—The Fatal Flaw in All Arguments — Reality or Delusion: It's Your Choice (but don't expect me to join you if you choose the latter)

By on

At the bottom of this Rumination are some links to youtubes by Ben Shapiro.*  Someone emailed me a few of his links and asked my opinion.  I have for a long time, when at youtube, seen in the sidebar on the right, links to Shapiro's youtubes, but never viewed any.  With dial up I have to be choosy since it takes about 5 times longer to view any video; I download one slowly as I work on other things at my computer, then when a minute or two have downloaded, I watch, then go back to work as more of it downloads.  It is very slow and tedious.  Regardless... now I have viewed half a dozen of his "best of", which of course are clips, not entire dialogues on a given topic.  That said, here is my opinion.

[* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro  — before watching these videos I knew nothing about him, had never listened to him; so I list the wikipedia link.]

He has some humor value but he does at times step over the line of humor to vulgarity; but these (links that I shall list) are the "best of" clips, so they are brief and when he does exhibit his "right wing Jewish mouth", it is not a very long sound byte. 

He has some good arguments in the below clips; he has good instincts, sometimes, but often does not go in the right direction and since he does not establish what morality actually is, he is merely promoting his subjective emotions and opinions as fact; and if he does not appeal to the only true source of morality (the Word of God), then all arguments are merely different versions of argumentum ad baculum; and thus there is no such thing as morality and what is considered morality is in a constant state of flux.

UNLIKE Henry Makow—who recognizes that Christianity is responsible for Christendom (the Western world), though Makow's concept of God and Christ and Christianity is not only seriously flawed (a massive understatement), but also entirely gutted of all Divine and Biblical viscera (leaving little more than a Hollywood prop scene on a set) and reduced to a "nice idea" or "concept" of "goodness" or a "warm fuzzy feeling"—I have not yet heard Shapiro mention Christianity or the Bible or its value in actually being the foundation and lifeblood of true civilization.  Granted, these are "best of" clips, but in Shapiro's basic philosophy (which is secular and thinly logical in many places), it seems evident that their is no recognition of Christianity and the Bible, and that is why at the end of the day, all of his arguments are vapid and fail—because they are hollow and founded upon air; as I shall explain.  Update: I have now viewed a few youtubes in which Shapiro does indeed mention that Christianity (or at least as he calls it, "Judeo-Christianity", which is a corrupt and inaccurate term, a term unknown to our founders, a term that confuses the Jewish religion as having birthed Christianity, which it did not) is responsible for the very existence, foundation, and greatness of the entire Western world, a greatness shared by no other people or nation.  However, what I have not heard him mention is that pluralism, multiculturalism, and multireligionism are destroying it and by their very disconsonant natures, can only destroy it.  He seems to consider faith (more properly, true religion that is not any mere subjective notion, but the doctrine of the Word of God) more of a personal thing, able to be separated from politics.  It seems that he is an orthodox Jew, but he does not seem to incorporate God into his arguments, other than as an "honorable mention", from time to time, like, "the best nation God ever created" or "I hope to God", etc.  Whether he is Talmudic in his understanding of his religion or purely Toraic, I know not.  However, germain to this discussion, his arguments do not (as far as I have seen) have God as the foundation of morality, but rather, his concept of morality seems to be founded upon subjective values or political machinations.  While I have watched several hours of his youtubes, the majority have been clips; but even in those clips, as I shall mention, the foundation of morality is not properly established, and therefore, cannot be sustained.

[Makow sees the results of Christianity, but for some reason does not realize the inner reality that is responsible for the outward results.  Similarly, buildings don't build themselves.  Electronic and computerized gadgets don't just work—they work because of their design, program, and inner circuitry.]

This is not to say that he is not right on many issues (right, but not necessarily for the right reason—but headed in the right direction); but (at least from these clips) his argument is without life and strength if it is missing the core nucleus.  He does have a lot of good information and facts and he is quite worthwhile to view.

Overall, he has many good things to say.  These will be self-evident.  Therefore, do not think that my criticisms are all that there is.  He makes some great points and offers profound statistics (in often a good, albeit always sarcastic medium—and for good reason); to the point that the leftist opposition has no grounds to contest the argument except with their own emotionalist and hand waving and histrionics that somehow, they think defeats his arguments of fact. 

Therefore, consider my critique (which someone asked me for) as that of a tour guide narrating your adventure through an amusement park.

First I will mention a few specifics, then I shall progress to the general.

