Unmasking the Jewish Ideology Behind Ben Shapiro
If there is one commentator who has inadvertently revealed the underlying ideology driving much of neoconservative activity, it would be Ben Shapiro. Though Shapiro presents himself as a conservative voice in American media, he functions primarily as a Jewish activist whose commentary consistently defends Israeli policies and advances a distinctly Talmudic perspective—that is, one that prioritizes the interests of the Israeli state over Palestinian lives.
By 2003, for instance, Shapiro argued that Israel should expel Palestinians from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. His historical justification for this position invoked the post–World War II expulsions of Germans by the Allied powers, which he cited as a moral precedent. As he wrote at the time, “Transfer is not a dirty word.”[1] Shapiro declared then: “expelling a hostile population is a commonly-used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements.”[2]
Shapiro further contended that “the ideology of the Palestinian population is indistinguishable from that of the terrorist leadership.”[3]
Shapiro obviously implied that Palestinians as a whole are equivalent to terrorists and thus could be justified as targets for removal—whether by expulsion, termination, or other means. Although Shapiro later attempted to revise his characterization of Palestinians, his underlying ideological stance has remained largely unchanged. In 2010, for example, he stated, “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.”[4]
One might ask whether Shapiro expresses any concern for civilian casualties in the Middle East, where Israel’s protracted conflicts have repeatedly devastated regional populations. The answer appears to be no. In 2002, he wrote: “I am getting really sick of people who whine about ‘civilian casualties’… when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don’t really care.”[5]
We knew that Shapiro has been playing fast and loose with the facts for years. For example, in his 2005 book Porn Generation, Shapiro condemns Hollywood for selling sex to young and naïve teenagers. He writes:
“Hollywood has embraced the graphic elements of pornography, [and] the moral relativism behind these themes has become an implicit message in nearly every major mass-market films. For films targeted at youth, these messages are often explicit.”[6]
Shapiro, of course, neither acknowledged nor had the courage to note that Hollywood has long been heavily influenced by Jewish producers, many of whom have shaped its output, including some of its more pornographic and explicit material. Take, for example, David Cronenberg—a Jewish producer and director who has transformed sexuality into total perversion in nearly all his films. In Cronenberg’s cinematic universe, art becomes pornography, and pornography becomes art. What is up is down, and what is down is up; evil is good, and good is evil. In the process, Cronenberg inadvertently reveals what he likely never intended to admit—that “a villain, in a bizarre and twisted way, is always a Christlike figure.”
Then he drops what can only be described as an atomic bomb, a statement that encapsulates the underlying philosophy of nearly all his films: “I’m positing art as a means of coming to terms with death. Yes. I’m putting art in opposition to religion—or as a replacement for religion—in the sense that if religion is used to allow you to come to terms with death, and also to guide you in how to live your life, then I think art can do the same thing, but in a much less schematic, rigid, and absolute way.”
In this framework, pornography ceases to be a mere abstraction, as it was in Freud’s psychoanalysis. It becomes instead a psychological weapon—one aimed at the heart of humanity in general and at the moral foundations of the West in particular.
Whether he realizes it or not, Cronenberg is a revolutionary in the sense that he uses art as a weapon against the West. Yet in attacking the West, Cronenberg inevitably ends up attacking its historical and intellectual tradition—and, by extension, those who value and would defend that tradition to the very end. By logical extension, Cronenberg—like Eli Roth, Gordon Stewart, Lars von Trier, and other Jewish filmmakers who have engaged with pornographic themes as a means of subverting the culture—becomes indirectly responsible for provoking anti-Jewish sentiment.
Cronenberg continued during the same interview: “Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society and agent for some other power, never belonging. Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”
Cronenberg’s ideological calculus is logically and philosophically incoherent. If “nothing is true,” then his statement that “nothing is true” cannot itself be true. For the statement to make sense, he must assume it is true; yet if it is true, then the claim that “nothing is true” is categorically false, causing his entire argument to collapse. In short, Cronenberg simultaneously asserts truth claims while denying the existence of truth, leaving him trapped within his own ideological framework.
