The Shapiro Meltdown

[flash2015]

Ben Shapiro had an interview with Andrew Neil from the BBC yesterday to promote his book "The Right Side Of History":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

When the interviewer didn't give Shapiro the softball questions he expected he had a full-on meltdown, accusing Neil of being a biased leftist and soon after cutting the interview short saying Neil was "badly motivated".

What is wacky is that Andrew Neil IS a strong conservative. He worked for years for Murdoch, as an editor of the Sunday Times and as founding chairman of Sky TV. Now he is chairman of The Spectator which is yet another conservative publication. His interview style is to play "devil's advocate" and push the people he is interviewing whatever their political persuasion...which I think is what a good interviewer, especially a political one, should be doing.

It seems like in the US though that any attempt to question political talking points is now seen as bias. It is so bad now that many politicians/pundits only go on stations that won't question their talking points. One of the worst examples of this is the Dave Rubin show on youtube who seems to believe on principle that by letting any politician activist run their mouth without cross-examination he is supporting "free speech".

Anyone else watch the interview. What do you think? Am I off base...or would you agree that politicians/pundits in the US (especially conservative ones) are just a bunch of snowflakes?

[Carl Tuckerson]

I probably wouldn't agree with "especially conservative ones" because most leftist pundits and politicians don't have their feet put to the fire as often as right-wing pundits and politicians. When they are, they're every bit as prone to melting as Little Bennie there.

So glad this huckster fraud got shown up though, and agree with your broader point. There's a cottage industry of milquetoast center-right "intellectuals" like Shapiro that bring nothing substantively new to the table, only a talent for debate and rhetoric, but that like to carry themselves like harbingers of a new era of intellectual thought. Setting aside the conspiratorial overtone, they are the dictionary definition of "controlled opposition" or "token conservatism"--reliably and ardently defending the same position that liberals themselves held 20 years ago without meaningfully distinguishing themselves from liberals on a first-principles level. You can hear it in the way Shapiro references "debates" on "patriotism vs nationalism" and "populism vs free-marketeerism." What's really happening is that Shapiro and his ilk are the police of the establishment right, funneling an increasingly nationalist, populist, and discontented base toward the same failed politics of the establishment. He and his ilk hate Trump so much because Trump forced them to acknowledge that there are valid alternatives to milquetoast neoliberalism with a patriotic bend and that those alternatives are wildly popular among the right-wing base.

[Tom Bombadil]

This just confirms that Ben Shapiro is great at marketing

[Fluminator]

Too bad people demonize anyone who interviews Shapiro or "give him a platform " because it's interviews like this that actually help discredit people like him.

I didn't watch the interview but totally agree on Dave Rubin. I watched a couple and he is basically a bot that nods his head.

[CruaaderReynauld]

Too bad people demonize anyone who interviews Shapiro or "give him a platform " because it's interviews like this that actually help discredit people like him.

I didn't watch the interview but totally agree on Dave Rubin. I watched a couple and he is basically a bot that nods his head.

I. Agree.


The. Regressive. Left.

[flash2015]

Too bad people demonize anyone who interviews Shapiro or "give him a platform " because it's interviews like this that actually help discredit people like him.

I didn't watch the interview but totally agree on Dave Rubin. I watched a couple and he is basically a bot that nods his head.

I agree. Before the BBC interview people were protesting that they shouldn't interview him AT ALL...which I think is kind of silly and unhelpful. Even if you don't like him, denying that he exists, especially given his large following, won't make him go away.

[Octavious]

Much like Andrew I have no idea who Shapiro is. Is he a well known figure over the water?

[Fluminator]

He's a very popular conservative in North America. I know people who don't even follow politics usually that listen to his podcast.

He's actually very eloquent and puts things into easy and simple to understand terms for lay people to understand. A problem is everything is massively simplified and his views miss nuance all the time. A big example is his view on Israel where they are perfect and do no wrong and Palestinians are evil monster that enjoy living in sewage. When you listen to him talk it's convincing but then you actually look at the context and it's.... eh.

He's not a terrible person like some of the people he's associated with, but his opponents lump him in with the altright group which is silly because he's a practicing Jew. But this let's Ben play the victim all the time.

[Carl Tuckerson]

Much like Andrew I have no idea who Shapiro is. Is he a well known figure over the water?