He seems to be ignorant concerning the facts of the Hollowca$ht (which is understandable, though some Jews are not resistant to the truth of WWII).  He also erroneously believes that racism (not actually understanding the essence of it*) is a "bad" thing and he seems to think at least that some Jews are white.**  Also it seems a bit odd that he realizes that "Jewish" friends and family and "Leftist" friends and family are basically "the same focus group", but that he has not dug deeper into the natural inferences of such a realization concerning world conspiracy.  He also seems to maintain the position that Israelis are all Mother Theresa and Palestinians are all Osama bin Ladin (which is completely contradictory to his clear logic in other areas such as nonwhites spuriously assuming that all "injustice" is the result of "racism" even if no evidence of racism exists—even if the opposite is the evidence).  What this is predicated upon, I don't know, but I would guess based upon a false (one-sided) notion that the State of Israeli is the bonafide property of Israelis (I guess he did not study history before 1948; and certainly not back to the B.C. era to realize that the Jews are not the ancient Biblical Israelites, but Edomites infiltrators who stole Israel's identity—even as is again happening to all the nations of Christendom, which founding peoples ARE the literal descendents of true ancient Israel***).  It is also hypocritical that he does not recognize the "racism" inherent in the entire Israeli philosphical and political position and subsequent Zionist-Israeli modus operandi.  He seems to believe the Protocols, Bilderbergers, etc., are all "conspiracy theories".  But I guess he derived his Zionist blindspots naturally; but one has to wonder if it is also accompanied by Talmudist blindspots and agenda (the two are very hard to separate).

[* He realizes that the essence of theft is wrong; but he does not actually understand why.  However, the true nature of what is demonized as "racism" is actually itself predicated upon theft.  Even as it is wrong for poor people to want to steal money from rich people because they want the rich men's money because they don't have as much as they would like (even if the rich man obtained his wealth morally, without "exploiting" those poor individuals), so also the issue of racism is the very same factual theft on a national level (and the theft of the very nation itself) by an alien people who want the nation.  The aliens want the entire nation and its wealth (individually, one person's wealth at a time via individual crime, or collectively via legislative broad-blanket "legalized" crime) that another race developed because... well, quite simply because they want it; but in reality, one "reason" is because they are unable to develop such a nation on their own so they think it is their right to demand that other people give them their nation.  However, they all have nations of their own, whether functional or not (and the more we absorb them the less functional our nations become and the more they become like their nations); but that does not stop them from wanting our nation.  Their philosophy is that they have a right to whatever they want, even if it belongs to someone else.  Is that not why there is a rape every 6 seconds in the U.S. ...?  Their modus operandi, though they are not cognitively conscious of it, is that they cannot control their urges and that they should not have to.  The problem arises when the host nation being invaded chooses to irrationally and immorally enter with the invaders their delusion and tolerate / ignore / embrace their modus operandi as acceptable.  This is the last stages of life when a body that is overrun with parasites or disease simply gives up.  What is them deemed as "immoral" and "hateful" and "violent" are those individuals who refuse to simply roll over and die.  "Racists", therefore, are those who resist this crime of theft, rape, and murder, on an individual and national / racial level.  Yet Shapiro thinks "racism" is "evil" and "nasty" and "immoral" (or whatever exact pejorative adjectives he uses); but again, that declaration (not an actual argument, but one that is veiled as one) ultimately fails for the same reason as his other arguments fail, ultimately, as we shall see.

**rather than realizing, or at least expressing more properly that some Jews have intermarried with whites and have some white DNA; but as I explained in the previous Rumination "Making Christendom", living in white nations does not make a person white; neither does intermarriage with whites make you white, it make you a lighter colored mixed-blooded person.  In one clip he gives a little personal history to someone trying to formulate a question by asking him many personal questions, but not finding an in-road for attack, he expressed that he is a white Jew but he is married to a non-white Jew (Moroccan).

*** See my books / booklets: Are You An Antisemite?, 24pp., 2.50 + P&H; God's Chosen People, 88pp., 6.00 + P&H; and Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance, 192pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H; Hb., 28.00 + P&H.]

However, I have to wonder about a Jew calling himself a right-winger who does not seem to understand that all moral argument is predicated upon the Bible, which itself is founded upon God's Very Nature (those who don't understand God's Nature, even if they claim to be "Christians", don't understand the moral argument; they may understand disconnected bits and pieces of it, but eventually the fabric will unravel and in the end they will be holding a bunch of loose threads without any cohesion, strength, purpose, or usefulness).  Thus, one has to wonder, even as the International Jewish Bankers bet on all horses in a race (finance both sides of any war) if such persons are Zionist Trojan horses or Judases who attempt to embed themselves very early on in the enemy camp as being "one of you guys"—even trying to lead us! 

