Ben Shapiro humiliates himself on the BBC

Ben Shapiro has mega TANTRUM on the BBC
Ben Shapiro is the famous, fast-talking pundit who regularly ‘owns’ aggressive campus students with his quick wit and rapid repartee. Alas, Shapiro isn’t so ‘crazy smart’ when he comes up against difficult questions from a real interviewer. Yesterday he just couldn’t cope with an interrogation from the BBC’s Andrew Neil. He decided that Neil must be a typical BBC leftist and had an epic tantrum. Oh dear — should have done your research Ben. The idea that Andrew Neil, who just so happens to also be chairman of The Spectator, is some sort of rabid leftist is hilarious to anybody who has a clue about British media. As Cockburn knows, he is often attacked for being too unacceptably un-left for the BBC. He was just doing what interviewers should do: challenging his guest to justify his views.
What a nasty little creature. It’s hilarious to see how badly the Littlest Chickenhawk humiliated himself. And it should be obvious why he wants absolutely no part of debating either Milo or me. He’s never, ever, going to be ready for prime time.

Brother Esau

The Orthosphere delves into the intrinsic falsity of the “Judeo-Christian” meme that is being used to attack everything from American history to Western Civilization and Christianity itself:

The notion that Western civilization rests on a Judeo-Christian basis is very largely an invention of the 1940s, when Jews felt a sudden and unprecedented desire to join the Western club and lock arms with their Christian “brothers.” Although a palpable oxymoron, the phrase prospered in the years that followed, and is now well established as one of the hardier weeds in the unlovely garden of American political cant.

Obviously, there can be no such thing as Judeo-Christian values when Jews specifically reject the highest Christian value, which is Christ.

We might go so far as to call Judeo-Christian values a canard, and say that this canard serves mainly to de-divinize Christ, and thus dissolve Christianity into a purely ethical system. Curiously, the solvent power of this canard is somehow neutralized when it comes to doctrines that are distinctly Jewish. I would add that the canard also serves to reconcile Christians to the fact that they nowadays receive so much of their moral, political and theological instruction from strongly self-identified Jews.  Curiously, the respect that Jews feel for the teaching authority of strongly self-identified Christians remains as low as ever.

What this suggests is that modern Judeo-Christianity is Christianity made acceptable to Jews.  It does not seem to involve reciprocal modifications to Judaism.  Indeed, the basic Judeo-Christian condominium would seem to be that Christians shall say only nice things about Jews, while Jews shall go on gifting Christians with their withering criticism.

Now that Jews and Christians are brothers, we see that the Christians are brother Esau.

There is considerably more there. Read the whole thing. To be blunt, it would be more accurate to describe “Judeo-Christianity” as “Luciferianity”. There is a fundamental difference to being “in the world, but not of it” and “healing the world”. It is literally the most fundamental precept of Christianity to accept that the world is fallen, is ruled by spiritual evil, and cannot be healed.

To insist otherwise is to deny the necessity for the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection. Which, of course, is precisely why the Ben Shapiros and Dennis Pragers and San Francisco Chronicle‘s of the world are now attempting to sell this literally Satanic concept to an increasingly clueless and demoralized West.

Which god is that, Jeremy?

Jeremy Boreing of the Daily Wire doubles-down on Ben Shapiro’s defamation.

‏Jeremy Boreing@JeremyDBoreing
Richard Spencer, Vox Day, Owen Benjamin, Rick Wells, Louis Farrakhan, Ilhan Omar, Linda Sarsour, Keith Ellison, today’s New York Times International Edition…

Antisemitism knows no party. It infects the asshole-fringes of left and right.

2. Small-minded bigots and weak little conspiracy theorists afraid of reality need an excuse for their own failures. They construct complex, counter factual histories and theologies to hide their impotence.

3. They believe they have solved a great riddle when, in fact, they are just the proof of that which they deny – that God chose the Jews, and that there is something great and terrible in being chosen by God.

I’d been too busy to get around to the Littlest Chickenhawk’s slander yet, but now that it’s a corporate policy at the Daily Wire, I think I’ll have to bump it up the priority list.

As for whether it is great or terrible to be chosen by God, it really depends upon which god one is talking about. I tend to think it is a terrible thing indeed to be chosen by the god of this world.

He would have burned it himself

Ben Shapiro pretends to lament the tragedy of the Notre Dame fire even as he attempts to burn down the history of Christendom.

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
Deleted my tweet joking about Trump and Notre Dame football. Wrong time, obviously. Apologies, all.

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
It is. And that is why it is a central monument to Western civilization, which was built on the Judeo-Christian heritage.

Ben Shapiro may be the most weaselly, most intellectually sloppy, and most dishonest of the Ineffectual Dork Weasels. And considering his competition, that is an impressive accomplishment of sorts.

