interpersonal dynamics. I don't care about any of that. I have a family and I have friends and I have people that I hang out with. And then there is what we, you and I do for a living, which is to critique the public positions of influential people. And so when people say things that I think are untrue, I don't characterize that as a feud. If I'm feuding with anything, it's their ideas. And if they would stop saying stupid things, I would stop critiquing them.
- [24:02]
A
All right, that's fair enough. You know, in my interactions with both Tucker Carlson and Kelly, because they did work for Fox News, I don't know, Candace Owens, I never picked up any kind of animus toward Jewish people. In fact, Carlson was a whole different point of view back then.
- [24:26]
B
I've not accused Megan of anti Semitism. And when it comes to Tucker, I think that Tucker has trafficked in conspiracy theories about Jews is what I would say. But I think that I'll also say that broadly speaking, the term anti Semitism has lost purchase in the public debate. And so people misinterpret the meaning. Antisemitism does not mean hates. Every Jew he knows. That's not what anti Semitism is. That's much more along lines of racism. Anti Semitism is a conspiracy theory about the power of Jews in the world. The Jews are in control of the media. They're in control of the banks, they're in control of foreign policy. And that is the sort of stuff that Tucker does repeat, basically on ad nauseam.
- [25:04]
A
Okay? When you decide who you're going to challenge publicly, you know that it's going to get you ratings. People are going to come in and watch. And there's a segment of people who say, look, all of these social media czar czarinas they're doing to get attention. Because if you get attention, then people look and then you can sell ads and then you can do all that you've heard that, I'm sure. Do you think that you aside. Let's put you aside. You think there's an element of craziness in social media designed to get people rich and famous.
- [25:53]
B
I mean, absolutely. And if I could hit a red button and make social media disappear tomorrow, I would do it to my own financial non benefit. I think social media has been one of the worst things to happened to humanity in the course of my lifetime.
- [26:06]
A
Why is it so bad for you?
- [26:08]
B
Well, I think that it has once again reduced people's attention spans. I think the conversations that are had are dumber. They're not long form, they're not well informed, they're not rooted in data and information. They're very often just rooted in sort of personal popularity. Now they're rooted in 30 second clips in which you can't even make a complex argument. And so yeah, I think that social media is rooted in virality. It is not about the search for truth, it's about the search for clicks. And that is something that I've never been involved in. I mean the thing about me is that I've been doing this since I was 17 years old. I'm now 42. So I started getting involved in politics when I was 17. I had a syndicated column at that time and so I'm relatively young guy, but I've been doing this for a quarter century. And I didn't get into the business of politics because I was interested in the business. I got interested in, in the business of politics only as a byproduct of the fact that I actually care about the things that I espouse. So I'm one of the few people in American public life whose principles have been basically consistent over the course of the last quarter century. So I have not moved any of my positions. Everyone else may move, everyone else may stick for the clicks, but I'm not gonna do any of that sort of stuff.
- [27:13]
A
But some might say it's a weakness because you're not reflective enough to say, you know, maybe I made a mistake. But, but you know, look, no, I
- [27:22]
B
mean there are plenty of times when I made a mistake. Listen, again, I made a mistake about President Trump in 2016. I made a mistake in believing what the government was spewing about the transmissibility due to vaccination or non transmissibility due to vaccination in December of 2020. I make mistakes all the time. But as far as kind of the central principles on which I base my public life, things like personal responsibility and private property and constitutional liberty, these things are unchanging and they have not changed for me for my entire career. And I have yet to see the evidence emerge that would debunk any of them.
- [27:52]
A
Okay, the world feels increasingly unstable between global conflicts and skyrocketing debt. Smart investors are ditching the dollar for hard assets like gold. One uncertainty hits I trust American Hartford Gold to protect my savings. They make it simple and have physical gold and silver delivered to your door or placed inside a tax advantaged IRA. Their specialists can even help roll over your 401k tax free with an a Better Business Bureau rating. Their record is unmatched, so don't wait. Protect your wealth with something real. Please call now. Tell them O'Reilly sent you to receive up to $20,000 in free silver with your first purchase. 866-501-5201 or text BILL to 6553-286650-15201 or text BILL to 65532 or click the link in the video description. Why did you get involved, or maybe still are, in the trans gay marriage, you know, the alternative lifestyle swap, because once you get in, you can't get out. And we're watching this unfold with Sophie Cunningham and the wnba, which is nasty, nasty. Why did you choose to get involved with that?