Similarly, Arminianist ("free will") theology is humanism.  It maintains a half-way or one-third or other percentage of true Reformed theology, but a humanistic theology that is more pleasing and flattering to, centered around, founded upon, and for the purpose of man.  However, bad theology, like lies, require more bad theology or lies to cover the former.  All "semi-"Calvinists are "mostly humanists" and only exist as a "step down" program  to help wean you off true theology and God altogether eventually.  One false doctrine, like a rotting tooth, leads to another, until you have all your teeth yanked and get dentures; then once all theology is abandoned (non-doctrinal Christianity is not Christianity but pseudo-spiritual humanism eventually recognized as a useless spiritual vacuum by those not in complete delusion), and most "Christians" will eventually abandon God altogether because they will realize that the entire "pseudo-spiritual country club", "motivational seminar" and "religious happy place" is an irrational paradigm that is senseless and no longer worth continuing the charade.  That's what happens when you gut Christianity of its viscera (theology, doctrine).

Shapiro rightfully realizes that when the left attempts to twist an economic discussion into a "moral"* argument (which is their modus operandi) that such a discussion has to be broken off; which is true, but more importantly their moral argument has to be exposed as being fraudulent.  At times Shapiro himself talks about morality and moral issues, but his arguments ultimately fail; and for the same reason he cannot think to expose the leftist's moral arguments as fraudulent (at least, not in these clips); which I shall explain in greater detail shortly.  Also, he makes statements (sans violon) like it does not matter how much money Bill Gates or some other wealthy person has and it does not matter how much money Shapiro himself has, but the issue is how we can all help the poor.  This is a false disjunction and a non sequitur.  That is an opinion based on a cluster of false inferences, spurious philosophy, moralism, or religious argument, and subjective "feelings" (even though he freely tells other people that he does not give a damn about their "feelings"—and if an argument or position is not based upon valid logic, then it is "feelings" that cause a person to choose such a position and Shapiro does not realize that at times he himself engages in such subjective emotionalism masquerading as cognitive thought).

[* More properly, this should be explained as "an alleged moral argument"; though in reality, it is nothing more than emotional propagandist subjectivism that they attempt to force upon you.]

It certainly does matter how much money someone else has if that money was procured, not from thrift or industry or talent, but through corrupt business practices and corrupt government controlling the market unfairly to the advantage of some.  He engages in this blunder of thought by not recognizing that there is evil in billionaires and Big Business (aided by corrupt government) who use their massive wealth (and corrupt laws the bribed politicians pass to enable them) to bully and by use of force (and corrupt business practices*), put the majority of competition out of existence.

[* —such as the immoral allowance of importation of cheap, inferior goods produced in the Third World (causing companies that manufacture US-made products to fail, selling at cut-rate prices to put all competitors out of business, buying up all competition to become a massive juggernaut and then once there is no more competition to raise prices.  In order to attempt to compete with the importation of Third World goods, corrupt US business goes one better and imports Third-World workers, to pay them a lower wage (which now that the majority are Third-World workers, corrupt government is passing laws demanding wages to be raised, which circumvents the entire purpose of importing Third-World workers, who are now here by the many tens of millions, having babies, and half of the Third Worlders are on Wefare while the other half have taken the jobs of Americans.  So yes—his argument fails—at some point a family such as the Waltons morphed (by choice and by systematic plans carried out by that choice) from being a non-evil entitity when it was merely a family, to being an evil nation-destroying Mega-business gobbling up all competition and selling foreign-made inferior products at cut-rate prices, with all sorts of government deals.  See also: How Wal-Mart is Destroying America and What You Can Do About It, Quinn, 128pp., 12.00 + P&H (which I have not read, but I hear is quite good).  This can be notched up another level by considering the Federal Reserve and International Bankers and very nature and origin of the wealth of the Rothschild and other related banking families.  It is indeed quite a "blessing" to be able to loan someone nothing and then grow wealthy by demanding that they "pay it back" plus interest.]

It is not the obligation of anyone to care for the poor—because the entity known as "poor" is not even defined; and if it were defined, the authority of the definer would also have to be established—(and based upon their own evolutionary model, it is actually ones duty to let those less fit to survive to be "naturally selected out"—funny how they pick and choose when they want to believe in the holy, all-powerful evolution; it is not blasphemy to resist ones god...?).

He himself indicates that most poor people are poor not because they don't have money but because they make bad decisions with the money they have.   But he confuses the issue by saying at other times we should care about helping the poor.  He does not say that they are bad with money because that is their nature though that is the logical inference.  Similarly, even if he did state that, it would not be a logical inference that anyone else has a moral obligation to help such persons "be better" with money (and would not attempting to "change their nature" be some form of "Imperial racism"...?).  However, states other things that support this ultimate conclusion, such as those who were poor who get a lot of money usually end up poor again. 

