Conservatism

Ben Shapiro Wrongly Accused of Feeding Far-Right Narrative That Muslims Burned Down Notre Dame

More sloppy mischaracterizations from Talia Lavin, who is indeed "too online."

|

It did not take long for the far-right fringes of social media to declare that the Notre Dame fire must have been the deliberate work of radical Muslims hell-bent on destroying the West. The writer Talia Lavin, an adjunct at New York University, surveyed the spread of these conspiracy theories for a somewhat elucidating but also significantly flawed Washington Post article.

Lavin is right to criticize all those* who tried to spin this terrible tragedy as something deliberate and nefarious. But her criticism quickly veered off course when she wrongly blamed conservative pundit Ben Shapiro for fanning the flames of conspiracy:

Many figures on the right took the opportunity to turn Notre Dame into a metonym for Western civilization as a whole, intimating that far more than a cathedral was in peril. Just as the fire hit social media, conspiracy theorist and brain-supplements salesman Mike Cernovich dramatically tweeted that "The West has fallen." Shortly thereafter, fast-talking far-right pundit Ben Shapiro called Notre Dame a "monument to Western civilization" and "Judeo-Christian heritage." Given the already-raging rumors about potential Muslim involvement, these tweets evoked the specter of a war between Islam and the West that is already part of numerous far-right narratives; it was also a central thread in the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, the alleged Christchurch, New Zealand, shooter.

Again, while some figures on the right were indeed evoking the specter of a war between Islam and the West, Shapiro did nothing of the sort. He merely remarked on Notre Dame's status as a historical building and religious symbol. (One can quibble with the term "Judeo-Christian," I suppose, but the observation that the cathedral is important to European people of faith is not unfounded.)

Shapiro took to Twitter to vent about the wrongful claims, and Lavin—who tellingly describes herself as "too online" in her Twitter bio—reacted childishlyWaPo posted a note acknowledging Shapiro's criticism but didn't really address it.

Media Matters upped the ante considerably, tweeting at Shapiro, "fuck you and the burro you rode in on." Lavin previously worked at Media Matters. Before that, she was a fact-checker for the New Yorker who resigned after wrongly accusing a wheelchair-bound ICE agent of having a Nazi tattoo. Between that and the Shapiro smear, it is beginning to seem like sloppy mischaracterizations are a staple of her output.

I don't think Lavin being wrong means she is unfit to teach journalism at NYU (it's never stopped a journalism instructor before), but I hope she doesn't bring these same tendencies—bad-faith assumptions and immature attacks on political adversaries—into the classroom. A timely reminder: If you describe yourself as "too online," you probably are.

UPDATE: This article initially claimed that Twitter personality Mike Cernovich was among the far-right figures spreading misinformation about Notre Dame. Cernovich disputes this, and pointed me to a video in which he talks about several recent attacks on European churches but notes that "I am not saying they are connected" to Notre Dame. He also says the fire was "probably an accident." I have removed the reference to him.

NEXT: The PTO's Prissy, Puzzling Rules for Registering Trademarks Are Fuct Up

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. > pundit Ben Shapiro called Notre Dame a “monument to Western civilization” and “Judeo-Christian heritage.”

    That is factually correct. But notice he is NOT blaming Muslims for the fire. That is wholly Lavin’s invention because it fits her narrative. I’m not fan of Shapiro. Can’t stand the guy. But he is not blaming Muslims for this fire.

    What the fuck is it with the post-modern generation that they think they can just make up the truth as they go along?

    1. Well, those things are bad, mmmkay, so Shapiro is bad

    2. Well, those things are bad, mmmkay, so Shapiro is bad

      Stop trafficking your White Nationalism here, Adolf

    3. I think Shapiro is if not America’s biggest putz, he is certainly in the top five. I can’t stand him either. But, what she wrote was slander. The fact that it got printed says the Post no longer employs editors or at least editors who do anything.

      1. Kraus: To know nothing! And be able to express it!
        Too many half-wits half access to platforms to showcase their illiberal illiteracy.

        And Western civilization absolutely IS Judeo-Christian. To proclaim such a fact to be ‘extremist’ is preposterous and needs to be eradicated from the minds and mouths of these loathsome ignoramuses.

        1. The colleges have produced an army of such ignoramuses

        2. Western civilization doesn’t equal Judeo Christian. Otherwise you have to rewrite Greek and Roman history. Not saying parts aren’t Judeo Christian but to equate the two is simply wrong.

      2. Of course you don’t like Shapiro. He’s committed the heresy of criticizing Trump from the right.

        1. I can’t stand him because he is a boring moron. His dislike of Trump is an expression of the underlying problem but not the root of it.

          1. “I can’t stand him because he is a boring moron.”