- [29:38]
B
I mean, I didn't really choose to get involved with it. I just said what I thought of it at the time. So again, my belief is that why
- [29:46]
A
would you put yourself up there to say to people who may want to be trans or they may want to marry their same sex partner, whatever, why bother with that?
- [29:59]
B
So when we're talking about questions of public policy like say, gay marriage, then we have to determine why the government should be involved in that issue at all. And my opinion with regard to gay marriage was and remains that if you are talking about government incentives for personal relationships, the goal of the government, and being involved in marriage at all. Like listen, I have two marriage certificates. I have the one from the state that I don't care about, and then I have my religious marriage certificate, which is the one that I actually care about. So the real question is why is the state involved in marriage at all? The answer originally and still, if the state is going to be involved in the business of marriage, it is because the state has an interest in ensuring that when a man and a woman get together and they have kids, there are additional protections for that and incentivization of that. It's about the protection of the man, the male, female, children, relationship. The state has no interest at all in whether two dudes decide to live together or two ladies decide to live Together. So I'm not in favor of criminalization of that sort of behavior. I'm just saying that if you're gonna give a government benefit, it seems like the government ought to receive a benefit in return. Usually that benefit comes in the form of. Of a couple having children. That is why marriage is important to the government in the first place. As far as trans, it is a fundamental human truth that male and female exist and are non malleable. You cannot be a male who becomes a female. You cannot be a female who becomes a male. And this has public policy consequences when kids are being taught in school that lie. And it has social consequences when people all over society are being essentially blacklisted from their industry for saying things that are obviously true.
- [31:19]
A
Okay, but you can have another argument by saying that science and all of this other stuff has made it possible now for people to be free or free themselves from a gender they don't want to be. Whatever. But here's something you brought up without bringing it up. How, in your opinion, and again, you're a Harvard guy and you saw what happened to Harvard. Lawsuits still underway. Jews were terrorized in Cambridge. How has the educational system, generally speaking, been captured by the progressive left? How did that happen?
- [32:02]
B
Well, I mean, that really goes back to the 1960s. So in the very first book I wrote, all the way back in 2004, I talked about this. And the basic theory was that. And people have studied this issue, including Shelby Steele, have talked about the fact that in the 1960s there was essentially no systemic immunity to the radicals on campus. So student radical movements begin in the 1960s on college campuses. You have a bunch of sort of old style FDR liberals, JFK liberals, who are staffed up at these, at these administrations on the campuses, and they refuse to simply set hard lines in the sand as far as proper behavior and modes of study. And a lot of the people who are graduating from these colleges then go into the administration. You see the conversion of these colleges and universities from sort of mainline left to significantly more radical over the course of time to the, to the point where, as you know, Bill, pretty much the entire faculty, literally the entire faculty of places like Harvard Law will have an entirely Democratic or even Green Party bends with maybe a single person registered as a Republican on the entire faculty and staff list. That is not a coincidence. Some of it is sort of social in nature, some of it is an unwritten rule. But the reality obviously is that academia was taken over by people who are quite radical. And also a wonderful system of incentives has been Created where tuition rises every year because we've told pretty much everybody they deserve to go to college. And this means that there is now an incentive for a college to start new majors that have less demanding and rigorous schedules and hire new professors and charge up the wazoo for those things and churn out people with useless degrees from top level universities. Those people, of course, then end up radically in debt and kind of pissed off at the system, which is, I think, some of the blowback you're seeing now.
- [33:38]
A
Okay. The rise of the left wing academic environment. All right, it's not every school, but I would say it's most schools now because California is the biggest state and that's just crazy. New York, where I am is insane. Yeah, you got Texas and Florida to balance out, but you really have that. So that rise has led to Mamdani and Al Said and all these other guys. All right, that's what it's led to. Do you fear a genuine communist movement in America?
- [34:22]
B
I mean, yes. It's not going to look like communist movements in Russia where you essentially had an impoverished population of peasants and then you had a. A vanguard of the proletariat violently overthrow the government. I don't think that's what it's going to look like over here. I think it'll look much more like the infiltration of various governmental systems by people who truly hate capitalism and private property and who gradually steer America down a significantly more statist path. I think there are constitutional limits on a lot of this stuff. But that is the great fear is that those constitutional limits will gradually be eviscerated. This is why when Democrats talk about abolishing the Senate or adding new senators to the Senate so as to create a permanent democratic majority or adding justices to the Supreme Court so as to thwart the current majority on the Supreme Court. When you start talking about removing the constitutional barriers to the massive growth of the state, sure. I'm deeply worried about a communist slash democratic socialist revolution.