The Hillsdale betrayal

Dissident Mama warns about the fake Hamiltonian history being taught for free by Hillsdale’s so-called conservatives:

So, smart moms in two homeschool social-media groups of which I’m a member are super-excited about Hillsdale College’s free “Constitution 101” course. “Hillsdale’s conservative, so it must be teaching Christian-centered history,” they say.

“Hillsdale doesn’t accept grants from the federal government or participate in federal financial-aid or student-loan programs. How principled,” they opine. “Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine both endorse Hillsdale as being an ‘authority on the Constitution’, so it must be quality curriculum,” they hope.

Hey now, not so fast. Let’s not take all these assumptions on face value.

For years, I’ve been receiving and reading Hillsdale’s monthly mailed newsletter Imprimus, which highlights guest lectures, speeches by visiting professors, and articles by intellectuals associated with the college. It sometimes features valuable articles by modern thinkers I respect and offer up opinions that are not status quo. But not always.

In fact, Hillsdale as a place of learning is overall a neocon institution. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, like history professor Brad Birzer, and his wife and history lecturer Dedra Birzer.

Much has been written and discussed about neoconservatism. In short, they were ex-Trotskyites who abandoned the left decades ago, and they and their descendants have been pushing for foreign interventionism, open borders, and giving up on the culture war, all while claiming to be for “Founding principles.” These wolves in sheep’s clothing pretend to be patriotic, yet undergird the very ideologies that are tearing America apart.

“… With the modern displacement by the Neocons of the traditional (and Southern) conservatives and their opposition to the growth in government and to the destruction of those bonds and traditions that characterized the country for centuries, the results we observe around us do not augur well for the future.”

— Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

Larry P. Arnn, who delivers the first video lecture, is president of Hillsdale and also on the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Foundation – a neocon think-tank that alleges to advocate for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but simultaneously lobbies for foreign entanglements and “spreading democracy” through bombing campaigns. In other words: globalism a la the military-industrial complex while America burns.

This isn’t guilt by association. Rather, it’s just connecting the dots. So, is it any wonder that I’m skeptical of this free Constitution course? Therefore, I signed up to see what all the fuss is about.

One need look no further than the welcome email. The “about” section describes how the course will dive into “the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers,” yet no mention of The Anti-Federalist Papers.

So, already we know that the curriculum is slanted toward the Hamiltonian view of America, and not the decentralized view of Founders like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Sam Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and James Monroe. Thus, Hillsdale is planting their flag on the hill of empire, not that of states’ rights. THIS is a problem, my friends.

Now you know why the subtitle of Cuckservative is “how conservatives betrayed America”.

Turkey and the neocons

The deal between Erdogan and Obama, which Obama later reneged, was the catalyst for the Russian intervention in Syria:

The announcement that Turkey had struck a deal with Obama on Incirlik turned out to be the trigger for Russia’s entry into the war. This little known fact has escaped the attention of historians and analysts alike, but the truth is clear to see. Shortly after the above article was published (July 27, 2015), Russia began hastily clearing airfields and shipping its warplanes to Syria. Two months later, Russia began its momentous air campaign across Syria.

Why the hurry?

Mainly because of the information that appeared in the NY Times article, particularly this:

“Turkish officials and Syrian opposition leaders are describing the agreement as something just short of a prize they have long sought as a tool against Mr. Assad: a no-fly zone in Syria near the Turkish border.”

“No-fly zone”? Is that what Obama had up his sleeve?

Once Putin realized that the US was going to use Incirlik to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, (the same way it had in Libya) the Russian president quickly swung into action. He could not allow another secular Arab leader to be toppled while the country was plunged into chaos. This is why Russia intervened.

However, the current conflict between Turkey and the USA may actually be playing into neocon hands, as they desperately seek an enemy, any enemy, that will give them an excuse to send more troops into the Middle East:

So now Turkey and the United States are at loggerheads, the Turkish Army has completed its preparations for a cross-border operation east of the Euphrates, while Pompeo, Bolton and Pence continue to exacerbate the situation by issuing one belligerent statement after the other.

Is this the administration’s strategy, to lure Turkey into a conflict that will force Washington to get more deeply involved in the Middle East? Is that why the US has shrugged off its commitments to Ankara, dug in along the border, created a Kurdish state at the center of the Arab world, and is now thumbing its nose at Erdogan?

What is it the neocons (Pompeo, Bolton and Pence) really want?

They want to intensify and expand the fighting so that more US troops and weaponry are required. They want a wider war that forces Trump to go “all in” and deepen his commitment to regional domination. They want America’s armed forces to be bogged down in an unwinnable war that drags on for decades and stretches across borders into Lebanon, Turkey and Iran. They want Washington to redraw the map of the Middle East in a way that diminishes rivals and strengthens Israel’s regional hegemony. They want more conflagrations, more bloodletting, and more war.