            You used to make real arguments, John.

            1. I still do. I don’t like Shapiro. That is my opinion. I have every right to base it on my opinion of his various attributes.

        2. “from the right”

          another literal LOL

          This thread is great.

    4. Monument to Western Civilization…Sure

      Monument to “Judeo-Christian Heritage” -hmmm. When Notre Dame was built, Jews were being expelled from France. Shapiro is usually very precise with his language. I’m not sure which dog-whistle he was blowing there.

      1. You are correct Eric. It is a monument to Chistianity. Shapiro isn’t being impercise here. He is being a cauvinist. He would never refer to some ancient synagogue as a part of our Judeo Christian past.

        1. Not even a monument to Christianity, but a monument to Roman Catholicism and a papal hierarchy.

          1. To be more precise, yes you are absolutely right.

        2. As a Jew, I would assume that he’s connecting all of Christianity to its roots in Judaism. If you have a Judaism-centric worldview (which a Jewish person would), then Christians are a somewhat cultish sect of Judaism.

          1. I do not agree and I am Jewish as well.

            Christianity is another religion. Not at all a cult of Judaism. We all know the history.

            Judaism, you say something about Judaism-centric. I do not know what that means. There are many nations and religions. This is hardly new in Jewish history and religion. We were always a minority in the world and still are. A persistent and stubborn one. Did you read about the heart? Just another bereshit perhaps.

            I do think and agree with you that the term judeochristian is incorrect. There are Jews and Christians. There is a common root yet to conflate that to Western Civilization is not right.

            The history is more complex.

            I remember the cathedral. We went there when I was maybe 9 years old. It stuck in my head. It was one of the few things I remember from that visit. Magnificent, just awesome.

            Watching what happened. One of the great works of art, religion and civilization as the people watched and the firefighters fought. They will rebuild now.

            Such it is in the story of humanity.

            Shalom and happy pesach.

            1. Oh fuck, Macron will rebuild it with a giant glass geometric shape and a mosque in it, while fucks like you all quibble about whether Ben Shapiros’ language is ‘precise’ enough for you.

              Yeah, Western Civ is dead, though the decay process is obviously enough activity to convince people otherwise. Enjoy your brave new world.

      2. I’m not sure which dog-whistle he was blowing there.

        The “Western = Judeo-Christian” whistle. Which, not exactly wrong.

        I think he was trying express a personal or cultural appreciation for the icon despite not being Christian. The way the pyramids or Taj Mahal are part of our collective cultural heritage and we would lament their destruction as individuals and as a people despite the fact that few of *us* share copious amounts of culture or heritage, let alone any culture or heritage the pyramids or Taj Mahal belong to.

      3. Nobody who is “usually very precise with his language” uses meaningless propaganda like “Judeo-Christian.”

        1. Shapiro is a half wit who convinced himself he was smart by only arguing with brain dead lefty college students.

          1. I’m honestly kinda-fascinated by him. I can’t get a read on whether he’s a boomer grifter, paid propagandist, or Conservative Inc circa 2006 true believer.

            1. I think he is a bit of all three. He is certainly a grifter. He is one of those people who seems to have done nothing in life except talk out of his ass and get into the public spotlight.

              All of these pundits are paid propegandists of one kind or another. And I think he is definitely a Bush conservative true believer who had the ground shift from underneath him by Trump.

              1. I probably should’ve said “bought and paid for propagandist” since, you’re right, they’re all literal propagandists. I was thinking of how the Weekly Standard crowd were all revealed to be nothing more than war-mongering center–leftists.

                1. I think all of them have some kind of patron who pays them to shill for whatever causes the patron likes.

          2. He’s an excellent (master?) debater. You’ve got to give him props for that.

            1. No he isn’t. He is a 35 year old man who beats up on dumb college students and thinks that makes him smart. A actual adult would wipe the floor with that douche bag.

              1. That’s an odd take away. I think you’d improve your argument if you just said “His voice annoys me”.

                This conversation is really interesting and I think disproves your claim, give it a try:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opHWsHr798

    5. Making up the truth as they go along has been the hallmark of most of humanity.

    6. What the fuck is it with the post-modern generation that they think they can just make up the truth as they go along?

      Sadly, that’s their point; or, truth is a social construct erected by the white man/penis to keep you in your place. So make up your own truth as you go along in life.

    7. The outspoken socialists in my office decided that the fire was started by Yellow Vests as soon as they heard of it. They will not be dissuaded.

      Note that they also think that Yellow Vests are all Trump people.

      I look forward to the Post’s article criticizing such rumors.

      1. Aren’t the yellow vests socialists too?

      2. All kinds of conspiracy theories out there. One says Macron set it to fend off the yellow vests and gather patriotic unity to save the EU and globalism.