It is not the obligation of anyone to help the poor—not even the alleged government's.  Charity and "obligation" are dissonant concepts—distinct and sovereign jurisdictions.  This relates to a clip in one youtube segment on another topic: One woman referred to health care that is offered with a job as "an earned benefit".  He did not see this as an invalid argument / concept.  That is an oxymoron, even as would be "charitous obligation".  It is not a "benefit" if you deserve it.  You indeed deserve it if it was part of the contract that you signed and your daily showing up to work earns that portion of the health-care package that your employer offered you under the terms of the contract.  Therefore, it is not a benefit but a contractual right.  Society has been lobotomized and is anti-intellectual which leads to immoral totalitarianism in all areas (including thought—since freedom begins in the mind*).

[* Note, carefully, I am not saying that freedom has its intrinsic origin in the mind; but for each individual freedom begins with valid moral thoughts, laws, principles (the only true Source of which, we shall discuss shortly).]

People may be poor for various reasons, but regardless of those reasons it is no one elses obligation to help "the poor" unless those nonpoor are actually guilty for the poor being poor; which he expresses at other times, but then makes illogical statements to the contrary about how we should be concerned (an unsubstantiated moral judgment) about helping the poor.  People who want to be successful work full-time jobs—even more than one—and then their real job begins when their paying job ends each day, as they then work in their own workshop or basement in trying to invent something or develop a good product.  People who work a mere 40 hours a week (or who don't work at all and collect welfare and deludedly think of it a "getting paid") and who sit on their asses and watch tv and grow obese, get tattoos, drink and smoke and get diabetes and then cry because they are poor are not even worth wasting breath to talk about.  The only way to get rich without truly working hard is politics; which is why so many want on that golden carousel to have a chance at the brass ring.

Some of his arguments are transparent tautologies / begging the question; masked with humor so people who are less astute think that what he said was true, simply because it was semi-humorous and he was able to engage them by eliciting their cooperation in their response of laughing. 

[This is not to say that humor does not have its place and is invalid.  It is wonderful.  The point is that it is no replacement for a valid argument.  Salt is to season a steak, not replace it; likewise frosting and cake (of course, speaking only of a healthy, whole-grain, fiber-filled, mineral-laden, chock-full-of-vitamins cake—which is why you need the frosting).  If you threw away (or never even had) the steak or cake and ate only the salt and frosting, you would not fare too well.]

However, his argument of an unborn fetus being life even as if life were discovered on Mars, is very good

Though Shapiro does not mention it, the opposition (who is not used to actually doing much valid thinking) will claim that it is not a fair analogy, because the fetus is connected to the mother and if you remove the fetus from the mother's womb and it cannot live; therefore (they vapidly argue), "it is not life".  However, their scenario and "reasoning", of course, is not evidence that it is not life.  However, they ignore the ultimate conclusions of their argument (for they really do not think any farther ahead than most welfare recipients do concerning the spending of their current "paycheck"; they consume it until it is gone and then merely sit around until it is "reloaded").  Abortion-rights groups [rephrehenisbly called, "pro-choice"] and the corrupt, anti-intellectual, immoral legislators and judiciary and medical boards who enable them, never think to analyze their spurious position.  Tell me, if you stop feeding the full-term infant after he is born and the infant dies, does that prove he was not "life" or alive?  Remove any discovered single-celled organism from the planet Mars and deposit it in empty outer space, where it does not have the warmth, humidity, gravity, protection from radiation, moisture, nutrients, etc., all the things—the very environment that it needs to live, and of course it will die.  Does that mean that it was not "life" and never really alive?  Take a fish out of water... etc.  The position that the fetus is not life is an anti-intellectual, nonscientific, illogical, immoral position established by corrupt legislators (and corrupt judiciary who have no right to make law) and corrupt medical boards who simply "declare" by their own self-assumed imperial edict, that a fetus before a certain "expiration date" is not life.  This is totalitarianism as well as as anti-intellectual.  How can something that is not life spontaneously become life?  How can non-existence "expire" into existence?  This, of course, is the insipid, intellectually bankrupt evolutionary model and again, it is amazing how hypocritically they choose to apply it when it suits their agenda and not apply it when it suits their agend.

[Their imperative, "Don't feed the animals it will make them dependent upon man" flies in the face of their equally dogmatic complicated, trillion-dollar, unending maze and intricate spider's web of all welfare programs.]

