“Candace is attacked – even when she’s right” hedder Tucker Carlsons første ‘segment’.
I 1616 the Roman Inquisition hauled in Galileo, the Italian astronomer, and commanded him to stop saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun. “Shut up!” they said, “Everybody knows that’s wrong and you’re a bad person for saying otherwise!” That’s a well known story of course and we laugh about it now, 400 years later, because the authorities were completely wrong.
Galileo is a hero, they were fools. And we explain this by pointing out that they were religious nuts. They were superstitious, nothing like that could ever happen now. But it turns out that the one constant in human history is human nature. Not only does it happen now it happens more than ever.
Watch Candace Owens get widely attacked, not by one person, but ny everyone, for being right.
Og så følger et indslag hvor de overlejrede medier angriber Owens for at nedgøre George Floyd, den vanekriminelle hjemmerøver, der døde af mindst en overdosis under en anholdelse, og kalder hende for ekstremt højreorienteret, en del af ‘MAGA-mængden’ der gentager ‘russian talking points’, benægter af ‘systemisk racisme’ og vacciner.
Tucker morer sig derefter i vanlig stil over de nedgroede æggehoveders konformitet og hykleri, hvorefter han byder ‘sandsigeren’ Candace Owens velkommen. De to bliver hurtigt enige om, at ad-hominem angreb er et udtryk for intellektuel afmægtighed hos kritikerne, fordi de ikke kan argumentere for deres sag. “Speaking of which…” fortsætter Tucker og vender samtalen imod Ben Shapiro.
Tucker ville høre om en konflikt, der var brudt ud mellem de to højt begavede konservative kommentatorer og, i hvert fald for Shapiros vedkommende, iværksættere. Shapiro, er man på de kanter meget bekendt med, stifter af Daily Wire, hvor de begge har deres daglige ‘shows’. Udgangspunktet tog i Tuckers præsentation, eller ‘framing, om man vil, udgangspunkt i en optagelse, hvor Ben Shapiro kalder nogle udtalelser fra Ownes for “disgraceful”. Og Owens fik derfra rollen som et uforstående offer for sin kollegas personangreb.
Tucker var for sit vedkommende “horrified by what happened on October 7. – it was strange, I don’t know how it happened but innocents died and that is awful (…) However, there is an emotional response that is disproportional…” Og højrefløjens landskab blev med et, en krigszone.
Joel Pollack forsøgte at kondensere debattens omfang
In one post on X / Twitter, for example, Owens described a massive pro-Palestinian protest in London, which included extreme anti-Israel chants and antisemitic rhetoric, as if it were motivated by rejection of a media narrative, not hatred of Israel and Jews.
Owens apparently responded to Shapiro’s criticism by posting a message on X / Twitter that quoted the New Testament and said: “You cannot serve both God and money.” Shapiro said that if she felt she were facing that choice, she should quit the Daily Wire.
(…)
Carlson went further, and accused those who are criticizing Owens, as well as liberal pro-Israel donors now threatening to pull funding from Ivy League institutions over antisemitism, of having been indifferent to, or supportive of, “white genocide.”
Owens has visited Israel before, notably in 2018 — ironically, in the wake of another dispute with Shapiro over Kanye West. The two made up and Owens joined the Daily Wire, though Shapiro would later face pressure to criticize her other provocative views.
Specifically, Owens defended “nationalism” by claiming that it had been wrongly associated with Adolf Hitler, whom she called a “globalist” because of his broader ambitions. That remark was labeled by critics as antisemitic. She remained at the Daily Wire.
More recently, Owens has argued that “America First” foreign policies require the U.S. to stay out of foreign wars. That view has gained traction with growing skepticism among conservatives of U.S. support for Ukraine in its stalemate in the war with Russia.
(…)
These are difficult issues to untangle, made worse by the way in which interest groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, (ADL) which shifted to the left under the leadership of former Obama administration official Jonathan Greenblatt, have weighed in.