Yet because Cronenberg dismisses practical reason in his ideological calculus, there is no way for him to make a coherent logical point without falling into his own trap. In the process, as one scholar observes, he has become “a monster.” Cronenberg’s philosophy, scholar William Beard tells us, is “the disappearance of ethics.” It is actually “a world of unimpeded desires without consequences, where ‘everything is permitted.’ Metaphorically, this is the world of violent video games, of indulgent Hollywood movies, and also of the transgressive, boundary-piercing cinema of David Cronenberg.”[7]
Cronenberg’s films convey a world devoid of responsibility, morality, ethical values, or limits—offering nothing but ultimate meaninglessness and existential despair. In eXistenZ, existence itself is depicted as corruption, moral degradation, and, ultimately, pathetic death. The central axiom of the film is that “nothing is true; everything is permitted.”[8]
“Every time I kill someone in my movie,” Cronenberg states, “I’m rehearsing my own death… It’s an existential truth, it’s very raw and real.” Yet didn’t he previously claim that nothing is true? Why, then, is he now invoking truth within his own philosophical trap?
Once Jewish existentialists like Cronenberg deny metaphysical truth, they are forced to construct their own version of “truth”: “From this, we must create ourselves as meaningful beings, and create the world as meaningful for ourselves. From this we must build up the new foundations of our own lives, adding other people, culture, history, and politics tentatively and fragmentedly as necessary.”[9]
Existentialists like Cronenberg, Beard observes, “cut individuals off from the fundamental questions of personal existence, leaving them alienated in a world crowded with facts but void of meaning.”[10]
Existentialist philosophy teaches Cronenberg that people “are all doomed to die and be swallowed up by Nothingness, but along the way, we may carve out a niche or ledge on the cliff.” Consequently, in his work, “science” and technology gain meaning only insofar as they serve the advancement of sexual desire and appetite. It is therefore unsurprising that Cronenberg harnessed information-age technology to reach a wider audience. As he states, “technology is with us,”[11]
signaling his use of modern media to disseminate his ideas to unsuspecting viewers.
Put simply, Cronenberg is, in effect, enacting what Nietzsche would have called the transvaluation of all values—asserting that morality is illusory and that any culture adhering to traditional moral order must be subverted. However, to pursue this project, Cronenberg must return to what he sees as his revolutionary roots—roots that are neither Western nor strictly rational, but rather aligned with Freudian ideas: “I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.”[12]
One can readily argue that this “polymorphous perverseness” lies at the core of virtually every Cronenberg film. Indeed, Cronenberg has acknowledged that characters in movies such as Crash, M. Butterfly, Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers, and Stereo were “reinventing sexuality,”[13] which can be understood as an attempt to subvert the sexual order. According to Beard, Cronenberg’s existential philosophy is “sexual or predatory, a drive, an appetite, that invokes Freud far more readily than the Sartre who heatedly rejected a Freudian view of life in which individuals were unfree prisoners of their psychic histories and hardwired desires.”[14]
The interviewer continued, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” Cronenberg: “No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you’ve amputated the best limbs you’ve got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and pull and mold you and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective.” When asked again about certain aspects of his work, Cronenberg summoned Freud as one of his authorities: “I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.” Yet Cronenberg, when asked about why he was attracted to sexual violence, was still in denial, “I don’t think I am…I’m definitely not.”[15]
In other words, there is no sexual violence in films such as Videodrome, Crash, Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method, and Cosmopolis, featuring Robert Pattison, who later portrayed Bruce Wayne in a recent Batman film. They are just plain art. Cronenberg, the quintessential figure for producing blatant pornography in Hollywood, is in denial, which is another way of being in moral and intellectual bondage. But not all Jewish producers share this blatant denial. For example, Nathan Abrams acknowledges this dynamic in his book The New Jew in Film, where he examines the role of Jewish identity in shaping representations and themes within modern cinema. He writes:
“Older generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”[16]
Abrams declared elsewhere that “Jewish involvement in porn” is actually “is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”[17] Another Jewish scholar by the name of Josh Lambert tells us that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.”[18]
Shapiro, of course, would never have the moral or intellectual courage to declare that the people driving this cultural attack are Jewish producers in Hollywood. Yet there is more to the story than meets the eye—or the ear. Shapiro’s support for Pussy Riot, a Trotskyite group that eventually produced pornography at the Moscow Zoological Museum,[19]
raises intriguing questions. Why would Shapiro suggest that the Pussy Riot was acting in line with the principles of democracy and freedom? And why would he wholeheartedly endorse the band’s explicit actions in a sacred place like a cathedral?