The lovely "payback" (the unseen 9/10ths of the iceberg) is that with this paradigm of a woman's body and extant immature* fetus being hers and her right to do with as she pleases, will one day be revealed in the extended form of the argument (when it is "convenient") when it shall be applied to all individuals in society who are inside the "government's" all-powerful womb; part of the "government's" body, and therefore, the government will declare that all "clusters of tissue" in "their society, their jurisdiction, their nation, their world" are theirs and therefore they can decide what they want to do with what is theirs and decree what is life and what is not life. 

[* —which very word presupposes life; immature life, but life nonetheless.]

It is also hypocritical that the corrupt government tells women that they can do whatever they want to with "immature" fetuses in their wombs, since those immature fetuses are inside their own bodies, but despite the fact that it is already established that women own their own bodies (which is not actually an established fact that shall be shown not to be true), the government says that they can't decide not to be vaccinated,* not choose for their infant to not be vaccinated, not choose an alternative treatment for cancer or any other disease for their own bodies, that they are not allowed to use certain drugs without permission, that they are not allowed to use certain drugs or tobacco or alcohol while pregnant,** etc.  They also demand taxes from anything that anyones body produces; so whose body is it?  The government thinks that all bodies are theirs; which of course, is anti-intellectual (as well as immoral) for "government" is a fictional entity and does not exist outside of "bodies" itself; therefore the argument is exposed as being nothing other than that communist philosophy revealed in Orwell's Animal Farm.***  And even when abuses like this — https://www.foxnews.com/us/decades-old-fetal-remains-discovered-in-michigan-funeral-home-3rd-time-in-weeks — are discovered, the leftists will blame it on those who opposed abortion and so before abortion was legalized, those who opposed abortion "made" those women have illegal abortions in a funeral home!

[* Ironically, the same "government" tells Ocean Spray cranberry juice company that they are not allowed to advertise that cranberry juice is healthy for your body; and therefore, we can infer that women can drink cranberry juice only if they are thirsty, not if they think that drinking it will have any bearing on their health.  How people are allowed to think that that "drinking anything will rehydrate them" is not fully understood, since individuals are not licensed chemists qualified to make that determination; nor to be able to diagnose when hydration is actually needed.

** And this is a very interesting point.  Do doctors / government tell women that they cannot use tobacco or alcohol and certain drugs during any time of pregnancy, or only during the time after which it is considered "life"...?

*** (1946) George Orwell, a classic; 114p., pb. 10.00 + P&H; ; DVD cartoon, 24.00; DVD 2-in-1, Animal Farm movie & Moby Dick 13.00 + P&H; skillfully reveals the duplicity and corruption of socialism/communism through an allegory in which animals take over a farm, then the pigs begin to change the established rules to be in favor of the pigs at all the other animals’ expense. A must for children and adults.]

Then, once the "magical time-period" (expiration date of "nonlife" somehow becoming life) of the fetus is passed, it is no longer part of the woman's body, but it belongs to the "government" and the government tells the woman what she may and may not do with both her body and the fetus' body; which exposes the fraud that claimed that the woman actually had "the right" to do what she wanted to do with her own body before that period of time passed in the age of the fetus—because her body was not actually her body then either (in the mind of the fictitious entity known as "government"), but all bodies belong to and are property of the the "government".  Therefore, the woman does not own the so-called "non-life" living tissue (fetus) in her body and it is not her right to do with it as she pleases, in reality she is the government's surrogate assassin.

Therefore, abortion is not about women's rights, but it is actually the first-punch and the inverse (of traitors who have hijacked the true government from the people) of the second punch of the two-punch plan to destroy Christendom.  That second punch, of course, is unconstitutional, treasonous mass Third-World immigrationinto Christendom.  These two punches are actually the inverse of each other, different ends of the spectrum but both clearly separate though concerted methods of attack (displacement and replacement) by a corrupt, renegade, treasonous government in killing off the rightful white population and burgeoning the nonwhite population to cripple the nation to the point that it falls.

However, Shapiro attempts to extend the very good and valid Mars-fetus argument and claim that it is "exactly" the same argument upon which slavery is based; but I don't know what type of slavery he is talking about: for his explanation of slavery is "you are on my land so you are my slave so what can you do about it?" (or something to that effect).  This is completely illogical and of course his attempted analogy here fails as miserably as some of the earliest attempts at inventing flying machines.  Slavery is not about "squatters" being put to servitude... slavery is more complex than that confused notion (an historical example of which I am having a hard time even recalling).  Furthermore, even as with the concept of "the poor", there can be various different reasons why an individual may be a slave, not all of them immoral; not even according to the morality established by the Word of God.  This argument crashes and burns in the volatile emotionalism that it is.