For years, Greenblatt and the ADL have accused Carlson of racism, and have tried to destroy his career, over views on subjects like immigration that have nothing to do with race. The ADL has also tried to silence conservative voices on social media.
Some conservatives, like this author, defended Carlson, and warned that the ADL was risking a backlash — both by falsely labeling people as bigots, and by promoting left-wing causes, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, that included antisemitic groups.
This author noted recently, for example, that while the ADL had spoken out admirably against antisemitism on campuses in the wake of the October 7 attack, it had contributed to the problem by backing identity politics that had now turned against Jews.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin made a similar comment Wednesday in the first hour of his show, noting that the media had poisoned debate by falsely accusing Donald Trump and conservative commentators of antisemitism, when the opposite was true.
Dave Rubin, hvis mand er bøsse, blev så forskrækket over konfliktpotentialet, at han tilbød en mægling, eller som han formulerede det, “sært deprimerende og personligt” for ham, fordi han betragter dem som ‘venner’. Rubin advarer imod Twitter og andre sociale medier, fordi det bringer det værste frem i mennesker og forvrænger diskussioner til konflikter. Som Candace Owens kommer Rubin selv fra venstrefløjen og måske er det et udslag af, at fjenden står til højre (nu venstre), at man ikke skal have intern ballade.
Der foregår ifølge Rubins indsigter altså mere end politik ideologi, altså også at de er forretningsfolk, der sælger deres positioner og indflydelse på et marked (Owens kan, kvinde som hun er, også blot være ganske uvidende om forholdene i Israel). Så højrefløjen er, om ikke fri for ‘positionister’, befolket af store egoer mere end konformister, som på venstrefløjen. Konfrontationen mellem individer og muggen grød fremstår mere tydelig nu, da diskussionerne om “samfundets ressourcers” omfordeling synes at være gået lidt af mode. Som Lincoln Brown formulerede det
First, two thoughts that may be unpopular among some. One, conservatives have continued to confound progressives over the years because the Right tends to wrestle with a variety of ideas and viewpoints, even awful ones. The Left has never been able to grok the concept that conservatives are as diverse a group as any. There are no mavericks on the Left. Second, the best way to combat bad ideas with good ideas is by exposing the bad ones to the sunlight and rigorous debate. That being said, I will throw my lot in with Shapiro. I don’t think anyone could realistically see the images and hear the stories of what went on October 7 and not side with Israel. Not without mortgaging their soul.
Og konfliktpotentialet er skræmmende, for Owens, med Tucker som enabler, positionerer sig helt galt, til glæde for fjenden til venstre. For Owens fremstiller konflikten med Shapiro, som led i en lang føljeton af intellektuelle og politiske uenigheder om allehånde emner fra vacciner til krigen i Ukraine. Og Tucker er skuffende med i uskyldig uvidenhed. Owens indtager, med Tuckers beundrende billigelse, en meget hård tolkning af ‘America First’.
Owens sammenligner diskussionen om Hamas krig mod Israel med alle andre diskussioner, hvor der findes ‘en midte’ et eller andet sted. Man kan sagtens mene at BLM er hysterisk uden at underkende overgreb begået af politibetjente, som man kan tale om racisme uden at ville afskaffe politiet. Diskussioner om Ukraine, krigen mod terror, vacciner osv ender i frugtesløs emotionel tribalisering.
Det ville flere kalde en relativering – og en løgnagtig undladelse af, hvad der rent faktisk var blevet sagt. Owens og Tucker vidste hvad de gjorde, mente Isak Schorr i New York Post og mindede om at tiden ikke er fattig på folk, der hylder Hamas og lufter deres jødehad
In one breath, she’s implied the Israeli government is committing a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
In the next, she’s submitted that Jerusalem’s historic Muslim Quarter (population: 22,000) is a ghetto where the city’s Muslims (population: 350,000) are forced to live.
After being called out on her ignorant smears by her Daily Wire colleague Ben Shapiro, Owens responded on X.