That’s what the neocons want, and that’s what their provocations are designed to achieve.

Putin and the Iranians have shown the discipline required to avoid handing the neocons the excuse they are seeking. But Erdogan does not appear to have a similar level of discipline. That being said, Turkey is a considerably more formidable foe and even a low-level war between Turkey and the USA might be sufficient to break apart NATO, especially if Russia decides to assist the Turks in the way they assisted the Syrians.

Replacement history

First, (((Ben Shapiro))) is lying about Western civilization. This is no surprise, since completely redefining “Western civilization” as a Jewish-Greek collaboration is the objective of his latest book.

Ironically, reduction of Western civilization to racial supremacy isn’t just a strategy of the intersectional left; it’s a strategy of the despicable alt-right, which champions Western civilization as white civilization and then seeks to rip away the universalism of its principles from nonwhite people. Thus, the very term “Western civilization” is under assault by a variety of political forces seeking to tear out eternal truths and natural rights in the name of tribalism.

But that’s not what Western civilization is about at all. Western civilization was built on Judeo-Christian values and Greek reason, culminating in a perspective on natural rights that is preserved by institutions like English jurisprudence. It is thanks to those philosophical principles that free markets, free speech and free association have grown and flourished. Only if we re-enshrine those principles, rather than undermine them, will our prosperity and freedoms be preserved.

Ben Shapiro’s case doesn’t even rise to the level of Wikipedia. Western civilization is synonymous with both “European civilization” and “Occidental civilization”. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian values”. Judaism’s values are intrinsically opposed to Christian values; one might as reasonably declare that “Satano-Christian values” and Confucian philosophy provided the foundation of the West.

Second, (((Michael Ledeen))) inadvertently makes a strong case on behalf of anti-semitism thanks to his near-complete ignorance of Spanish history.

March 31 marks the anniversary of the date on which, in 1492, Spanish Jews were faced with the choice of converting to Catholicism or leaving.  The edict was driven by the queen, “Isabella the Catholic,” and was issued despite widespread opposition throughout the kingdom, including Sicily, where most of the Italian Jews lived and which was ruled by a Spanish viceroy.  Some converted, some pretended to convert and maintained Jewish practices in secrecy for centuries, but the bulk shipped out, many to the Ottoman Empire, some to Amsterdam (which became known as the “second Jerusalem”), a much smaller number to Palestine.  Henceforth the Spanish Kingdom was firmly under the brutal hand of the Inquisition, whose chief was the infamous Torquemada.

It was a colossal blunder.  Spain never recovered from the loss of one of the most productive and creative elements of its population.  As for the Jews of the realm, 1492 started the saga of the wandering diaspora very shortly thereafter. The Spanish and Portuguese Jews spread all over the continent, and the new world as well.  It initiated a melodrama that is one of history’s most fascinating tales.

Jews were important to the Spanish economy, and to Spanish culture.  Spain steadily weakened without its Jews, who made major contributions to Ottoman lands and to Muslim countries across North Africa, especially Tunisia.  Their commercial skills included trade in spices, at the time very important for the continent…. Queen Isabella’s brutal oppression of the Jews totally backfired.  She purged her country of the descendants of the great Maimonides, only to have Spain sink into irrelevancy on the world stage. 

100 years after the Spaniards kicked out the Jews, they ruled over the wealthiest, most powerful empire on Earth. Irrelevancy on the world stage? The Spanish empire didn’t even reach its apogee for another 300 years! To the contrary, barely 100 years after the USA first permitted mass Jewish immigration, it has lost its global power, it is deeply in debt, it is demoralized in literally every sense of the term, it has been invaded by tens of millions of foreigners, and is now on the verge of complete political collapse.

Ledeen is not merely lying. Being a servant of the Father of Lies in good standing he presents an entirely backwards picture, one that is completely antithetical to the easily verified historical facts. Were the Jews good for the Egyptians or the Canaanites? Did the Romans and Greeks consider them to be beneficial to their empires? Have they been a boon to the inhabitants of Palestine? And has the post-Holocaust German economy suffered for its lack of Jews?

Modern Jew-haters come from two failed traditions, radical Islam and radical leftism. Like the Iberians of the 14th century, their tyrannical regimes have all failed, and they have driven out their Jews. Meanwhile, the countries that built their futures on religious toleration, countries with substantial Jewish populations, countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Israel, are, we can hope, the future of mankind.

The USA, Canada, and Australia are all likely to collapse or be conquered within 20 years. And when those things happen, remember that Michael Ledeen credited their fate to having built their futures “on religious toleration” and “substantial Jewish populations.”

What Shapiro and Ledeen are doing is consciously responding to so-called “replacement theology” with “replacement history”. They’re attempting to redefine Europeans and Christianity out of Western civilization in order to claim it for themselves.

