WHY TUCKER CARLSON LOST AGAINST BEN SHAPIRO

A few weeks ago, Fox News talk show host Tucker Calson went into a debate against another talk show host Ben Shapiro for the Daily Wire's Sunday Special programme. I hope Carlson reads this article, because he probably came away from that debate thinking he won it; indeed, most conservatives watching the debate probably also think so. The fact is though, that if one looks at the two's morality and objectives, Carlson could never have won, and Shapiro came away from the debate with Carlson having agreed upon everything that is important to Shapiro and having ensured the continued decline of his people without even having addressed the issues. If you are a neo-con reading this, you will probably be quite confused by now; but regular readers of this blog and those like it will know exactly what I am talking about.

 

 

Carlson obviously has to be careful in what he says in this day and age and one has to credit him with sailing as close to the wind as he does, running the risk of being sacked for saying something blatantly politically incorrect, as has happened to Megyn Kelly. Carlson found himself shackled - or should that be shekelled? - by the rules on engagement that have been deliberately formulated to leave people of Carlson's ethnicity at a disadvantage and people of Shapiro's free from criticism. Shapiro concedes minor points, like the idea of meritocracy and various arguments against socialism, big government and SJWs, but his major concerns are reified: an America based on economic models and as a proposition state is never challenged by Carlson. They merely end up haggling over the rapaciousness of capitalism. Yet Carlson could easily have done better, and here's how:

 

I. Question the questioner: At 4:50, Shapiro says that he is more of a believer in ideology than Carlson. Carlson missed a trick in not asking him why, especially as Carlson himself is an experienced interviewer. After all, Carlson had made a good point about changing ideology to suit new realities or on the basis of being made aware of new information. Why is Shapiro so dogmatic and to what dogma does he subscribe? This can be saved for later, because Shapiro is so dishonest that he will inevitably contradict himself and his dishonesty can be easily exposed, which will also expose his ethnocentric agenda. Why, for example, does he believe in a system of high capitalism for Americans, but Israelis can leech off Americans via taxation in which US citizens hand over $38 billion to Israel in aid every year? What is Israel's economic model and why is it so unsuccessful when the Jews have so many "economic experts"? These things ought to have been brought onto the table by Carlson.

 

II. Addressing the double standard: Carlson can easily avoid accusations of anti-Semitism by signalling Shapiro's constant double standards. Shapiro claims, "I'm a Nazi according to Media Matters because of my yamulke." Carlson's response should have been, "Is that really the reason?" before drawing attention to instances of his Jewish supremacism and loyalty to an ethnically pure state of Israel. In his article 'Transfer is not a Dirty Word', for example, Shapiro advocates in no uncertain terms the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Yet in the interview, he claims to be against the Left's identity politics (@10:00). One does not have to take a stance on the morality here, but merely point out the double standard: Nationalism for me, but not for thee..... 

 

III. Ditching Christianity: a Jew can never be beaten using Christian morality for two reasons. The first and most obvious is that the Jews' morality is like their religion: ethnocentric; whereas Christian morality purports to be universal and all-inclusive. What is good according to Christianity becomes an "objective" and universal good because anyone can become a Christian. The reverse is true of Judaism, which is ethnic and closed. What is good for the Jews is good for the Jews, and what is good for anyone else does not matter. That is not a criticism. The second reason is one that Christians in their universalism cannot see: their god, Yahweh, and his son, Jesus, are Jewish. Reverence for the Jew is thus inherent. Many on the Right (and Left) claim that the West's great problem rests with the Jews. The problem is not the Jews. The problem is philo-Semitism. Christianity is philo-Semitism as a religion. Indeed, it is the worst kind of philo-Semitism, because it also has internationalism impressed into it, where one is no longer allowed to see ethnicity ("There is neither Greek nor Jew....."), but all are one in the acceptance of ideology. Christianity is thus also liberalism as a religion. This advantage is used time and again by Shapiro against Carlson, whether it be his referencing of Moses as an authority (@18:55), quoting a "Biblical mandate" that advocates being separated from the soil of one's ancestors (@35:55) or reminding him of his position of superiority throughout the interview by wearing his yarmulke.

 

IV. Forgetting about IQ: Carlson's first mistake in logic comes right at the beginning of the debate in avoiding talking about racial problems by manouvering the discourse into intelligence problems as a proxy (@5:50). His idea of society becomes that of a standardised middle class with an IQ of 100, but that is not society. That is just one strata of society. What of the multitudes who do not fit this description? If he actually adressed the plight of the white working class in America and the fact that the bourgeois class uses the discourse of "diversity" and "racism" as a smokescreen for undercutting the wages of that class, he would have addressed the subject of race in such a way that it would be hard for him to be called a "racist" and thus be expelled from the mainstream media. Fair play to him for actually bringing the "diversity is strength" slogan into question, but it was done on bourgeois liberal lines and not on the lines of the Right at all. Make no mistake: for the most part, Carlson is a liberal arguing against socialism, although he does show some Rightist leanings at 14:45 and 29:00, where he shifts his stance towards aristocratic paternalism.

V. Realising capitalism is social cancer: Carlson is always keen to affirm his capitalist credentials, for fear of being labelled a socialist, and this keeps the discourse within the limits of the Left. At 25:25, he talks about the fact that most women in America will not marry a man with a lesser income than them. He questions the superficial principle in line with an anti-feminist stance, but does not question the underlying system of values. The real question is this: why have men and women, but particularly men, creatures of flesh and blood and spirit, been reduced to their earning capacity? Why have perceptions of a person's worth been reduced to how much money they make per annum? Why are women now being reduced to the same earning principle as men? Why is having children, creating a piece of high art, handcrafting a chair, restoring an old book, knitting a child's sweater, now seen as of lesser value than making money for some multinational conglomerate or other? Let's get these questions on the table and then we can talk.....

 

VI. Isolationism not imperialism: At 41:16, Shapiro addresses the fact Carlson has altered his view on American interventionism to a more isolationist principle on foreign policy. This is promising, but his reasons why are less so, and his liberal belief in civilizing the world through imperialism is as flawed as the British Empire he references. Perhaps there is a veiled reference to Zionism when he talks of hubris and imperialism, but ultimately all empires are doomed to fail because ethnic peoples want to rule themselves and create civilizations in their own image. Note here too how Shapiro schemes at 44:30, when he states that Germany declared war on America in World War Two. This means that WWII and the American adventures in the Middle East, where, for example, the USA declared war on Iraq, are incomparable; yet whole episode is cobbled together to try to associate lack of interventionism with the Holocaust™ and his trick should have been exposed, but Carlson lets it pass without comment and is half-forced into accepting Israeli destabilisation in the Middle East via its proxy America, because of Carlson's commitment to Judeo-Christian values.

 

It has to be said though that Tucker Carlson shows some definite signs of moving over to a proper Rightist position, especially after the halfway point, even going so far as to defending the Luddites against liberal capitalist propaganda. He is in a period of transition and let us hope he does not regress, but progresses further. He even manages back-handedly to call Ben Shapiro a liar and a bad person with a corroded soul (@41:00)! Ultimately, though, he has to address the subject of ethnicity in all its aspects: cultural, religious and racial, otherwise he will fall prey to the (((Ben Shapiro's))) of this world. One has to appreciate the difficulty of addressing them in the mainstream when all the platforms are rigged against it, but drawing attention to the double standards and lies of the likes of (((Shapiro))) is a good start.