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake,” wrote Owens, quoting the Book of Matthew’s fifth chapter.
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other,” she added.
“You cannot serve both God and money. Christ is King.”
And just like that, the mask clinging to her face by a thread fell off.
Shapiro, she argued without evidence and hardly any plausible deniability, had forsaken righteousness for wealth; is there a more textbook example of an antisemitic charge?
Rabineren Michael Barkley, der er “shocked, extremely disappointed, and honestly… pretty disgusted” vil også gerne have en fredelig debat med både Owens og Tucker, og siger
Candace speaks of it as an “academic discussion.” Ms. Owens: This is not an academic discussion–it is life and death and a war against evil. While Owens believes she has a “moderate stance” (11:20) because she doesn’t want to see any children die, her comments throughout the interview demonstrate an entire lack of understanding on any level of what is going on in Israel and the true manifestation of evil that the Israelis are fighting—not just for Israel and her survival, but for the United States and the survival of Western culture.
Her ignorance is astonishing. She appears unaware of the actual history of the region, and given her lack of willingness to condemn Hamas, it is safe to say that she has never actually reviewed the Covenant of 1988, the charter of Hamas. If she had actually read it, I can only assume she would feel similarly to me and any reasonable human being who believes in freedom as opposed to slavery, religious choice as opposed to forced conversion or death, and that a woman like herself should not have to be a de facto slave to men.
She seems to be ignorant of the Holocaust of the 20th century or any of the over 2,500 years of persecution of the Jewish people that led up to that event. From Haman in the 5th century B.C.E. through the Inquisition, from the Passion plays of the Middle Ages to the pogroms of Eastern Europe, the Jewish people have faced attempted genocide over and over. For a woman who claims to be educated, she seems as ignorant of geo-political and religious history as a pre-schooler.
Then there’s Tucker, who said things that actually made my jaw drop in astonishment. He said that while he was “horrified about what happened on October 7” (13 minutes into the video), he doesn’t “really understand how it happened.” I’ve always thought of him as a brilliant man. But doesn’t he understand how Hamas, a group that in its own charter ties itself to the Muslim Brotherhood, advocates Sharia law and proudly calls for the “obliteration” of every Jew in the world, could do such evil? He draws a moral equivalency between what was done on October 7 and drug addicts dying of fentanyl and calls the words of ignorant college students “genocidal.” Tucker, “genocide” is what happened in the Holocaust. Genocide is what Hamas has written as its goal. Speech is not genocide. Gas chambers are.
Candace claims that people tend only to get emotional about their own issues and says we shouldn’t get so emotional about this one.
(…)
And make no mistake, Tucker and Candace, whether you are conscious of it or not, Hamas is the manifestation of evil in the 21st century. What they have done and are committed to continuing rivals even the evil of Hitler and Goebbels. From a religious perspective, two things must be done: Hamas must be destroyed, not defeated, and we must allow ourselves to cry and never take joy in the task. We are taught that when the angels rejoiced at the death of Pharaoh’s soldiers during the Exodus, God stopped them as the work of His hands was being destroyed, telling them it was a time for tears, not rejoicing.
On October 7, Hamas stepped beyond any possibility of redemption and entered the rare realm of true evil. They must be destroyed, and as God instructed thousands of years ago, we need to weep for what we must do—not for the benefit of their souls, which they surrendered with their actions, but for the benefit of our own souls and humanity.
As Golda Meir famously said, “We may forgive them someday for killing our children, but we will never be able to forgive them for making us kill their children.”
(…)
Or are you like those on the left who are only interested in examining things that fit into your own personal narrative? I choose to believe in the goodness of your spirits and your pursuit of truth and pray that you have the courage to be open to shifting your worldviews.
Analogien til Galileo varslede altså ilde. Jeg vil holde mig for fin til at tale om tribaliseringer og ikke minde om at ikke bare rabbineren Michael Barclay, men også Ben Shapiro, Isak Schorr og Dave Rubin er jøder. Og dem støtter jeg!
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar