Ben Shapiru@benshapiru If we don’t share common values, we shouldn’t be surprised that politics becomes warfare by other means.
Stefan Molyneux@StefanMolyneux You said that you were totally FINE with the Third World pouring into America Benny.
Now you say you’re not surprised at ALL that lack of shared values leads to massive social conflict.
Which means you KNEW it would happen.
And you were fine with it.
Notice that no intellectual with any integrity has even the smallest regard for the Littlest Chickenhawk. The little guy takes a merciless beating no matter where he goes or which way he turns.
And for those foolish would-be Shapiru defenders who try to hide behind his claim that he was only talking about ideology when he said he was fine with “the browning of America”, well, you should have known better than to place your confidence in the consistency of a neoclown.
“The ideology of the Palestinian population is indistinguishable from that of the terrorist leadership.” – Ben Shapiru, 2003
Contra what many people would very much like to believe, Andrew Klavan is not, and has never been, one of the good guys. He is still a dedicated servant of the lie, as his own words testify:
It’s really interesting, they had this thing in in Portland over the weekend where antifa, the fascists who call themselves anti-fascist, and the Proud Boys, who seem to have overlooked the democracy problem themselves. We’re fighting each other, right, they’re out there, they were gonna have demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, and fight. Antifa is an absolutely miserable violent leftist organization and the Proud Boys seem to be instigating violence – in the name of white supremacy.
So Sean Hannity goes on TV, right, and Sean Hannity says a pox on both your houses, a plague on both your houses, this is not the way this, goes we’re one country, even though Sean is a deep, deep, partisan pro-Trump partisan. He is saying the people I argue with, I’m arguing with, right, we’re not we’re not enemies, we’re opponents in this fight. We’re not hitting each other over the head with clubs. Here’s just a taste of what Sean said, but what matters here is we can have a thorough, complete, passionate, open discussion of ideas and ideals. We don’t need fists and baseball bats and maces, you know. This show will always condemn hatred on any side, white supremacy, bigotry, you have no place in this society, none whatsoever.
What society is that, exactly? What do you mean by “we”, kemosabe. There is no “us”. Andrew Klavan’s show not only fails to condemn racial supremacy, he openly associates with known racial supremacists like Ben Shapiru and Dennis Prager. And let’s face it, we all know he’s intelligent enough to know better, which is how we observe that he is himself a liar, a subverter, and among those who seek to destroy both America and the West by transforming them into things they are not and have never been.
Anyone who claims to oppose “identity politics” at this point is either a clueless loser or a liar. I’m willing to cut some slack for the average idiot Boomer who was steeped in civic nationalism for his entire life, but the fact is that it is, and has always, been known to be, a polite fiction, as Belloc observes.
It was the attitude familiar to the nineteenth century, and agreeable to that one of its political moods in which it found itself best satisfied: … of creating a fiction of single citizenship to replace the reality of dual allegiance; of calling a [foreigner] a full member of whatever society he happened to inhabit during whatever space of time he happened to sojourn there in his wanderings across the earth. That was the attitude agreeable on the political side to everything which called itself “modern thought.” Such was the doctrine proposed by the great men of the French Revolution. Such was the attitude accepted almost enthusiastically by Liberal England, that is, by all the dominant public life of England during the Victorian period. Such was the policy which once obtained universal favour throughout the whole of our Western civilization. That was the attitude which the West actually attempted to impose upon Eastern States, and the last effect of its rapidly-declining credit is to be found in certain clauses of the Treaty of Versailles: for that attitude is still the official attitude of all our governments. It’s not just “the Democrats” who are flying the Devil’s flag, Mr. Klavan. And you obviously know damn well who else is flying the flag of their father.
UPDATE: A Klavan fan, who may soon be a former Klavan fan, copied me on an email to him:
You said in episode 752 that the “Proud Boys seem to be instigating violence in the name of white supremacy..”. I call you to retract this statement. It is not true. The Proud Boys have members of all colours and do not support white supremacy. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don’t know. If you do not retract this statement, you are a liar. I will not longer be able to trust that you are speaking truth and I will no longer be listening to you.
The final speaker of the morning session was Yoram Hazony. It was an interesting performance to behold. He started out criticizing neoconservatives, making the absurd claim that the current crop of neocons are not the real neocons. They have strayed from the original into imperialism. Then he let it be known that one of the sponsors for this show was The public Interest, a neocon quarterly founded by Irving Kristol. The fact that he said this without laughing was quite remarkable.
