Diaballein - to slander, attack; to throw across. (Greek)
“In 2016, you [Ben Shapiro] tweeted out a list of 20 people that you called alt-right friendly. It included: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and even Donald Trump. Recently, you gave a speech at Stanford about Nick Fuentes who you called an alt-right lead influencer. My question is this: it seems like conservatives like you, like Charlie Kirk, like Dan Crenshaw, feel threatened by America First conservatives and America First ideas. Is this why you’re smearing them as alt-right, racist, homophobic, and all these other things, instead of actually addressing their ideas and debating them?”
This question was asked at Boston University on November 13, 2019. In no part of this question is identity indicated, is the questioner’s affiliation made clear, or are his associations made evident. The question is simply asking why individuals like Ben Shapiro smear their opponents with, what many assume are, morally reprehensible traits: i.e. homophobia, racism, and being a member of the very ill-defined “Alt-right.”
On the Daily Wire’s YouTube page, the individual who asked this question is framed in its thumbnail with this description:
“During his speech at Boston University, Ben Shapiro is quizzed by two alt-right trolls about “America First” policies and attempt to trap him in his answer. Ben’s definitive response abruptly ends their shallow arguments.”
Notice the key word: “alt-right trolls.” Also notice the assumption of intent: “To trap him in his answer.” There is no way to tell what the questioner’s political affiliation is from the above question, there is also no way to determine his intent without gleaning more information from the questioner; that is to say, Ben Shapiro lied, blatantly lied, or at least lied tangentially via the individual that he approved to post the above question in its video format, with the above description.
What is most striking is that Ben claims that he “Is not arguing that people who hold these views are quote-unquote, Alt-right,” while at the same time, in the past, proverbially throwing them to the wolves to quell claims that he, himself, was a member of the “Alt-right,” in a tweet from August 31st, 2016.
The questioner then followed up with this statement:
“First of all, Nick Fuentes is not a white-nationalist, he's an America First conservative. He literally has a show every night called America First. You've called Pat Buchanan an anti-semite and racist for fifteen years when Pat Buchanan is a legend of conservatism. You need to stop smearing people who want to reduce immigration and criticize Israel as anti-semitic and racist and just accept that they disagree with you and they simply want to put America first.”
Ben Shapiro’s response goes on to suggest that he has had discussions with individuals he’s disagreed with on matters of immigration and foreign policy, but that Nick Fuentes, who has made jokes while playing Grand Theft Auto about aspects of its gameplay regarding Orthodox Jews, who has engaged in questions regarding the numerical historicity of the Holocaust, and, who has engaged in physical histrionics on his oft eccentric and somewhat juvenile livestreams (which his audience finds highly compelling), is not a mainstream conservative, which gained Ben the audience’s applause. However, this begs the question: what is Mainstream Conservatism and why is Ben Shapiro the arbiter of what is, or isn’t, Mainstream Conservatism.
Regardless, Ben failed to address a key point: though he may have had conversations with people he’s slandered, with people he’s attacked, with people he’s thrown under the bus for his own wellbeing, he — nevertheless — did slander those people, he did attack those people, he did throw them under the bus, and it is a tactic that has garnered him consistent criticism. So why is he doing it? One simple answer: it serves him.
In my blog on Minds from October 24th, 2019, I discussed the victimage mechanism through victimhood. In the model, if one wishes to maintain, or ascertain power, they do so by marking another, they use their mark to appear as the victim, and in doing so, achieve their ephemeral aim by being granted victimhood status, while their actual victim is stripped of theirs. Ben’s actions, which are elucidated by the questioner, reflect the victimage mechanism through victimhood. In claiming to be a victim of anti-semitism, Ben does not have to engage with those he claims to be a victim of, ensuring his ephemeral aim is maintained or ascertained; the one being labeled as an antisemite is disregard and vilified as being immoral — so that no care need be given to them; this, then, allows Ben to maintain his status by offloading any responsibility to answer critiques that would challenge him via his slander and claims of victimhood. The mimetic model at play is evident.
Individuals like Ben block and obstruct the flow of conversations by defining those they do not want to engage with as being outside the bounds of acceptable discourse; e.g. they are not Mainstream Conservatives; they slander their opponents, or throw them under the rug, as is seen in Ben’s tweet from August 31st, 2016; and, they attack individuals they do not understand, or allow for the assault of those they do not understand, if they appear to be against them, e.g. how the questioner was framed in the video the Daily Wire posted on their YouTube page, entitled, “White Nationalist Alt-Right Trolls Try To Trap Ben Shapiro; Fail Miserably,” along with the thumbnail associating the questioner with the video’s description.
Ultimately, etymologically speaking, from the Hebrew notion of Satan as well as the Greek notion of the Devil, this can literally be seen as evil. This is the mechanism through which individuals are scandalized, this is the mechanism through which people are harmed, this is the mechanism through which reasonable exchange is squandered, and through which savagery arises. This is how Man fails to be Man. This is how evil plays.