- [35:17]
A
So to you, it's a real thing, this movement that seemingly four years ago you would go, what communism, what? And now it's been mainstreamed in places like Colorado and Maine, places you would never think. And I put it on, and this is going to sound harsh, but I believe it's true. An electorate that doesn't know very much, they don't know.
- [35:50]
B
I tend to agree. I mean, especially a younger electorate that doesn't remember things like the Soviet Union. I mean, there used to be an object lesson out there for Americans to point at and say you know what we don't want to do? We don't want to do that. And since the Soviet Union fell and vast majority of people who are my age and younger have no memory of the Soviet Union, there really is no object lesson. And so you have people who are sort of wolves in sheep's clothing who are saying, no, what we really want is just Sweden. What we really want is Sweden. That is not what Zormandani is looking for. He is not just looking for Sweden.
- [36:18]
A
No, he wants means to production control. And Sweden, by the way, has cut back on all that now because it couldn't support it. And madame is absolute communist. But the most dangerous man, and I'd like your opinion on this in the country, is Senator Bernie Sanders, because he's the godfather of this whole thing. He must be thrilled, because I know he never thought that his brand of communism, which is basically the government, controls everything from child rearing to where you live to what you have to where you can work, whatever it may be. The latest thing is now universal child care has nothing to do with child care. What universal child care is is that the state takes the kid at age 3 and indoctrinates the kid into left wing program progressive communistic policies. That's what that is. It's not having a babysitter show up teaching your kid how to ride a tricycle. But if you were to go out and then talk to voters, younger voters in particular, and say you favor this universal child care. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. You want the state telling your kids what they can and can't do, how they should be living and thinking. That's what Sanders is after. And that's a tenet of Karl Marx. And I'll submit to you, Ben, that may be one out of 50Americans understand that.
- [37:58]
B
I mean, I totally agree with you. I've been saying for years that Sanders is the most dangerous person in the country. I think that Sanders, who has been legitimately a lifelong useless leech on the ass of American society literally his entire political career, I mean, the man's never held a real job. He was so lazy, he was kicked off a commune back in the 1970s for not working. So, I mean, this is the guy who is now sort of the lodestar of the Democratic Party. But he does have one thing that very few people in politics have, which is the ability to constantly stand outside the status quo, calling for revolution. And that to me is sort of the underlying factor in everything that's going on right now, is that Americans have decided that the status quo in the United States is just so usable, it's so unaffordable, so terrible that they will turn to whoever promises them utopia. And that's a really dangerous place to be. It's one of the reasons why I've been pushing back against, as I say, the black pilling from both the left and the right. This idea that America is fatally flawed, that America was, was either founded in sin or somehow went wayward. The idea that young Americans have no opportunity, you can't afford anything, you can't get an apartment, you can't get married, you can't have kids. Like none of that is true. Again, affordability is a problem and they're actual solutions we can bring to bear. But nobody's actually talking about that. What they're really talking about is the idea the entire system is rigged and corrupt and success eludes an entire generation of people and therefore we ought to overturn the system completely in favor of something new. Now, a lot of different visions of what that something new looks like, but one of the best places to be, always politically, is outside the status quo, yelling about how terrible the status quo is. A political winner, always.
- [39:27]
A
Most retirees I know wish they did this sooner. When a lot of people hit 65, they think they can trust a broker to find the right Medicare option. They might not realize that brokers often pay to recommend specific plans that could be more expensive or poor Fit. That's why I partnered up with Chapter. Chapter is the only national advisor that will compare and recommend every Medicare plan option available to you. In one free 20 minute call, they'll help you find the one that fits your needs. Chapter's advisors advocate for you not big insurance, so they'll never push one plan over another. Turns out you're already on the right plan. They'll tell you to keep it. How refreshing. Don't wait. Please call Chapter to get a free recommendation. You have heard me talk about All Family Pharmacy before and there is a good reason. They make it easier to get the medications you need while giving you more control over your health care. They even handle a doctor's prescription when appropriate. And if you're in a pinch, they can also ship overnight. But what really separates them is their customer service. When you call All Family Pharmacy, you reach a real person and that person will guide you. Too many companies keep you on hold or send you to someone who cannot even answer your question. So Please go to allfamilypharmacy.combill Use code BILL10 to save 10% on your next order. Or you can call 561-717-6794. They will help you place an order and answer all your questions. Now, how much of the disenchantment, in your opinion, can be laid at the doorstep of the most populist president in history, Donald Trump? How much Trump hatred fueled the. I don't care. Just get rid of him.