However, the greatest flaw in his overall argument in general (and all other secular arguments by others) is that he does not recognize the Bible—GOD as the sole Source of Morality.  Though he may give verbal assent and recognition of such "concepts", dropped as buzz words or mere window dressing, if he actually believed them they would be the core of his arguments, which they are not; and there is no way that he could argue secularly (devoid of Divine Authority and man's responsibility) as he does, quite often, if he truly believed in the true God, because such arguments are antithetical to true morality.

His notion of morality is that to do something such as abortion, is wrong because it is simply nasty, unkind, and evil (the same answer he has for racism).  That is not an argument but an opinion (as well as actually being being a tautology—a subjective value judgment passed off as a moral absolute).  That is the whole problem.  People determine things by their opinion (which are most often illogical attempted justifications of subjective emotional desires).  Why should someone else be forced to submit to your opinion or emotional determination (valid or invalid, confused or otherwise, altruistic or malevolent)...?  If one person's subjective opinion is wrong, then 100 million individuals who share that subjective opinion is still wrong; and that lays bare the nakedness of Democracy and its true identity as "mob rule".  To declare such notions, as Shapiro does, as if they are moral absolutes, when they are not, they are mere opinion without factual foundation in logic, is quite hypocritical a position to be taken by an alleged "right-wing" thinker who rightfully scorns the subjective "feelings" of others.  Imperialism and totalitarianism often masquerade as altruism or humanitarianism—but based upon its own decree and definition and presumed self-appointed authoritarianism. 

That is the central problem with corrupt, renegade government officeholders; they want you to be forced to submit to their opinion (and they want you to be forced to recognize their opinion as absolute moral imperative—hypocritically, the same people who destroyed the foundation of Christendom by claiming decades ago that there are no moral absolutes), when in reality, they are supposed to be our servants and obey the Constitution which was founded upon the Common Law which was founded upon the morality established in the Word of God.

If there is no recognized factual, inherent Standard of Morality, there is no reason that anyone has to do anything that others say because there is no such thing as morality and therefore, also, no such thing as true authority and any argument that attempts to say otherwise is merely circular reasoning, which in the end, is resolved by force because the Republic has been corrupted and we function as a Democracy which is mob rule / quasi Communism that says "might is right", and that is why they have imported a mind-boggling bevvy of aliens that are a third-world invading mob-army whose purpose is not being "Dreamers" but invading conquerors to wrest rule from us the rightful heirs and give it to the alien mob for as long as it suits the agenda of the self-appointed elite ruling class / seditious billionaires to weaken us.  However, once we are sufficiently weakened to the point of a totalitarian takeover, political reality will then change from a pseudo-Democracy (which is essentially Marxism / Socialism with elitist oligarchs hiding behind double-talk and the illusion of free elections and representative government) and it will become a blatant, full-blown Communist dictatorship and the useful pawns — the former mob will find out they are disposable if they don't get their colored, gender-twisted butts out into the fields of the Federalist plantation and pick the new master's cotton and sweet potatoes.

Video links for Ben Shapiro

[Some comments in each will be repetitive, but it is worth viewing them all for those parts that are unique.]










See also:

Top 10 Times Ben Shapiro TRIGGERED College Snowflakes

["Snowflakes" is really not the appropriate description, as what occurs in a large segment of this link is more of a blizzard or an avalanche; but the more-accurate description would be "grease-smudges"; imagine the mess after the Exxon-Valdez oceanic oil tanker spill.]


Watch what goes on at college campuses, breeding grounds for communists, mentally deranged, and social and moral deviants.  This is the college's fault for not maintaining order.  Anyone violating the rules of common decency should be expelled.  But what do they care, since most of the probably are not even paying for their education, but have minority scholarships for fraudulent degrees?  These vile creatures don't belong in college, they don't belong walking free in society.  They are the destroyers of society. 

This one is good too:


And finally...


This is hilarious, in one sense, and shows how either 1. unstable Alex Jones is, or 2. that he is merely an actor playing a role.


However, in another sense, he embarrasses those who promote the truth and he embarrasses those who actually expose all the actual conspiracies that he also exposes, and he invalidates that exposure of evil by coming across like a raving lunatic, when he acts like a sleep-deprived child on a sugar-high, acting out without restraint.  It also shows how immature as well as mentally shallow he is, to have fallen for the oldest trick in the book, to respond personally and emotionally to a "perceived" insult, rather than ignore it and just stick to the facts.  Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that it is not about the truth, but it is "the Alex Jones Show"... it's all about Jones.


