Ben Shapiro Indirectly Admits Responsibility For New Zealand Mosque Attack

In the aftermath of the New Zealand attack, I accused conservative website The Daily Wire of (among many other things) of wishing to cover up the shooting in order to control the narrative in there favor through barley covering any relevant mass attack. I assume this also why they never covered the Netanyahu scandal.

Mind you, I don’t believe Shapiro is the reason the New Zealand attack happened (and even if it was, he should still not be censored). The guy was insane, for God sake, he cited Spyro the Dragon and Fortnite radicalizing him in his manifesto. However, Shapiro has since been following the logic that led people to conclude he was responsible for the attack in question. That, and the fact he seemed to want to hide all information on it, almost like he was trying to hide something.

Last week, The New York Times published a comic of a blind Donald Trump being led by a dog with the face of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Considering Netanyahu himself said he was the reason Trump pulled out of the Iran Deal, and Trump’s administration brags about how pro-Israel it is, I would not call this conclusion unreasonable. While many compared it to a NAZI cartoon of Winston Churchill being led by a Jew (a non-specific one at that, while Netanyahu, as I understand it, is a real person), this comparison is just false. The thing that makes the cartoon anti-Semitic was not that it showed Churchill being led by a Jew, it was that it treated that as a bad thing simply because the man was Jewish. Considering some of the most famous anti-Zionists are Jewish — Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald for instance — I doubt many of them would get on board with them.

Mind you, Shapiro has called Chomsky and Greenwald “fake Jews,” (that’s not anti-Semitic?), as he did in a 2016 column talking about Sanders being slightly critical of Israel.

So no, Bernie Sanders isn’t the first Jewish president. He’s no more Jewish than Noam Chomsky or Sidney Blumenthal. Our media are just looking for an excuse to play the “First Ethnicity Democrat,” as always — even though ethnicity should mean nothing to voters, and represents nothing but a racist appeal.

I think Shapiro may find this quote from his interview with James Peck (as quoted from The Chomsky Reader) interesting:

The vague ideas I had at the time were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework . . . a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism.

And let’s not forget the fact many of the early Zionists were communists (as Chomsky recalled).

The New York Times apologized for this and even ran an op-ed calming they were anti-Semitic (something that, if done with any other minority, would cause them to be accused of virtue signaling), however, this wasn’t enough for Shapiro. As he wrote over at the National Review, a neo-conservative website. Here’s one leap in logic he used to prove some newspaper hates Jews:

The fact that the Times’ pages largely ignored the Holocaust while it was happening has long been taken as evidence that its owners didn’t want to be seen as highlighting the suffering of Jews, and that they valued this more than they valued combating anti-Semitism.

Or, since the news was very local at that point, they assumed the readers of the New York Times would care more about what’s happening in New York than in Germany.

Here are the parts where he calls people who criticize Israel anti-Semitic:

Editors who claim to oppose all sorts of bigotry simply don’t grasp that a movement whose sole focus is the destruction of the one Jewish state on the planet is inherently anti-Semitic.

So, how many Jewish states must exist before we can criticize one?

Also, BDS (the movement he’s talking about) is one of those movements which people can join with a different goal? Are there Anti-Semites in the BDS movement, of course, just as I’m sure members of the Black Panthers supported the sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Here’s my in detail response: Your point?

And once you’ve legitimized anti-Zionism, imagery and arguments about Israel and the Jews that might once have been easily seen as beyond the pale are no longer viewed with alarm.

Ignorance is Strength!

Until writers and editors in the mainstream media instinctively understand that anti-Semitism, whether in the guise of anti-Zionism or in more traditional forms, is as much of a taboo as other forms of prejudice, hateful “errors of judgment” like the Times cartoon will continue to proliferate.

So, to be clear, false claims of all forms of bigotry exist, except for Anti-Semitism.

So, Mr. Shapiro, I must ask: If the New York Times is enabling hatred of Jews with a political cartoon, what are you doing making videos calling half of all Muslims radical and saying their ideas are anti-Western. I don’t disagree with you on these views, however, I’m also not saying people saying things causes people to kill each other. Get off your moral high ground, it’s right next to a cliff and you’re starting to shake.

Follow My Twitter