- [42:06]
B
I mean, I think it has a lot to do with it. I also think the American public is sort of bouncing around like a ping pong ball right now. To bounce from Trump to Biden and then back to Trump demonstrates a deep unease with whoever is in power. So some of it is sort of the underlying dynamics and some of it is, you know, policies that I think are poorly aligned with the interests of the American people. I mean, here I would cite the Liberation Day tariffs. If you look at President Trump's approval ratings, he was over water before Liberation Day. Liberation Day happens. He's now underwater, and then he just continues to go down in a steady straight line pretty much ever since. Again, I think there are a lot of things the president has done that are great, particularly on the deregulatory front, economically speaking. Are there things that he could have done better? Are there mistakes that he made? Absolutely. Does that drive unease? For sure. But we should remember that the approval rating for pretty much every president since maybe the mid Obama era has been underwater for literally all of them the whole time, which speaks to, again, larger
- [43:00]
A
than life that he has taken on the poster person for the aggressive movement. I mean, they rally around him. That's what the midterms are going to be. Midterms are going to, aren't going to be democratic solutions to affordability. They don't have any solutions. Okay. Zero. It's going to be, you hate them, we hate them. Get them out of there and we'll figure out something. You know, that's what it's going to be.
- [43:29]
B
I totally agree with that. But if you're talking about sort of the long term ailment that needs to be cured in the United States, honestly, it can only be cured by politicians who eventually start telling us the truth, which is we cannot solve all of the problems that, that we say we can solve. When you have politicians of both parties saying every problem you have in your life is mostly solvable by government, I promise you, government cannot solve those problems. And then people will get pissed at you for having said that you could solve them, and then you don't solve them. So they turn to the other side that's making the exact Same promise. They fail and then they turn back to the other side, I think.
- [43:58]
A
But that's been going on since John Adams. What is your accessibility to the mainstream media and Disney in particular? I could never figure out why Disney has hurt its brand so much. If you look at its stock price, you can see that by alienating half the country with its radical form of presentation. The View, Jimmy Kimmel, its news organization, it's all committed left. I mean, can you get on the View or Good Morning America? Would they book you? No, no, no way.
- [44:38]
B
Not in a million years. I mean, I've been, I've been trying to get on the View for years. That is, that is a dream booking for me. There's nothing I would love better than to have a conversation with Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and Sunny Hostin. I'm a bit of a hate watching fan of the View, so I would definitely appreciate a booking slot. But that has been, that has never been in the offing despite 10 years of trying to get myself booked on the View. So yeah, that's not.
- [45:00]
A
Well, I've been on a view 12 years, but when Barbara Walters died, that was the end of that. And we trace The View back 2025, they had one non liberal guest on a show. But had you ever thought about why Disney has entered this zone where it doesn't mind alienating conservatives, traditionalists, independence again?
- [45:30]
B
I think that what we're watching with CBS is the first time anyone has experimented with sort of the counter proposition that maybe there's a whole other half of the population that needs to be appealed to. And we'll see how that goes at cbs. It's an audacious experiment. As far as Disney. Disney did get clocked back into reality over the course of the last five to 10 years. They went extremely woke in their children's programming. It's one thing for Disney to put the View on during daytime, mainly for women who are, who are at home watching TV at that time. It is another thing for them to infuse all that liberalism into their kids programming. They started to do that and people really started to buck that. We bucked that very strongly at Daily Wire and then Disney sort of steered out of that. The Chapek era ended. Bob Iger came back in and he basically said we're going to try to program apolitically, at least as far as the children's programming goes. Which is of course the only smart move.
- [46:15]
A
All right, so I want to thank Ben Shabir. What we're going to do now is we're going to let our Regular viewers on YouTube go have supper or whatever you want to do. And we're going to hold over Mr. Shapiro for BillORiley.com concierge and premium members in a segment called Killing Time. Yeah, it runs about eight, 10 minutes. I still have a few more questions, so if you'd like to be concierge members, go to billowrilly.com it's easy. We keep the price down, unlike the American oil oil companies. We're not gouging anybody. We want you to get the information. And for those of you who are not premium members, thank you very much for watching and we will see you soon.