From the perspective of the “Right” vs. “Left” political spectrum in America, Shapiro’s position appears intellectually inexplicable, as he identifies as a conservative. To grasp the underlying metaphysical issues, one must look beyond mere political categories.[20]
Let us briefly acknowledge that Shapiro, following in the footsteps of his subversive predecessor Irving Kristol, continues to engage with the Jewish revolutionary spirit. To comprehensively grasp this spirit, we must briefly discuss the subversive ideology embraced by the Pussy Riot.
The Moscow-based newspaper, The eXile, which its co-editor John Dolan humorously noted was “conceived in sin,” reported that members of the group engaged in an act they named “Fuck For Medvedev”’ They literally “stripped off their clothes and engaged in sexual activity in the middle of Moscow’s Biology Museum. This act was carried out for approximately 10 minutes, with photographers present, before they were ejected from the premises.”[21]
Some members of Pussy Riot were previously affiliated with a group known as “Voina,” which translates to “war” in Russian. Voina gained notoriety for a daring act that involved “painting a 60-meter penis on St. Petersburg’s Liteiny Bridge, just in time for it to be raised, mockingly dominating the skyline above the town’s FSB (ex-KGB) headquarters. This audacious piece, titled ‘Dick Captured By the SFB,’ remained elevated for several hours.”[22]
Voina has earned the moniker “Russia’s art terrorists” as dubbed by The Guardian, and other mainstream sources have acclaimed it as “the most renowned political artist group in Russia.”[23] This group was co-founded by two Jewish revolutionaries, Oleg Vasilyev and his wife Natalia Sokol. Voina humorously labeled their pornographic act in the Biological Museum as the “Pre-Election Orgie in Biological Museum.”[24]
As The Guardian indirectly suggested, Voina drew its ideological inspiration from the Bolshevik Revolution.[25]
It was almost inevitable that they would resort to promoting literal anarchy to achieve their objectives. In fact, Sokol actively promoted, produced, and participated in works with titles like “Cock in the Ass,” “Leo the Fucknut is Our President!,” “Dick Captured by KGB,” and more.[26] When posed with the question “What does Pussy Riot hope to achieve?” at the age of only twenty-three, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova responded,
“A revolution in Russia… I want to dismantle what I perceive as the most significant evils. I’m accomplishing this by putting my beliefs in freedom and feminism into action… I have deep affection for Russia, but I hold strong disdain for Putin.”
Tolokonnikova, who studied philosophy at Moscow State University, couldn’t simply eradicate the notion of subversive revolution from her thoughts. It becomes evident that Tolokonnikova’s antipathy toward Putin is rooted in his staunch backing of the Orthodox Church. According to her, the Russian Orthodox Church “enslaves women,” and Putin’s “sovereign democracy” ideology aligns with the same direction. Both reject Western values, including feminism.[27]
Tolokonnikova went so far as to derogatively refer to the church’s patriarchs as “bitches,” a common trait among revolutionaries. (Christopher Hitchens displayed a similar lack of sympathy when he referred to Mother Teresa as a “bitch.”[28]) However, Tolokonnikova appeared to contradict herself when she stated that her video performance was “hardly the kind of thing to hurt religious feelings.”[29] As Putin humorously remarked, one can’t help but wonder about the consequences if she and the band had staged a similar performance in a synagogue in Israel or any Western country.
What we are suggesting here is that for Ben Shapiro to use the concept of “moral purpose” in his book The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great is simply window dressing. In Shapiro’s perspective, the actions of the Pussy Riot are aligned with the promotion of democracy and freedom. According to Shapiro, anyone who supported the Pussy Riot was right:
“No matter what your religious belief system, no matter how you feel about blasphemy in a church, there’s no excuse for jailing political dissidents for exercising the right to free speech…. Putin is a macho emblem of brusque disregard for human rights.”[30]
So much for Jewish Neoconservatism. Ben Shapiro is often perceived as a figure who aligns with conservative ideas, supporting them when they align with his political views. However, on matters concerning Israel, perpetual wars in the Middle East, and, as we’ve observed, Vladimir Putin, Shapiro tends to staunchly defend what seems to be his essentially Talmudic ideology. Keep in mind that it was Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal who said that Jewish Neocons found their political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”[31]
Shapiro’s Talmudic ideology came into full bloom during the recent Israel/Hamas conflict, where Candace Owens, a former guest on Shapiro’s show, asserted, “No government anywhere has a right to commit genocide.” Shapiro interpreted this as a reference to Israel, promptly labeling her “disgraceful” and urging her to resign from The Daily Wire.[32] Owens got fired from the Daily Wire because of her stance against what the Israeli regime was doing.
