Ben Shapiro 'DESTROYED' During BBC Interview

Ben Shapiro 'DESTROYED' During BBC Interview

Ben Shapiro, the conservative movement’s so-called “cool kid’s philosopher,” very publicly broke his rule of placing facts over feelings last week. On Friday, the controversial commentator was invited on the BBC to promote his new book, ‘The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great’. When the journalist Andrew Neil began to challenge him on his messaging on topics ranging from abortion to his use of the label of fascism to his bigotry against Palestinians, the interview was abruptly ended.

“You purport to be an objective journalist,” Shapiro sniped. “BBC purports to be an objective, down-the-middle network. It obviously is not, it never has been. And you, as a journalist, are proceeding to call one side of the political aisle ignorant, barbaric, and sending us back to the Dark Ages, why don’t you just say you’re on the left? Why is this so hard for you? Why don’t you just be honest?” Neil, the chairman for one of Britain’s largest conservative magazines ‘The Spectator’, simply chuckled. “Mr Shapiro,” he laughed, “if you only knew how ridiculous that statement is, you wouldn’t have said it.” 

The reason for Shapiro’s assumption of “political leftism” seems to be based on Neil doing his job in playing devil’s advocate, something which Neil actually explains in the segment. The journalist cited how the latest anti-abortion law passed in Georgia enforces a strict 30-year prison sentence for mothers who have a miscarriage and another 10 years for residents who travel to another state to have a legal abortion, which is being perceived as “extreme, hard policies” according to some polling data

Neil, who described the book as “interesting”, used the conversation to focus on its central message that Judeo-Christian values are the “founding principles of Western civilization” currently under siege by modern cultural movements. The journalist agrees with Shapiro’s key view that America is in a “struggle for its national soul” where “we are so angry at each other right now” that fundamental ethics are being abandoned. However, Neil raises the question of whether Shapiro believes he’s also contributed America’s new culture of anger. Shapiro’s angered response makes this observation all the more ironic.

Shapiro, famous for the catchphrase “facts don’t care about your feelings,” grew frustrated as the interview began to delve into his factual history of inflammatory, self-described “dumb comments,” which can be found here on his website. Shapiro argued he’s not against “charged language in politics,” but rather “the assumption that people we disagree with politically are inherently of bad character.” Neil again questions this standard by citing Shapiro’s own comments.

He began by quoting Shapiro’s stance on Obama’s 2012 State Of The Union address, which Shapiro had described as “fascist mentality in action,” condemning leftist Jews who voted for Obama as “Jews in name only,” a claim Shapiro says was based on the president’s perceived opposition to Israel. Neil contrasts Shapiro’s appeal to anti-Israel bigotry with several tweets about how he believed “Israelis like to build, Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” When Shapiro tried to tepidly condemn and justify the tweets as bold critiques of Palestine’s Hamas regime, Neil went on to cite several follow-ups from Shapiro saying: “I know, it’s not all Arabs who live in open sewage — just [Palestinians] and their allies!” The tweets make no mention of the Hamas government, meaning he’s either lying or projecting the government onto the entire population, which goes against his anti-collectivist message. 

Shapiro, caught in this double-edged lie, was soon forced to make a truly world-class deflection, insisting that by condemning all Palestinians as living in open sewage — the majority of which he claims voted for the current repressive government — he was somehow condemning Hamas directly. Never mind the fact he could have just condemned Hamas on its own merits, but it seems this lesson in good faith argumentation still hasn’t dawned on Ben.

Neil continued to cite a 2007 article where Shapiro was explicit in his feelings against the Palestinians: “The problem runs deeper than a few figureheads. The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core. There are many to be blamed: Yasser Arafat, who lined his pockets with cash and subsidized murder while playing the victim of oppression. […] But in the end, the blame must lie with the Palestinian Arabs themselves. They have accepted their role with relish. They are as responsible for their government’s longstanding evil as the Germans were for the Nazis.”

Shapiro simply dismissed all of Neil’s critiques as “gotcha questions” that are “designed to shout old slogans” at him. To the contrary, Neil was questioning whether Shapiro’s supposed role in the debate as some good faith arbiter of “civil discourse” is an accurate characterization, the fairness of which should be painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the endless online compilations of Shapiro “DESTROYING” his political rivals (at least according to his own YouTube video titles). Shapiro even went as far as to attempt to downplay the fact that his own publication, The Daily Wire, titles videos this way, despite that a simple search presents the exact opposite:

Ben Shapiro BBC Interview Andrew Neil

Shapiro immediately accused Neil of trying to make a “quick buck … off of the fact that I’m popular and no one has ever heard of you,” forcing Neil to laugh about both American broadcasting’s overinflated media-industrial complex and the obvious fact Shapiro never researched his interviewer. 

“I am not inclined to continue an interview with someone as badly motivated as you,” Shapiro said when asked again if he abandoned Judeo-Christian values, abruptly ending the discussion. Neil, raising an eyebrow, left with a cheeky British goodbye: “Mr. Shapiro, thank you for your time and for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse.”

It became self-evident to everyone, including the enraged Shapiro, that he was viciously DESTROYED by his own divisive standards. He decided it was best to issue an apology to his conservative critic not for his angry reactions or comments, but for having “misinterpreted his antagonism as political Leftism,” forcing us to wonder whether if this were actually the case that Shapiro sincerely believes his behavior would have somehow been justified. Is Shapiro’s commitment to civil discourse and tough questions exclusive to the conservative thought bubble? Is Shapiro just another example of “partisan loyalty” within the Intellectual Dark Web movement? When the first sentence of Shapiro’s book is about how “all that matters is victory,” I can only imagine how this bitter loss in the battle of ideas must sting.

Related News