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.


Redefining Western Civilization

Having seen how his forefathers successfully redefined America out of existence to suit themselves with their ahistorical Melting Pot mythology, Ben Shapiro is now attempting to redefine Western Civilization in order to better suit his Neo-Palestinian perspective. That’s what it means for him to be on “the right side of history”. From a comment on the Darkstream:

Madhatter
I mentioned his Tweet about his recent book and listed him the three cores ofWestern Civilization. It was a real mention, not a comment over a screenshot

Western Civilization:

European etnichities  ✔️

Greco-roman heritage✔️

Christianity✔️( the most important)

Who is rewriting it Ben?

Ben Shapiro @benshapiro
“So, if you’d like to both join the fight against the alt-right and their racist rewriting of “Western civilization,” and fight the horrific media bias of people who lump together conservatism and alt-right racism, buy a copy of my book”

The amount of projection in that tweet is simply astonishing. It is Ben Shapiro who is the openly racist advocate of global imperialism. It is Ben Shapiro who is rewriting the long-settled definition of “Western civilization”. As you should be able to see by now, Shapiro, Peterson, Prager, and others of their Fake Right camouflage are every bit as evil and anti-Western as the SJWs, but they are considerably more dangerous due to their proven ability to disguise their intentions and to fool so many self-styled conservatives into blithely supporting the ongoing destruction of America and the West.

UPDATE: Speaking of Ben Shapiro, keep this inept prediction in mind. He actually claims President Trump is “an odds-on favorite to lose in 2020”:

The Economist: How is the 2020 American presidential election looking to you?

Mr Shapiro: If I had to give odds right now, I’d say that President Trump is an odds-on favorite to lose in 2020. I think that he only has about a 40{7268cf014492308e106993e7b45f4eb601f43560ca0109d183125b422b0d55f5} chance of winning.

He’s not merely a liar, he’s an incompetent political observer. Remember, this is the same foolish chickenhawk who actually wanted the USA to declare war on Iran, Egypt, and nuclear-armed Pakistan AT THE SAME TIME in 2005.


Ben Shapiro Wrecked by One Perfect Tweet!

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
Omar: The nefarious Joos and their money and dual loyalty undergird American support for Israel.
NYT: The question raised is…is Omar right?

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald
Isn’t it notable how the person who mocks every claim of racism & bigotry as the by-product of whiny, authoritarian, overly-sensitive snowflakes suddenly leads the callouts, denunciations, & demands for safe spaces when it comes to his own group? Almost like he has no principles.

I laughed. I cried. Much better than Cats. Now, answer the question, Ben. Is Omar right? And if not, why not?

As others have already observed, nothing demonstrates the lack of influence AIPAC possesses in Washington DC like the entire political class of both the Republican and Democratic parties, including both executive and legislative branches, uniformly denouncing a single Congresswoman criticizing AIPAC’s excessive influence.

Glenn Greenwald has more on the subject:

There are so many points to be made about this episode, each of which could justify its own entire article. It is, for instance, beyond dispute that what Omar is saying is true given that the very first bill passed by the U.S. Senate this year was one that allowed punishment for American citizens who boycott Israel, while U.S. citizens in 26 states are formally punished for boycotting this foreign nation, as we reported last month in the case of a Texas elementary speech pathologist who lost her job for refusing to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel (to keep her job with Texas, she’s allowed to boycott any other nation or even an American state: just not this one favored foreign nation).

Thus far, the two federal courts to rule on such laws have struck them down as unconstitutional violations of the free speech rights of American citizens on behalf of Israel.

How can anyone possibly pretend that it’s invalid or offensive to observe, as Congresswoman Omar did, that some in America demand allegiance to a foreign nation when American citizens are allowed to boycott American states but are punished for boycotting this one specific foreign nation?

As Yoram Hazony writes: “an empire will usually have a particular ruling nation at its heart.” It’s not exactly a mystery which nation presently rules the U.S. empire.


No Venezuelan Spring

The neocons have met with their first setback in South America, according to the Saker:

The standoff between Venezuela and the AngloZionist Empire last week-end has clearly ended in what can only be called a total defeat for Elliott Abrams. While we will never know what was initially planned by the demented minds of the Neocons, what we do know is that nothing critical happened: no invasion, not even any major false flag operation. The most remarkable facet of the standoff is how little effect all the AngloZionist propaganda has had inside Venezuela. There were clashes, including some rather violent ones, across the border, but nothing much happened in the rest of the country. Furthermore, while a few senior officers and a few soldiers did commit treason and join forces with the enemy, the overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan military remained faithful to the Constitution. Finally, it appears that Maduro and his ministers were successful in devising a strategy combining roadblocks, a concert on the Venezuelan side, and the minimal but effective use of riot police to keep the border closed. Most remarkably, “unidentified snipers” did not appear to shoot at both sides (a favorite tactic of the Empire to justify its interventions). I give the credit for this to whatever Venezuelan (or allied) units were in charge of counter-sniper operations along the border.

Outside Venezuela this first confrontation has also been a defeat for the Empire. Not only did most countries worldwide not recognize the AngloZionist puppet, but the level of protest and opposition to what appeared to be the preparations for a possible invasion (or, at least, a military operation of some kind) was remarkably high. While the legacy corporate Ziomedia did what it always does (that is whatever the Empire wants it to do), the Internet and the blogosphere were overwhelmingly opposed to a direct US intervention. This situation also created a great deal of internal political tensions in various Latin American countries whose public opinion remains strongly opposed to any form of US imperial control over Latin America.

In this respect, the situation with Brazil is particularly interesting. While the Brazilian government fully backed the US coup attempt, the Brazilian military was most uncomfortable with this. My contacts in Brazil had correctly predicted that the Brazilian military would refuse to attack Venezuela and, eventually, the Brazilians even issued a statement to that effect.

Meanwhile, the American public is almost entirely indifferent to Venezuela.