Owens declared that she could no longer remain silent and was subsequently terminated from her position at the Daily Wire. She asserted, “I am now finally free.” Owens found racism evident during her visit to Jerusalem, where she witnessed literal segregation. She said:
“I grew up in my grandparents’ house, my grandfather grew up in a segregated South, and so when I’m walking through Jerusalem, and you see, and they say, ‘These are the Muslim quarters, this is where the Muslims are allowed to live,’ that doesn’t feel like a bastion of freedom to me.”
What we’re witnessing here are the political implications of Shapiro’s ideological substratum. Owen is a Catholic, while Shapiro is a Jew who believes that Christ was attempting to lead a revolt against the Romans. Owen found herself essentially held captive by Shapiro until she eventually came to the realization that she was politically and intellectually hindered. She couldn’t speak out about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians. Now, she asserts that she’s finally free because she’s no longer being told what to think or how to think.
Shapiro once referred to the late Rachel Corrie, who was killed by the Israelis for standing for the Palestinians, as one of the “Great idiots in history.” Even years later, he maintained the view that Corrie “was a fool” and suggested that she “was acting on behalf of nefarious interests,” specifically the “terrorists” in Palestine. No matter how you slice it, Shapiro is an agent for Israel. So, Shapiro’s book, The Right Side of History, is simply window dressing.
Shapiro advocates for “democracy” and “freedom” only when he and his associates lack the political leverage to impose their will upon much of the world. However, when they gain power, they enforce ideological conformity through mechanisms resembling thought control, rendering so-called democracy and freedom meaningless. If this seems exaggerated, one need only observe the actions of figures such as Deborah Lipstadt, who for years have policed public discourse. Indeed, laws in several European countries prohibit criticism of the established Holocaust narrative. If further proof is needed, one may consider the cases of David Irving and Germar Rudolf, among others.
Notes
[1] Ben Shapiro, “Transfer is not a dirty word,” Townhall.com, August 27, 2003.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ben Shapiro, Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2005), kindle edition.
[7] William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 443.
[8] Ibid., 434.
[9] Ibid., 431.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 433.
[12] Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
[13] Beard, Artist as Monster, 452.
[14] Beard goes into great detail of this. See pages 452-453, 455-456.
[15] David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
[16] Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 72.
[17] Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004.
[18] Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, February 3, 2014.
[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoj4IfiaNuQ
Video Link.
[20] For a historical study on this, see E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008).
[21] http://www.exile.ru/blog/detail.php?BLOG_ID=17377&AUTHOR_ID.
[22] Nick Sturdee, “Don’t Raise the Bridge: Voina, Russia’s Art Terrorists,” Guardian, April 12, 2011.
[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Sokol .
[24] Ibid.
[25] Nick Sturdee, “Don’t Raise the Bridge: Voina, Russia’s Art Terrorists,” Guardian, April 12, 2011.
[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Sokol .
[27] “Interview with Pussy Riot Leader: ‘I Love Russia, But I Hate Putin,’” Spiegel International, September 3, 2013.
[28] See for example Alister McGrath, Why God Won’t Go Away (London: SPCK, 2011), 25, 96.
[29] “Interview with Pussy Riot Leader: ‘I Love Russia, But I Hate Putin,’” Spiegel International, September 3, 2013.
[30] Ben Shapiro, “Will Hollywood Riot for Pussy Riot?,” FrontPage Magazine, August 20, 2012.
[31] Sidney Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 124.
[32] “Far Right Media Clash: The Ben Shapiro And Candace Owens Blowup Explained,” Forbes, November 20, 2022.
https://www.unz.com/article/unmasking-the-jewish-ideology-behind-ben-shapiro