Tag: neoclowns

BS: From a Jewish point of view, where we don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. There you can make an argument, that the Gospels which were written significantly-

JR: He was just a prophet.

BS: No, no, no. We don’t even think he was a prophet.

JR: What do you think he was? What do you guys think he was?

BS: Well, I, I, I, what do I think he was historically? I think he was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble. Just like a lot of other Jews at that time who tried to lead revolts against the Romans and got killed for their trouble.

JR: So he became legend, and story, and it became a bigger and bigger deal as time went on.

BS: Yeah, he had a group of followers and that gradually grew.

JR: Do you think he was resurrected?

BS: No. That’s not a Jewish belief.

JR: Okay. I just wanted to check.

BS: We’re not into miracle stories, no. That’s not.

JR: You don’t have any miracles?

BS: Not by Jesus. There was in the Old Testament. Yeah, you’ve got Moses splitting the sea and all that.

JR: What do you think happened there?

BS: What do I think happened there? I’ll go with my Maimonidean explanation. There was, it says in the Bible, there was a strong east wind. So there was a naturalistic explanation for a physical phenomenon.

JR: That makes sense.

BS: That’s what Maimonides is constantly trying to do.

Big Bear sums up Shapiro and the so-called conservatives who are foolish enough to support him against the interests of their nation, their families, and their faith in a succinct manner: If you’re a Christian and you just heard that and you ever support him again, you’re a liar, you’re a satanist, and you’re evil.

The inescapable historical fact is that Muslims have FAR more in common with Christians than Jews do. It is considerably more accurate to talk about shared Islamo-Christian values than Judeo-Christian values. Notice that Shapiro’s Maimonidean answer about Jesus Christ is very, very different than even the non-believers of Jesus’s day, as well as being very different from whom we believe Jesus Christ to be.

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
– Matthew 16:13-17

Both the US Left and the US Right can agree on one thing: everyone hates the neoclown Ben Shapiro.

It is a mystery why Shapiro has any audience at all, considering his highly irritating way of speaking, jabbering away like angry chipmunk, but some powerful people REALLY want these views out there, so they push him hard, … but we digress.

Shapiro’s audience are boomers, Jews, and other assorted not too bright conservatives who have a high tolerance for nails scratching on a chalk board.

And even they aren’t buying his warmongering.

He really is getting completely DESTROYED in the comments. The negative ratio is nearly 9:1. And these aren’t people who realize that the Littlest Chickenhawk has been calling for war with Iran since 2005!

The intensity of the ongoing neoclown campaign against Western nationalism and the shamelessness with which they are attempting to redefine the perfectly straightforward concepts of “nationalism” and “Western civilization” indicates that they know they are on their way out. Again. In his recent column, (((Dennis Prager))) offers the precise opposite of “clarity” about nationalism:

Nationalism is beautiful when it involves commitment to an essentially decent nation and when it welcomes other people’s commitment to their nations. Nationalism is evil when it is used to celebrate an evil regime, when it celebrates a nation as inherently superior to all others and when it denigrates all other national commitments.

One should add that nationalism is evil when it celebrates race, but that is not nationalism; it is racism. Nationalism and racism may be conjoined, as German Nazism did. But they are not definitionally related. While some Americans have conjoined American nationalism with race (such as the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and currently various fringe “white identity” movements), American nationalism, based as it is on the motto “e pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally “white.”

Notice the way in which the horrifically deceptive devil’s son completely omits both the most relevant definition of nationalism from the dictionary as well as its etymological roots. He is truly of his father, the deceiver.

the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Nationalism is, by logic, linguistics, and definition, a subset of racism because nation is a subset of race. The only “nationalism” that is not intrinsically related to race is civic nationalism, which is not nationalism at all, but an ersatz paperwork substitute for it.

The irony, of course, is that these neoclowns are attempting to destroy American nationalism in the interests of their own nation. They are pure and unmitigated evil, all the more so for their attempt to disguise themselves as intellectual wolves in sheep’s clothing. But they are not particularly bright intellectual wolves, as it is more than a little amusing to see how (((Prager)))’s own definition of evil nationalism obviously applies to the Jewish variety.

UPDATE: Phelps points out that (((Prager))) also lies about “e pluribus unum“.

This is an ABSOLUTE lie. It never meant, “out of many races”, it explicitly meant “out of many states, one confederation.” That is why it is the United STATES, not United Races.

It’s beyond obvious that Yoram Hazony is attempting to create a new gatekeeping outpost in between civic nationalism and genuine nationalism, but he’s not anywhere nearly smart enough to do so effectively. His posited distinction between “nationalism” and “racialism” is not only absurd, it is very, very easily exploded.

Yoram Hazony
I think it’s as clear as daylight. I wrote a book drawing parallels between Jewish-Israeli nationalism and American, British, and other nationalisms, and arguing for their legitimacy. The book rejects racialism across the boards. All you need to do is to read it.

Yoram Hazony
But my opposition to mixing nationalism with race theories has been explicit every step of the way. It’s explicit in the conference announcement and on the website. You don’t have to agree with me. Still, it takes some nerve to pretend I’ve been anything but open about this.

I read Hazony’s book. Unlike many on the nationalist Right, I saw through him immediately and pointed out that his “National Conservative” conference was an obvious attempt to set up yet another neoclown gatekeeping organization, this one focused on nationalists. Hazony’s further attempts to “defend his ideas” readily reveal him to be not only a gatekeeper, but a shameless liar of the Ben Shapiro variety for two very obvious reasons.

First, to the extent there is any distinction between two terms that have historically been used in a synonymous manner, nation is a subset of race. Necessarily. So to base an argument on the idea that nation is actually a broader category than race is worse than dishonest, it is deeply stupid. It’s a total nonstarter.

Second, the etymology of nation makes it obvious that racialism is, and always will be, an element of nationalism.

1250–1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion

One’s nationality derives from one’s birth, not one’s geographical location or paperwork. It is an identification based on DNA, blood, and family, not ideology, confession, documents, or current location in the space-time continuum. By appealing to the fact of adoption, Hazony is stupidly attempting to derive a rule from its occasional exception.

UPDATE: Hazony is also a true son of his father:

Yoram Hazony@yhazony
Sorry, there is no such thing as “genetically Jewish.” Jews are a nation, not a race. Anyone on earth can join the Jewish people, as Ruth the Moabite did—by accepting our people as her people, and our God as her God.Yoram Hazony added,

owen cyclops@owenbroadcast
so atheist jews, who reject your god, arent jews then?

Yoram Hazony@yhazony
Atheist Jews remain Jews. We were talking about non-Jews who want to join the Jewish people and what’s involved.

Hazony  proves to be just another basic bitch neoclown, and his book, The Virtue of Nationalism, is, despite its various merits, little more than an attempt at establishing a gatekeeping post for the civic nationalists.

This personal invitation arrived in my email inbox recently:

Naturally, I was delighted. I had been very impressed with the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism and had even had an affable exchange with him via Twitter Direct Message about his publisher’s curious failure to release the book in audio form:

So Lydia and I duly paid our $285 fee (each) to register. But we got this response:

It’s a form letter. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who tried in his frugal way to get press credentials, got exactly the same thing.

Jared very reasonably wrote back to ask if would he be denied press credentials if he were “a socialist or Open-Borders advocate” a.k.a. a typical member of the Main Stream Media.

Needless to say, Hazony and Brog did not have the courtesy to reply.

I’m not even a little bit surprised. You may recall that despite his protestations in his book, Hazony appeared to be more civic nationalist than genuine nationalist, and that has proved to be the case. In spades.

National Conservative = Neoclown Cuckservative.