Regardless, it is entertaining; and at least from this brief snippet of clips, I think Shapiro comes out ahead (though he says very little; but more importantly, does not have a meltdown) and Jones is left looking like a foaming at the mouth basket case... and sadly, why would anyone want to trust Jones as their news source after such a tantrum?  Is this all a joke?  Is this the "Alex Jones Comedy Hour"...?   How then does he expect to be taken seriously when he goes on such a mental tirade...? and again, in doing so, he taints every single news event and cause that he covers.


Jones gets rather obscene a the end... which shows he only uses the words "God", "Christian", and "Jesus Christ" as buzz words.


Jones comes across like a maniac pro-wrestler with "Rhoid-rage" or Godzilla after being contaminated by a radioactive nuclear plant.





Someone else emailed just this morning:

"More stupidity.
This moron is 69 but since he "feels" 49 he wants to lie about his age.  He cannot accept his age and therefore wants to trick women into thinking he is younger.  And he states: "We live in a time when you can change your name and change your gender.  Why can’t I decide my own age?”   So what he is saying is that we live in a time when it is ok to lie, to speak untruths, that facts and biology don't matter.  He was 49 but can never be 49 again.  So in the same respect, he is a man and can never be woman.  It doesn't matter what he thinks he is.  He can think he's a dinosaur or a trillionaire but that makes him neither.  He can think he's 5 or a 1,000 but he cannot be either.  And this is the goal of those at the top pushing all of this "trans-gender", now "trans-age", trans-everything nonsense.  To distort the truth, destroy morals, destroy values, destroy boundaries, destroy the family, destroy normalcy, etc.   People complain all the time about all the bad in the world.  That it seems as though the world is devolving into more confusion and violence.   That is the natural outcome of allowing this utter nonsense to be tolerated.  Someone cannot tolerate what they were born to be and so the whole entire world has to now tolerate what they imagine themselves to be and so we have to be put in unnatural or uncomfortable situations because someone else is selfish and intolerant of themselves?   This guy wants to pretend to be younger so he can lie to women to hopefully have opportunity to have his way with them.  He's not even thinking of what they may think or feel if they are deceived.  He is selfish.  Same concept applies when a man thinks he is a woman.  What if he is married already?  He cares not what his wife or kids think in order to satisfy his own psychological sickness.  It is selfish.  This destroys families and harms kids.  Surprisingly I know of two families this happened to (second hand, not personally).  It now distorts what a family is, the roles of men and women within the family, and utterly confuses the kids.  If a man is not married and pretends to be woman and tricks a guy into dating him.  How is that fair to the other guy that he lied about his true identity?  Its more selfishness.   The gender change nonsense, will lead to age changing nonsense and where does it stop?  Perversions just lead to more depraved perversions.  And hence why the world is spiraling downhill (this is just one of a million reasons). 

Yes, as I have long written, political correctness is a mental disease—a perverse, violent psychosis—and those who are infected with it think that they have the right to demand you to enter and celebrate their delusion with them.  Why does their presumed right to want you to be in their delusion trump your actual right to refuse to...?

Where is the line drawn?  Who has the right to draw it? and based upon what authority?

Yes, Shapiro in one of his clips brought up the notion concerning transgenderism, countering it with someone who identifies with a different age.  Though he does not say it, the solution would be for everyone else to identify with persons who realize this person needs medication and being quarantined from society. 

[And in another superb quote to refute someone who claims blacks are discriminated against because they are disproportionately represented in prison, he then asked, what about men, do you think men are disproportiontately represented in prison over women?  The person, an "expert" replied, "No, because men commit more crime".  And there is the answer to why there are more blacks in prison than whites.]

What about someone who imagines himself to be a Secret Service agent trapped in a civilian body...?  Can he just waltz into the Whitehouse?  What about the person who imagines himself to be, identifies, and really really wants to be Donald Trump himself...? can he make a withdrawal from Donald Trump's bank account?  What about a person with leprosy, AIDS, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis C, Ebola, or an STD who imagines himself and identifies with being "healthly" and "disease free"... is he free to mingle with healthy people?  What about convicted felons and convicted sex offenders who identify as being non-convicted felons and non-convicted non-sex offenders?  It is really a mental disorder and I refuse to enter it or even acknowledge it as validy and any other moral person should do the same and just say "NO!" —and fight for your life and everyone elses with every fibre in your being against anyone who would attempt to impose his perversity and delusion and immorality and totalitarianism and godlessness upon you or anyone else. 

The issue indeed is selfishness, but not normal selfishness—it is criminal, perverse, unconstitional IMMORAL selfishness and delusion.

