The Barbarians Are In The Gates | Ben Shapiro Show | Podcast Summary | The Pod Slice
During recent protests marking Armistice Day in Great Britain and Veterans Day in the United States, a substantial number of terrorist supporters marched through London and New York City. Marxist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre’s belief that the West should be colonized by those it once colonized was reflected in these defiant anti-western protests. London saw radical Muslims threatening Jews, declaring their support for Adolf Hitler, and criticizing Israel’s existence.
These demonstrators introduced a disturbing narrative connecting anti-west sentiment with anti-whiteness, as demonstrated by a banner declaring “you’re either on the white or right side of History”. The “white” side was represented by the flags of Israel, America, the UK, and France, while the “right side” featured Congo, Sudan, Palestine, and the Weer flag—countries that lack freedom and are governed poorly.
Simultaneously, a flyer circulating at the University of Chicago contained dangerous rhetoric suggesting that ending white privilege starts with ending Jewish privilege, linking antisemitism with anti-Americanism. The current wave of antisemitism, represented entirely by the anti-western protestors, stems from a broader hatred for the meritocracy that is a cornerstone of the American dream.
Reflecting the growing problematic narrative, pro-Palestine protestors in the United States tore down American flags. Indicators that the West may be accommodating its own colonization were hinted at when homegrown or imported radicals wore headgears from the terrorist group Hamas. Britain’s Secretary of State for Housing, Michael Gove, was mobbed by these protestors, rousing a conflict about the West’s colonization.
In response to the rampant anti-semitism, former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman of Indian extraction, called for an end to the coddling of protestors. Consequently, she lost her job, and replacement David Cameron proved to be more accommodating, displaying a willingness to appease Muslim radicals. Similarly, in the United States, universities were seen offering scholarships to America’s enemies.
MIT especially came to the fore in this issue. In violating university rules, radical students, who were foreign nationals, occupied public places and prevented Jews from entering main areas due to safety concerns. Instead of suspension, the university president decided that they would be suspended from non-academic activities only, indicating an acceptance for individuals who despise America.
Today, the anti-West sentiment seems to fuel a cycle where the West, despite its prosperity and freedom, is stigmatized and undermined by those who benefit from its prosperity. If these efforts to dismantle it persist, the West may be taken apart by the detractors depending on it for survival. This crucial crossroads demands a robust response to uphold the values and principles that the West was built upon. Once more, we witness the correlation between anti-West and anti-Semitic sentiment, fueling the radical efforts to dampen one of America’s oldest and core promises, its commitment to meritocracy.
Spectrums of the media, including the BBC, are propagating a major lie, painting Israel as the perpetrator of human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. This biased perspective overlooks Hamas’s role, the terrorist group notoriously known for hiding behind civilians and inciting harm to them for political gains. The host, Ben Shapiro, emphasizes that these distortions and lack of information surrounding the Hamas cohort blur the lines between victims and aggressors.
By alluding to an interview on BBC, Ben highlights the persisting bias against Israel in western media. In the interview, Israeli government spokesman Alon Ley argues that the civilian casualties in Gaza are because of Hamas’s strategy of stowing military targets among civilian populations. Yet, the anchor refutes this claim, hinting that it merely serves as an excuse for Israel’s strikes. The host asserts that Israel, with its complete air and military superiority, ostensibly does not aim to harm civilians deliberately.
Back to protests in the West, there’s widespread sympathy for Hamas, as evidenced by thousands rallying in support in London and parts of the United States. A disturbingly large proportion of UK’s Muslim population, said to be about 7% of the country and 15% of London, has shown support for Hamas and opposition to Israel, marked by the prevalence of anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, legislators like Suella Braverman are pushing back against this growing sentiment, calling for a halt to the appeasement of protestors.
In America, renowned universities are also showing a dangerous lean towards anti-Semitism, as they provide scholarships to students with anti-American views. In an alarming incident at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), foreign radical students occupied public places, putting Jewish students at risk. Instead of strong penalization, such activities resulted in only a suspension from non-academic activities, indicating the university’s underlying acceptance of such disdainful attitudes.