But, but, Judeo-Christian values!

It’s informative how the Neo-Palestinians all babble about “Judeo-Christian values” and “melting pot” whenever they’re trying to win support for themselves from Christians, but they switch to “racism”, “white Christian identity”, and “anti-semitism” the moment that any conservative actually indicates a preference for white Christians to liberals in sheep’s clothing from foreign identity groups. Unsurprisingly, David Bernstein overtly practices identity politics while he decries the perceived possibility of Republicans practicing identity politics.

Unfortunately, in both situations it’s all-too-easy to come up with bad reasons. Rao is the daughter of Indian Parsi immigrants, and Liu is the daughter of Chinese immigrants. It seems as though their minority background may at least subconsciously raise suspicions that they aren’t on “the team.” I suspect that such suspicions might have been quelled if they belonged to “appropriate” churches–the Mormon church, a conservative Protestant congregation, a Catholic parish known for being actively pro-life. As it happens, while I can’t speak to either woman’s personal religious beliefs, I understand that their families are members of Jewish congregations.

Please note that I’m not accusing the Senators in question of antisemitism. Nor am I accusing them of conscious racism. But I do suspect that in certain conservative circles, people have an image in their head of what a “trustworthy” conservative looks like, and that person is white, likely male, and a religious Christian. Those who don’t fit that mold are more likely to have their conservative credentials questioned.

This is both unfair and a disaster for the Republican Party. Imagine you are a conservative-leaning Indian-American Hindu, or Thai-American Buddhist, or Iranian-American Muslim, or African American agnostic. You are attending Yale (Liu’s alma mater) or Chicago (Rao’s) law school and you have nascent but indeterminate political ambitions. You are trying to decide whether to “come out” as a Federalist-type, or keep your head down and avoid politics. You know if you do the former, you will be the subject of special derision and social sanction from your liberal classmates, who will openly question how a person of color can hang out in Fed Soc circles.

Given that dynamic, Republicans should be especially welcoming to such individuals. Instead, the Rao and Liu situations suggest the opposite. It comes awfully close to looking like implicit white Christian identity politics, and it’s a bad look for the GOP.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST WATCH: Liu’s husband and Rao are friends and former colleagues of mine.

Notice that the Neo-Palestinian is advocating for two individuals to whom he is personally connected by identity politics while simultaneously decrying “implicit white Christian identity politics” as “a bad look” for Republicans.

Just as the great battle of the Democratic Party is the struggle between rival identity groups for the helm of the Not-American Party, the great battle of the Republican Party is going to be between Neo-Palestinians desperately trying to convince the American Party to ignore the political realities imposed by the post-1965 demographic changes and Americans who would like to have their party actually advocate for their national interests.

Republicans have nearly destroyed both their party and their country due to their support for immigration and neocon foreign policy. It’s astonishing that any Republican or conservative still pays any attention whatsoever to these utterly shameless deceivers.

The neocon’s man

The always-treacherous John Bolton is working to undermine President Trump:

White House National Security Adviser John Bolton is expanding his influence in increasingly visible ways, pursuing his own longstanding foreign policy priorities at the risk of tensions with top administration officials — and even Donald Trump himself.

An example spilled into the public eye a week ago, when an irked Trump cryptically announced on Twitter he’d undo some North Korea-related sanctions blessed by Bolton. The president’s decision was quietly walked back and the sanctions remain in place.

Since joining Trump’s White House, Bolton has pursued an agenda that includes trying to break Iran financially, oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, shield Americans from the reach of the International Criminal Court and toughen the U.S. posture toward Russia. He coordinated with key lawmakers, U.S. diplomatic and defense officials and the Israelis to compel Trump to slow an abrupt withdrawal of American forces from Syria.

Bolton, 70, has meanwhile adopted an increasingly public profile on Twitter, Trump’s social media platform of choice. Through a spokesman, he declined to be interviewed for this article.

This story is based on interviews with lawmakers and several current and former White House and diplomatic officials, most of whom asked not to be identified in order to candidly discuss Trump’s third national security adviser.

Bolton’s blunt, unapologetic divide-and-conquer methods don’t surprise anyone who’s watched him in government roles since the Reagan administration or as a pundit on Fox News. He’s always been a deeply ideological thinker who believes the U.S. plays by a unique set of rules and doesn’t mind — or even sometimes relishes — clashing with others to accomplish his goals.

He’s beloved by a loyal cadre of aides while chafing many others inside the administration. Trump is aware that Bolton’s relationships with powerful Republican figures who influence the president, particularly billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, give him an added degree of political cover, according to two people familiar with the matter.

My prediction: Trump will tolerate Bolton as long as he can, then fire him once Bolton goes too far and tries to start a war with Iran.