Sadly. He is a relentless self-promoter whose niche is "owning the libs," which means going to college campuses and swatting down terrible arguments made by eighteen-year-olds who have been taught since birth to be pathologically afraid of everything. For a little while it's cathartic because college campuses are incredibly stifling to anybody who might try to show those eighteen-year-olds the errors of their ways; university administrations, especially on issues related to social justice, are downright Orwellian in how they handle sincere dissent even from "mainstream" conservative viewpoints, and so it is nice that the right-wing kids can have someone who doesn't have to worry about that and can argue on their behalf.

But all he provides is that catharsis really, and that only goes so far. He is clearly being groomed to be "the" guy for millennial conservatism, but he's just not very impressive. And as others have pointed out, he has appalling views on Israel and Palestine (he is unironically an Israeli supremacist who has advocated for the "transfer"--read, forced deportation--of all Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt), which are inexplicably brushed over by pundits on both sides of the aisle but which would get anybody else crucified if they argued for anything close to that in America or Europe.

[CruaaderReynauld]

And as others have pointed out, he has appalling views on Israel and Palestine (he is unironically an Israeli supremacist who has advocated for the "transfer"--read, forced deportation--of all Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt), which are inexplicably brushed over by pundits on both sides of the aisle but which would get anybody else crucified if they argued for anything close to that in America or Europe.

Where did he say this? I can't find any records of it.

[flash2015]

And as others have pointed out, he has appalling views on Israel and Palestine (he is unironically an Israeli supremacist who has advocated for the "transfer"--read, forced deportation--of all Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt), which are inexplicably brushed over by pundits on both sides of the aisle but which would get anybody else crucified if they argued for anything close to that in America or Europe.

Where did he say this? I can't find any records of it.

First result in Google:

"Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper."

https://townhall.com/columnists/benshap ... rd-n976781

Though he gave a half-hearted retraction here (i.e. if you are retracting you don't go for the "moral equivalence" excuse - it isn't a good look):

"At the top of this list is a column I wrote when I was 19 years old regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That column called for transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33362/so ... en-shapiro

[CruaaderReynauld]

And as others have pointed out, he has appalling views on Israel and Palestine (he is unironically an Israeli supremacist who has advocated for the "transfer"--read, forced deportation--of all Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt), which are inexplicably brushed over by pundits on both sides of the aisle but which would get anybody else crucified if they argued for anything close to that in America or Europe.

Where did he say this? I can't find any records of it.

First result in Google:

"Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper."

https://townhall.com/columnists/benshap ... rd-n976781

Though he gave a half-hearted retraction here (i.e. if you are retracting you don't go for the "moral equivalence" excuse - it isn't a good look):

"At the top of this list is a column I wrote when I was 19 years old regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That column called for transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33362/so ... en-shapiro

Ok so, I actually did some research behind this to make sure I had a full view on this, and after reviewing all the evidence, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.

To begin, the article you quoted in which Ben Shapiro advocated for the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel, was written on August 27th, 2003. Now, this date not seem important, however, this date was only 8 days after a Palestinian Bomber killed some 20-80 (Sources disagreed on the number from what I found, I'm going with this article for the number killed http://www.israel.org/MFA/MFA-Archive/2 ... -%201.aspx ) people and wounded 130 civilians. This means Ben Shapiro wrote his Article 8 days after the terrorist attack. Personally, I completely disagree completely with Ben Shapiro on this topic, however the context is important. This is only one week after a major terrorist attack in Israel, and if recent events about racism and discriminatory attacks prove, tensions rise and tempers flare. I like to look for the best in people, and I think it's more than likely this column is more of a reactionary article.

Of course, this all was some 16 years ago, when Ben Shapiro was 19. From what I've seen, 19 year olds tend to be very reactive. So it's possible Ben Shapiro wasn't advocating for the removal of Arabs as much as reacting in a rash way.