This wide-ranging critique of western media, educational institutions, and populations echoes the anti-West sentiment sweeping across, threatening the principles and values that are the bedrock of Western societies. More importantly, it underscores the increasing relevance of radical views linked to anti-Semitism, raising serious concerns about societal tolerance and the steadfast defense of democratic values.
Throughout the podcast, host Ben Shapiro consistently challenges the perception of Israel as the perpetrator of human rights violations in the Gaza Strip, though many media outlets paint them as such. Shapiro passionately discusses civilian casualties, asserting that such cases result not from Israel’s deliberate harm but from Hamas’s strategy of embedding military targets among civilian populations. This tactic is intensely scrutinized, as Shapiro insists it blurs the lines between victims and aggressors, fueling widespread misrepresentation of the conflict.
The show takes a closer look at examples of media bias, particularly an interview on the BBC, where Israeli government spokesman Alon Ley argues that civilian casualties are largely due to Hamas’s strategies. The host claims the anchor dismisses this explanation as an excuse for Israeli action, illustrating the ongoing bias against Israel in western media.
Shapiro further delves into the societal effects of this bias, most notably in protests across London and the United States. He outlines evidence of growing sympathy for Hamas within the UK’s Muslim population, pointing out the rise of anti-Semitism. This increasing sentiment is seen as a potential threat to Western values and raises concerns about societal tolerance.
Interestingly, the United States, whose universities are becoming havens for anti-Semitic leanings, is also analyzed. Institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), are accused of providing scholarships to foreign radical students promoting anti-American views, indicating an underlying tolerance for such attitudes and setting a dangerous precedent.
The host provides commentary on a New York Times article, where it is confirmed that fuel into Alifa is being blocked by Hamas. This action, according to Shapiro, aims to paint Israel as indifferent to civilian needs, further solidifying media bias and public sympathy for Hamas. The host refutes this with a poignant question: “What exactly are they (Israel) supposed to do?”
Simultaneously, the narrative of Israel violating war laws is broken down. An opinion article in the New York Times is critiqued for its claim that Israel’s war against Hamas violates the Just War Theory. Shapiro dismisses this notion, maintaining that they are defending themselves against enemy attacks, and asks – “how does that violate Just War Theory?”
The podcast reveals the intricate and often misrepresented context underpinning the Israel-Gaza conflict. From media biases and societal ramifications to the demonization of Israel, Shapiro provides a deep and thought-provoking analysis, challenging the mainstream narrative and prompting a critical reassessment of the conflict.
As the conversation progresses, Shapiro dives into global politics, discussing how the situation in Gaza finds itself interconnected with Israeli security, extending its influences to the United States, Britain, and the West at large. Shapiro argues that Western denial of differing belief systems across the globe has led to both societal and political consequences. By not acknowledging these differences in ideology and culture, the West has unknowingly opened itself up to fundamental conflicts.
Among these conflicts under examination is Israel’s struggle to overthrow Hamas. While Israel aims to create a more secure environment for its nation, the West urges Israel to surrender control to other governing bodies, such as the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, Shapiro convincingly points out that endorsing the PA may not be a viable solution due to their inability to maintain internal control.
The United Nations (UN) is also discussed as a potential governing body for Gaza. However, Shapiro calls out the UN’s ineffectiveness in maintaining peace and promoting Islamic extremism, concluding that the UN also makes an unreliable source of control.
Unraveling this dilemma, Netanyahu recently suggested that perhaps an Israeli military presence along its border is the only realistic alternative to guarantee Isreali security. This, of course, countered the stance of the West and left the listeners eager to hear viable solutions.
Shapiro also takes a moment to extract some silver lining from the situation. Massive support for Israel in their fight against Hamas is emerging from various parts of the world. Over 100,000 people in Paris marched against anti-Semitism, reinvigorating hope that there are still Israel-supporters worldwide.
