Ben Shapiro right now is embroiled in a scandal over James Gunn, an actor who was fired for making statements in support of child sexual abuse, by coming to his defense on social media:
Newly-ousted “Guardians of the Galaxy” director James Gunn has at least one defender, and it came from the most unlikely place: Conservative media star Ben Shapiro.
“I think @JamesGunn is an a–hole, as my exchange with him earlier this week made clear,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief tweeted on Friday. “I also think that firing him for vile old joke tweets is bad precedent and a mistake. There is no limiting principle to the outrage mob.”
Gunn, who helmed both “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies for Marvel Studios, a Disney subsidiary, was dropped from the franchise Friday over old tweets.
“The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio’s values, and we have severed our business relationship with him,” said Alan Horn, chairman of Walt Disney Studios, in a statement.
Gunn apologized late Thursday after a series of old (now deleted) tweets resurfaced in which the filmmaker made what he admitted were “offensive” jokes about taboo topics like rape and pedophilia. “Many people who have followed my career know when I started, I viewed myself as a provocateur, making movies and telling jokes that were outrageous and taboo,” Gunn wrote in a series of tweets. “As I have discussed publicly many times, as I’ve developed as a person, so has my work and my humor.”
Gunn frequently tweets about his opposition to President Donald Trump, and thus drew the ire of fans of the president such as right-wing provocateur Mike Cernovich, who began posting a series of old tweets by Gunn, many subsequently deleted.
Online sleuths then dug up dozens of old tweets of the sort Gunn admitted were “offensive,” many from between 2008 and 2011. (source)
The tweets in question from James Gunn are listed below:
In response to Gunn being fired, Shapiro tweeted the following:
A Pattern in “Conservative” Media
There are two unmistakeable patterns here in “conservative” media that one can witness.
The first is the “rise and fall” phenomenon that has defined “conservatism” for the last decade.
The second is the quiet support of pedophilia.
Temporary Fame
Years ago I attended CPAC 2007, which was a watershed year for the conservative movement. While seldom discussed in public, that year was the bridging point between the anti-Islam movements and the rise of the new nationalism, both of which happened when the eldest of the millennials were graduating college and entering the workforce at the same time the economy crashed and Obama was pushed as the new “star” of the Democrat party. It was a year of transitions, where “old” things were thrown away and replaced with “new” things.
As a man who has spend the last 20 years in Islamic Studies, who was interested in Islam before 9/11 and remains interested in it today, I can say that the “anti-Islam” movement is reaching the end of its life. This is not to say there will not be resistance to Islam, that it should not be resisted, or that it will not pose a problem in the future. But the “counter jihad” movement has run its course, and as one is witnessing now, the movement is giving way to nationalism and militarism, which seems to have always been its intended purpose.
Such “transitions” are not natural in they are organic movement, but are socially engineered in the same way a gardener tends to a garden to yield a certain result by adjusting and maintaining certain conditions, except instead of soil, water, and sunlight it is human responses. Certain plants are grown to a specified point, at which time they are uprooted and replaced with new plants.
The conservative movement of late, barring the exception of a few individuals with long-established names oriented towards and older and declining audience (Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, for example), have gone through a continual “changing” process, with each new change maintaining the name of “conservatism” while becoming more nationalistic and yet reflecting the Democrat support of homosexuality and the LGBT.
Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, while mainstream media figures, potentially represented the last “gasps” of the “old” media, appealing respectively to the “evangelicals” and the “traditional” American conservatives. O’Reilly was replaced with Tucker Carlson, who is decidedly more nationalistic and in his shows promotes for a heavily anti-immigration platform not unlike the racialist and eugenicist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. Beck left Fox News and started his descent into irrelivance with the failing “The Blaze” website, appealing primarily to Boomers and Gen Xers but not younger people.
Milo Yiannopoulos was arguably the next major figure to enter the public, and he promoted a modified take on religion that while talking about it, he constantly pressed the “legitimacy” of the LGBT with tales of his own homosexual ventures. To Yiannopoulos was the emergence of Shillman-backed or connected media personalities such as Steven Crowder and Gavin McInnes, that reinforced the idea of such a new version of “conservatism”. Out of this came the Shillman-backed Rebel Media with Ezra Levant and his femme fatale trio of Faith Bazos (“Faith Goldy”), Lauren Simonsen (“Lauren Southern”), and Laura Loomer that brought outright ethnic nationalism and national socialism to the public, including the infamous “14 words”.
Bazos, Simonsen, and Loomer have gone out on their own in varying success, with Bazos being able to keep the most followers as she has merged more openly with the nationalist movement than before. Rebel Media and some of the older Shillman fronts have been on the public decline, beginning in particular with the firing of Milo Yiannopoulos for his support of pedophilia. Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire, both associated with Shillman, were established in their places.
Now Ben Shapiro is under attack over his support of James Gunn and his refusal to denounce the pedophilia.
Is this the start of the end of Ben Shapiro? Perhaps. He has been around for about three years and was influential in the millennial outreach to support Donald Trump and since then, to reinforce American foreign policy for Israel, especially support of a military invasion of Iran.
However, like all stars, it has been several years, and while Shapiro has had a successful run, his time may be nearing for replacement with somebody else, and whether he likes it or not.
It is being pushed out from his funders? There is not enough evidence to determine this yet. However, what we do know is that Shapiro is in trouble, and he has made little to no statements on his twitter account for several days now, which given that he posts regularly, does not appear normal. But given the tendency of the Conservative movement as of recent to “flush” people and put new faces in with more extreme ideas each time, and how the conservative movement has made a distinct transition from its associations with low taxes, “family values”, and some form of American Evangelicalism to a hard nationalism that accepts paganism, the LGBT, and has a distinctly militarist tone, it would not be a surprise if this is taking place now.