He then moved onto libertarianism. It’s interesting to hear these guys criticize libertarianism, because they don’t really know why they oppose it. They just associate it with the cultural decline, so they assume it is the cause. There’s also a reactionary vibe to their fight with the libertarians. These new nationalists don’t like the libertarians, because libertarians oppose nationalism. For their purposes, maybe that’s enough to dismiss the economic arguments against their brand of nationalism.
The third part of his speech was a trade about white nationalism. He fumbled around trying to say something about biological reality, but that made him sound like a nut from the flat earth society. Then he warned about the threat of white nationalism, especially among young people. Then he made the claim that there is no such thing as tribal loyalty, which is an odd thing, given that he claims a nation is a collection of tribes. As in his book, it’s clear he terrifies himself when he follows his logic to its conclusion….
The funny thing about this event is not a single person has bothered to mention that conservatism, whether neocon or Buckley, managed to conserve nothing.
They managed to derail the Tea Party, but I very much doubt they’ll be successful in jumping in front of the nationalist parade. I addressed this very topic in last night’s Darkstream.
Politics in America, Britain, and other Western nations have taken a sharp turn toward nationalism—a commitment to a world of independent nations. This has been disorienting to many, not least the American conservative movement, which has, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, grown increasingly attached to a vision of a global “rules-based liberal order” that would bring peace and prosperity to the entire world while attenuating the independence of nations.
The return of nationalism has created a much-discussed “crisis of conservatism” that may be unprecedented since modern Anglo-American conservatism was formulated by Russell Kirk, William Buckley, and their colleagues in the 1950s. At the heart of this crisis is a question: Is the new American and British nationalism a hostile usurper that has arrived on the scene to displace political conservatism? Or is nationalism an essential, if neglected, part of the Anglo-American conservative tradition at its best?
The conference on “National Conservatism” will bring together public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing.
We see this public conference as the kick off for a protracted effort to recover and reconsolidate the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race. Our aim is to solidify and energize national conservatives, offering them a much-needed institutional base, substantial ideas in the areas of public policy, political theory, and economics, and an extensive support network across the country.
Conservatives couldn’t conserve the ladies room. Don’t count on them to save the American nation. They’re not nationalists, they’re Neoclowns 2.0.
Epstein’s connection to intelligence, whether foreign or domestic, almost certainly explains the special “deal of a lifetime” that Epstein related to his 2006 plea bargain.
I also noted that it appeared his real job was to run a blackmail operation to ensnare some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth. I alluded to the possibility that he was collecting this priceless information on behalf of a third party, and then just today we learn the following via the Daily Beast:
“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)… For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves is well-known in his circle, remained untouchable.
It should be noted the reason I attach credibility to the above is based on who wrote it, Vicky Ward. She has an extensive history of digging into Epstein, and wrote one of the earliest profiles on him back in 2003. As she notes in today’s article:
I spent many months on his trail in 2002 for Vanity Fair and discovered not only that he was not who he claimed to be professionally, but also that he had allegedly assaulted two young sisters, one of whom had been underage at the time. Very bravely, they were prepared to go on the record. They were afraid he’d use all his influence to discredit them—and their fear turned out to be legitimate. As the article was being readied for publication, Epstein made a visit to the office of Vanity Fair’s then-editor, Graydon Carter, and suddenly the women and their allegations were removed from the article. “He’s sensitive about the young women,” Carter told me at the time. (Editor’s Note: Carter has previously denied this allegation.) He also mentioned he’d finagled a photograph of Epstein in a swimsuit out of the encounter. And there was also some feeble excuse about the article “being stronger as a business story.” (Epstein had also leaned heavily on my ex-husband’s uncle, Conrad Black, to try to exert his influence on me, which was particularly unwelcome, given that Black happened to be my ex-husband’s boss at the time.)
Many people had assumed Epstein was untouchable merely because he had so much dirt on so many powerful people, but it increasingly looks far bigger than that. It appears he may have been untouchable because he was systematically collecting this information on behalf of an intelligence agency. If so, we need to find out precisely who he was working for.
There isn’t too much doubt concerning the most likely intelligence agency, given the way in which Epstein’s background and connections are being scrubbed as we speak. But the effort is pointless, given the way in which more and more people are noticing the obvious patterns.
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
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.