The end of this segment brings us back to American soil, shedding light on domestic concerns, particularly in the realm of education. Over 1600 Jewish Harvard Alum threaten to withdraw their donations amid increasing anti-Semitism. The conversation broadens to articulate the shared understanding that combating anti-Semitism is more than just echoing agreeable rhetoric. The narrative suggests that it’s time for the higher echelons of society, particularly affluent individuals linked to prestigious institutions, to wake up to the far-left’s negatively influential tactics.
In this portion of the show, the conversation pivots towards a trend of evaluation and prediction based on American politics. Shapiro delves into the political landscape thoroughly, first discussing Tim Scott’s withdrawal from the Presidential race. Despite a respectable 7% polling in Iowa, Scott called it quits on his campaign, leaving Shapiro and listeners curious about where that support will go. Scott’s surrender potentially threshes the way to a clearer environment for Trump, Ronda Santis, Nikki Haley, V Ramaswami, and Chris Christie, while simultaneously opening a Pandora’s box concerning donor distribution.
Shapiro then proceeds to dissect the possible routes for Scott’s support. The primary focus of this analysis is South Carolina, where the forecast indicates a likely benefit for Nikki Haley. However, the implications of Scott’s withdrawal in Iowa are left somewhat up in the air.
Shapiro continues his political reckoning by evaluating key players. He paints Trump as a highly-polarized figure garnering both extreme hatred and zealous love, thus shaking the certainty of his apparent edge over Biden. A key takeaway from Shapiro’s dissection of Trump’s political game is the necessity of a perspective shift to Biden. The more the media focus goes back to Trump, the more detrimental it becomes for his campaign.
The conversation seamlessly moves towards the reaction of the audience when Trump visits public events, particularly UFC fights, with the mixed reception evident and illustrative of his polarizing persona. One of the memorable incidents Shapiro points out is the negative reaction from comedian Bill Burr’s wife at a UFC fight attended by Trump.
Finally, Shapiro criticizes how readily Trump can dive into irrelevant matters. He highlights a campaign in which Trump, instead of focusing on criticising Biden’s presidency, gets side-tracked into making fun of fellow candidate Chris Christie, exemplifying Trump’s penchant for distraction. The essence of this discussion leans towards creating a balanced evaluation amongst the candidates, reminding the audience that public perception casts a significant impact on the election outcomes.
In the following portion of the Ben Shapiro Show, Shapiro critically analyzes Trump’s public behavior and controversial remarks during his speech and uncovers some political insights hidden beneath the blazing media headlines.
He begins by addressing Trump’s iconic insult comedy act, specially aimed at fellow candidate Chris Christie, and how it can be seen as a distraction from important political talking points. He puts under the microscope Trump’s remarks about election denial, suggesting that if Republicans back this narrative in 2024, it could lead to similar electoral outcomes as seen in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Shapiro then reacts to a Veterans Day tweet from Trump, which pledges to root out the “communist, Marxist, fascist, and radical left thugs” living within the country. While Shapiro agrees with Trump’s sentiment of rooting out destructive ideology, he raises concern about Trump’s choice of inflammatory language, branding them as “vermin”. He hints that this kind of language might not be a smart political move but concedes it will likely not affect Trump’s popularity or hurt his campaign significantly.
Shapiro further dives into Trump’s speech where he mistakenly referred to Barack Obama instead of Joe Biden. The media’s proliferation of this incident stirred controversy and added to talks of Trump’s mental health – a narrative Shapiro refutes by explaining that such minor slip-ups are common and should not be taken out of context.
Subsequently, Shapiro hints at an upcoming discussion regarding a security breach incident involving the Secret Service, which has been tasked with protecting Naomi Biden, President Biden’s daughter. He encourages his audience to continue tuning in, teasing more intriguing political dialogue to come.
Throughout this portion of the show, Shapiro continually emphasizes the need for focusing on substantial political discussions rather than getting hooked onto controversial yet often insignificant incidents. His meticulous analysis serves as a robust commentary on the ongoing trends in American politics and media.
Check out the full podcast by clicking the link in the description below. Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe for more content like this. Thank you for listening to this podcast summary episode of The Pod Slice.