Second, as I already mentioned, this Article was written 16 years ago, when Ben Shapiro was 19. As much as I'd love to deny it, people change. I probably wouldn't recognize myself from one year ago. Multiply that by 16, it's more likely Ben Shapiro matured and went from a Reactionary to who he is today. Furthermore, if he admits he was wrong and shouldn't have said that, who are we to deny his intentions. A lot of people tend to believe people purely on their opinions of them. For example, Mike Kavanaugh. If you are a conservative (As I am, albeit a moderate, borderline independent) you probably believed Kavanaugh didn't rape the girl who claimed he raped her, or simply didn't believe there was enough evidence. On the flip side, if you were a democrat, you probably assumed Mike must have raped the girl because she said so. The truth is, we'll never know if Mike is guilty or not, but the point of the justice system is to find the truth behind the matter as best they can. I've gone off topic, but my point is that we shouldn't believe anyone just because they said so, but we shouldn't assume people are lying when they go back on stupid things they have said.

Finally, as far as I can see, Ben Shapiro isn't an Israeli Supremacist. That implies he sees Jews as the Master Race, which he doesn't as far as I can tell. Sadly the definitions don't like up with Ben Shapiro's beliefs.


I'd be more than willing to discuss this matter in a peaceful and positive discussion if you want, I just wanted to say my opinions.

[flash2015]

Let us get one thing out of the way. I think you are confusing me with someone else. I did not suggest Shapiro was an Israeli Supremacist. I was just responding to your assertion that he never said that all Arabs should be deported from Israel when he clearly did.

If this was an isolated case, I would agree that we should give him the benefit of the doubt. But he does this "over the top" stuff often. I actually agree with the concern expressed in Ben's book, that there is way too much anger in politics and that we are too divided. But as the interviewer pointed out, if you really believe that to be a goal, it isn't very much good if you are one of the people adding fuel to the division. He claims he has a page where he lists all the stupid things he said but I have looked at the page and at best he makes half-hearted apologies for this stuff...or at worst he doubles down like on his assertion that the 70% of Jews that vote democrat aren't "real Jews" - what an a**hole. Going off topic a bit here he made the same claim about Buttigieg recently, since Buttigieg's top priority as a Christian wasn't abortion, then he can't be a real Christian. IMHO, Shapiro is a religious bigot.

His signature mug which he spruiks on his show is labeled "Leftist Tears", that it is somehow pleasurable to see your political enemies suffer. That makes no sense to me as I believe we are fundamentally all on the same side. It suggests a horribly, horribly warped set of priorities.

[CruaaderReynauld]

Let us get one thing out of the way. I think you are confusing me with someone else. I did not suggest Shapiro was an Israeli Supremacist. I was just responding to your assertion that he never said that all Arabs should be deported from Israel when he clearly did.

If this was an isolated case, I would agree that we should give him the benefit of the doubt. But he does this "over the top" stuff often. I actually agree with the concern expressed in Ben's book, that there is way too much anger in politics and that we are too divided. But as the interviewer pointed out, if you really believe that to be a goal, it isn't very much good if you are one of the people adding fuel to the division. He claims he has a page where he lists all the stupid things he said but I have looked at the page and at best he makes half-hearted apologies for this stuff...or at worst he doubles down like on his assertion that the 70% of Jews that vote democrat aren't "real Jews" - what an a**hole. Going off topic a bit here he made the same claim about Buttigieg recently, since Buttigieg's top priority as a Christian wasn't abortion, then he can't be a real Christian. IMHO, Shapiro is a religious bigot.

His signature mug which he spruiks on his show is labeled "Leftist Tears", that it is somehow pleasurable to see your political enemies suffer. That makes no sense to me as I believe we are fundamentally all on the same side. It suggests a horribly, horribly warped set of priorities.

My bad, I got you confused with the quote inside your quote. That's my fault and I take responsibility for that. I'll draft up a proper response once I wake up as it's 12 in the morning for me.

[Fluminator]

Stephen Crowder is another famous conservative (who I regrettably find quite funny sometimes) who's always moaning about the state of political dialogue, and then adds fuel by mocking the other side and crashing his opponents speeches. I wish there were more conservative voices that focused less on "owning the libs"
Tucker Carlson and Gavin Mcinnes are others I have a similar problem with.

I'm concerned about the new face of the conservative movement. Conservatism is awesome imo but not sure if we have many good ambassadors lol.
Maybe Jordan Peterson?

[pangloss]

I watched the interview, and I must say that it's a bit unfair to bring up statements from 7+ years ago and ask him to defend them on the spot. Shapiro has been writing since he was seventeen and I think it's too much to ask him to remember every single thing he's ever written. You can tell that Shapiro was ready to defend everything once he'd been given more context to the quotations, but he didn't remember everything right away.