Support of child abuse
Something that has united both the left and the right is their support of homosexuality and pedophilia.
The left is obvious, supporting the entire alphabet soup of the LGBT in the name of “inclusivity”. Every purple-haired, pentagram-wearing, patchouli oil covered supporters of communism and revolution. They have openly associated with child abusers, including the infamous Hillary Clinton scandal which opened up and entire investigation showing a strong correlation between child abuse going up to the Rothschilds and all around the world and the capitol.
But are the conservatives really different, except in that they have not been caught yet?
Recall that famous conservative media figure Dennis Prager appeared on the Dave Rubin show. Rubin, an openly admitted homosexual, asked Prager about homosexuality, and Prager defended both homosexuality as well as the homosexual abuse of teenage boys, saying that men could be happy sodomizing teenagers:
Milo Yiannopoulos, in the interview that was used to depose him from his position of fame, said that he attended “parties” in California hosted by very rich people where there were “very young” boys present:
What were these “young boys” doing at parties like this? What were these “parties” like?
He does not give further details, but this enough was enough to destroy his career.
However, we may have a clue.
While we are yet to find a connection to the conservative movement, one of the most elite parties in Hollywood is that of a club call SNCTM, or SANCTUM. The club, which hosts its events at various “mansions” throughout Hollywood, caters to the Hollywood elite in film and business as a premium sex club where anything goes as noted on its website:
I created Snctm as a place to explore our base animalistic libido in an environment so opulent and free of judgement that it compelled us into a state of unbridled sexual freedom. What I found was this way of being is relentlessly unfulfilling. It’s like a drug for my followers, and I’m an expert at mixing the ingredients. This tincture empowered me to claim that a night of sex with strangers was akin to a spiritual experience. I don’t see it that way anymore. Hence I feel it necessary to continue further along this evolutionary path. (source)
However, founder Damon Lawner insists the club is not about sex:
‘The first few hours are about mystique and intrigue. This is not a sex party — it is erotic theater. We have performances. Some just watch while others want to indulge. (source)
He insists on this on his site as well. (source)
If it is not about sex, than what is it about?
What happens in this “erotic theater”? The advertisement shows different levels of membership, so does the “content” of the theater change with the membership levels?
Membership in the club costs up to $1,000,000 and is highly selective.
Who would pay so much money when one can go to any number of the swingers clubs in California? Even “high end” clubs, where people would look good and be selective about membership?
It does not make sense. That is, unless people were paying for something ELSE.
Lawner admits that his club was inspired by satanism:
Before Sanctum premiered in March, Lawner spent the last few years gallivanting at high-fashion photography and party-promoting at Bali hotels. His concept for Sanctum was a mix of Illuminati imagery (the club’s logo kind of resembles a Black Mass teardrop) and bondage erotica, all given a gentlemanly veneer. True S&M-dungeon devotees might find it a tad PG-13, but Sanctum makes a frank pronouncement about why we go out at night: If the point of clubs is the pursuit of Eros, why wait for it?
“I love icons and the religious feeling that comes from the awakening of eroticism,” Lawner said, sounding like a yogi but dressed in a rakish bowler hat and shirt unbuttoned to the sternum. Both he and his creative partner Merritt are married (not to each other) with kids, and in conversation they make public sexuality seem positively apple-cheeked.
…
To land an invite, one sends a Facebook message to Sanctum, where Lawner or an associate vets your clubland vitals (it’s elitist in a curated-dinner-party way: one resolutely middle-class night-life reporter, whose Facebook profile photo shows him eating a gigantic slice of pizza, still made the cut). If they like your style, they send you to a lingerie shop to pick up your tickets on a silver platter, with different colored pins for varying levels of access and participation.“It’s the opposite of what most club owners want,” Lawner said. “ I absolutely didn’t want 500 people outside clamoring to get in. I love the puzzle of getting there.” (source)
His PInterest and Instagram reinforce his obsession with demons and the occult:
Associated with this is the House of Kaya. The website uses much of the same disturbing imagery found at Sanctum, an is equally blasphemous. On the site they promote a short film called Ego. The film is a monstrous mixture showing sex slavery, blasphemy against Christianity, allusions to National Socialism (listen at 5:00), allusions to child sexual abuse (8:30 to 9:15), satanic ritualism (10:00), and cannibalism.
You can watch it here– be aware it has mild nudity and some disturbing scenes.
“Sanctum” does not per se note who its members are, other than a few who have come out, such as Gwyneth Paltrow. However, if one goes to the website and looks at the photos of the “parties” and videos, they bear a similar image to ultra-elite and secret parties held by the Rothschilds in the 1970s:
However, the point is that child abuse and a pursuit of hedonism with something to do with power and occultism are linked and have been throughout history. Political party does not matter, as that is for the useful fools to fight over. What matters to such individuals is domination.
The perverse outward displays, just from what few one can see that have been released to the public, depict a disturbed interior.
If this is what one sees on the outside, what is on the inside?
That is another question yet to be answered.
But in terms of Ben Shapiro, it is not a surprise that he came out in defense of James Gunn regardless of his pedophilia. Shapiro has been a long time member of the “inner circles” out in California, and for all of his talk about the “liberal” and “democrats”, it would seem to be a show for a deeper agenda of power, and which perhaps in the course of such has exposed himself like many “conservatives” before have done.
Is Ben Shapiro going to become the next conservative caught attempting to justify or help cover for pedophiles?
The next few days may answer that question.