Furthermore, yes, the plan is to destroy the family.

Lenin says, "destroy the family and destroy society".

Solzhenitsyn warned, "to destroy a people you must first sever their roots.

A NATION is a homogenous people; a STATE is a melting pot.  Nations are strong; States are unstable and exist only as a bulldozing steam roller that maintains its own life and inertia by destroying others.

The family is the nuclear unit of a community and nation.  True families (2 genders in their proper roles; children in submission to their parents, wives in submission to their husbands; husbands in submission to God) are the building blocks—the bricks of society, a nation.  The mortar that holds those bricks together is the Morality established by the Word of God.  Those who would destroy that unchanging, unchallengable morality are no different than terrorists (regardless of which nationality, even if a concerted effort of treasonous Americans, British, Israeli, and Saudi working jointly) crashing planes into those brick buildings.  By that definition, every member of Congress and Parliament, etc. who attempts to alter the U.S. Constitution, the Magna Charta, American and British and European Common Law, all founded upon the Morality in the Word of God—are terrorists.  All other members of Congress, Parliament, etc., who do not oppose the others with every fibre of their beings is an accomplice... a look-out, driver of the get-away car, guilty of depraved indifference and dereliction of duty.


Also, this just in this morning from Down Under.

Terrorist attack Melbourne



My comments:

We had better outlaw knives and matches... maybe magnifying glasses and flint too... can't be too careful.  But by all means increase immigration.

Maybe we should outlaw victims... THAT might be the solution... Call your Congressman / Parliamentarian right away... how could we have missed this...!  

It is all the victims' fault.  Those damn victims!  And all these years we have been looking at the criminals as the problem.  How stupid of us!  

Criminals of the world please forgive us!  Restitution is in order.

Someone emailed in reply:

"How about outlaw crime performed by animals like this one instead of condoning this evil behavior. The article says he was shot in the chest and was sent to the hospital...for what to be housed in prison to further punish the tax payer? They should’ve let him die on the streets. That would be more humane for the tax payers. because an animal attacks the people pay more. God send a pestilence against this evil. "


"Making fire without matches is like making bricks without straw. "

I replied: agreed... but it seems such savages have more right to life than people do.


I know... but like I said, you can never be too careful

One person from Down under who lives in Melbourne emailed that knives and pepper spray (and of course handguns) are already illegal in Australia and added,

"People (sheeple) are not supposed to carry any self-defence equipment, so that they could be slaughtered like the sheep they are."

I replied:

REALLY...?  Well, certainly you don't mean that ALL knives are outlawed... you mean that CARRYING KNIVES on your person is outlawed... right...?  What about small pen-knives / pocket knives?  My facetious comment refers to all knives everywhere, in restaurants, stores, homes—their very existence.

I guess everyone needs to carry feather pillows if they want to get into a fight; but then there will be those immoral people that bring a heavy "Memory-foam" pillow and ruin it for everyone...!

He replied,

"Yes, I stated it inaccurately, it is the carrying of knives for self-defence purposes which is illegal.  It is illegal to carry a knife unless you have a lawful excuse. "Lawful excuse" includes:

a) the pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity;

b) participation in any lawful sport, recreation or entertainment;

c) the legitimate collection, display or exhibition of weapons - but does not include for the purpose of self defence.

(Section 6 of Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic))

So I suppose that it would be lawful to carry a knife while going on a hike into the woods or in similar circumstances.

Carrying a knife without a lawful excuse is a criminal offence.  So it would be interesting to see how they would enforce this provision if they caught someone carrying a knife.  Since this is a criminal provision, the state would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person who carried a knife did not have a lawful excuse.  This is a very high evidentiary burden.  One could often say that he was on the way to some recreation where a knife would be required.

As it is said on the website of Victorian Police: "Self protection or self defence is not a lawful excuse to be able to possess these articles.  Alternative options are to carry personal alarm devices such as whistles or personal protection alarms."


There is no reference to the length of knives in the legislation. So it seems that it is not possible to carry pen/pocket knives for self-defence either. But small pocket knives would hardly be of any assistance in a dangerous situation.

So they seriously suggest to carry whistles for self-defence purposes instead, haha."

I replied:

So, carrying a knife with you if you have a valid purpose is perfectly legal—but if attacked by a criminal or terrorist you must throw the knife away instead of use it?

"...carry whistles...!"

Why not just legislatively mandate "CANDY" whistles...!  That would be much-more loving to the criminal-terrorist (and if whistles themselves are ever outlawed, you can always eat it to hide the evidence.... HEY, what we need are candy knives and candy handguns...!)