This is not to defend him, as I find him rather annoying and I generally disagree with his views on politics, but he was being treated with some hositility. I think part of that is that the American right is so far outside of the mainstream of the rest of the developed world. In Canada, talk of restricting abortion whatsoever is often met with claims that such restrictions would send us back to the dark ages, and I expect that in the UK there is a similar situation.

To begin, the article you quoted in which Ben Shapiro advocated for the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel, was written on August 27th, 2003. Now, this date not seem important, however, this date was only 8 days after a Palestinian Bomber killed some 20-80 [...]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how does the fact that a terrorist attack occurred about a week before justify saying that all Arabs within Israel and Palestine should be expelled? We're talking about millions of men, women, and children, moved from the place that they've lived, sometimes for generations, because... one terrorist attack killed 80 people?

I think even the most charitable reading of Shapiro's article could not characterise it as a knee-jerk reaction to a single event.

I think one thing that is particularly telling is the following passage from Shapiro's article:

The Jews don't realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. There are no gas chambers here. It's not genocide; it's transfer. It's not Hitler; it's Churchill.

Churchill was the good guy, right? So what he did must have been all right, right?

Well, Der Spiegel reports that around 400 000 people died during these few years of "transfer".

Of course, this all was some 16 years ago, when Ben Shapiro was 19. From what I've seen, 19 year olds tend to be very reactive. So it's possible Ben Shapiro wasn't advocating for the removal of Arabs as much as reacting in a rash way.

Shapiro graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from UCLA the following year and then went to Harvard for his law degree. He had been writing a nationally syndicated column for two years at the time. He's a smart guy and he was fully capable of conducting research and thinking critically. His being nineteen doesn't get him off the hook.

Current Affairs published a take down of Shapiro a little while back, and it makes for pretty good reading. It's true that the magazine is avowedly left wing, but Nathan Robinson is a very thorough researcher and a good writer, and he makes it clear when he's giving his own opinion or giving facts (and his academic credentials are quite strong).

[Carl Tuckerson]

Stephen Crowder is another famous conservative (who I regrettably find quite funny sometimes) who's always moaning about the state of political dialogue, and then adds fuel by mocking the other side and crashing his opponents speeches. I wish there were more conservative voices that focused less on "owning the libs"
Tucker Carlson and Gavin Mcinnes are others I have a similar problem with.

I'm concerned about the new face of the conservative movement. Conservatism is awesome imo but not sure if we have many good ambassadors lol.
Maybe Jordan Peterson?

Tucker is so good when he isn't debating leftists on his show. I think his ideological bend is the future of conservatism, and that for the most part he's a good ambassador, but his debates frequently aren't quality discourse and he has a tendency to fall into the "winning the argument" mentality vs "advancing the conversation" mentality. It's a shame too because he clearly can do the latter (watch his interviews with people he agrees with), but he chooses not to because owning the libs I guess.

I don't think Peterson is who conservatism should want. He does a great job playing dad to a generation of men that badly need it. He should keep it there and stay out of the political fray, his work would benefit for it. I'd kill for someone with his demeanor who explicitly wants to be a political commentator though.

[MajorMitchell]

Interesting reading, thanks to all contributors. I heard a most interesting term recently.. "Democratic Capitalism" which is apparently a "morally good thing". It was used in the context of a comparison of capitalism in the USA compared to capitalism in China. (although the term "Communist Capitalism" did not get an airing.)
I think the user divided Capitalism into Democratic Capitalism (a very good thing) and everything else is Non~Democratic Capitalism. (Clearly Evil in a multitude of ways)
One concern I have, probably because I am an old fuddy duddy & shareholder relates to Dividend Income. Does this new division of Capitalism imply that there are now Moral Dividends and Immoral Dividends ?
I had regarded Dividend Income as amoral and wonderfully useful in meeting the maintenance & upkeep costs of My Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib, Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors lying on a sofa eating cakes and Princess Estelle​.
Of course if those obstinate blockheads at the Taxation Office would accept the obvious fundamental principle that both Spouse and Mistress are tax deductible neccesities with imputed credits then balancing the quarterly accounts would be much simpler.

[Restitution]

When they are, they're every bit as prone to melting as Little Bennie there.

Proof?