      3. It could have been started by Islamic terrorists, gilet-jaunes political protestors, anti-Catholic protestors, professional arsonists, an amateur arsonist, a construction accident, a stray cigarette, lightning or spontaneous combustion. Yet somehow anyone suggesting the first two was shouted down by those claiming it was a construction accident, before the investigation even began.

        1. It could have been started by a middle-aged ex-altar boy with ptsd. Or two priests doing bong hits.

    8. Post-modern generation? The irrational left is a better description. These people are intolerant and vicious. They are dangerous radicals who stand firmly against the First Amendment, the Second and most of the rest of the Constitution.

    9. “What the fuck is it with the post-modern generation that they think they can just make up the truth as they go along?”

      It’s postmodernist Marxism 101.
      “Truth is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples”

    10. When I was young, start-up terrorist groups would try to get street cred by claiming responsibility for every attack whether or not they were behind it. Sometimes, multiple groups would claim responsibility for the same bombing and then fight via the media to prove that they were the ones behind the attack.

      You know things are better when people prefer that everyone doesn’t blame them for something burning down.

  2. Isn’t there a joke about the weather man being wrong all the time, but he still keeps his job?

    1. Eh, the weatherman is only wrong several times a day — when he’s on the air. The rest of the time, he’s neither right nor wrong.

      Whereas the broken clock is only right for about 2 seconds every day, and wrong the rest of the time.

      1. Whereas the broken clock is only right for about 2 seconds every day, and wrong the rest of the time.

        My clock broke. The motor died and it was only right twice a day. I fixed it with an old blower motor I had lying around. Now it’s right 24 times a day.

        1. My clock is only right once a week when I reset it. Then it starts drifting more and more wrong.

  3. What the fuck is it with the post-modern generation that they think they can just make up the truth as they go along?

    I don’t think it’s a new thing. It’s just easier to find out when they are making it up as they go along now.

    1. Your post is the equivalent to 500 million straws up a turtle’s nose every day for 12 years until the world ends

    2. I am not so sure Zeb. I think there may be something deeper going on here. It would be one thing if she was lazy and didn’t bother to look at what Shapiro said, was printing something someone told her or something. I think that would fit your description and has gone on forever.

      That is not what happened here. She saw what he said and wrote this with full knowledge of what he said. She also had to have known that any mistake would get her pounded on social media. I don’t think she is “lying here”. I think that perhaps this woman has been trained to think in narrative and can’t even comprehend the facts as they are anymore.

      1. It is the same type of jumping to conclusions based on what you think should be true that they are so concerned the “right” was going to blame Muslims for the Cathedral fire.

        She are so concerned about motes in the eyes of people she does not like she misses the plank in her own.

        1. Not quite. The people blaming Muslims are engaged in conjecture. We still don’t know for sure what caused the fire. They are just assuming it is Muslims because they don’t like or trust Muslims. This is different. This is akin to the people who still blame Muslims after the cause of the fire has been difinitively shown to be something else.

          1. I visited France often in the 90s. I went on an errand run with some girl who worked for my cousin. Boy did she have choice words for Muslims. She even yelled at one along the way.

            Think about that for a second.

            1. I do not believe the Europeans are going to go to their deaths at the hands of invaders. At some point they are going to stand up and when they do, it is going to end very badly for their Muslim minorities.

              1. lulz at “minorities”. They are the majority in more and more places

                1. Not in France or Germany or Italy.

              2. John,

                I think Europeans will assimilate Muslims. The first generation or two to arrive at a county often has some trouble adjusting to the culture. By the third generation, they’ve figured out which things to compromise on and which things to maintain as part of the new local flavor.

            2. I have a french cousin like that. Then she would harangue me on how poorly black people are treated in America.

          2. I still have not seen a single reference to an actual person claiming Muslims started the fire. Is it all just assigned to them as “the kind of thing we know they would think”? Or do we now have the ability to re-interpret peoples’ words (via “dog whistles” and “code words”) to mean what we think they probably really mean?

            And this is NOT the kind of bullshit-spewing we need anyone to be teaching. They can hire her, sure. They can also not hire her.

  4. This chick was a Jeopardy! contestant.

    1. When she is not losing on Jeopardy or slandering people, she is wondering why 9-11 is such a big deal.

      http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/15/nyu-professor-talia-lavin-questions-why-memory-of-9-11-is-sacred/

      She is quite a piece of work. I love it her tweets are protected.

      1. What an absolute joy this woman is.

    2. That’s not funny!. Nor this.

      1. yikes

        1. Yeesh, what Sidd said, although it’s far from being the worst stand up I’ve watched the first minute of.

          1. I still have not seen a single reference to an actual person claiming Muslims started the fire. Is it all just assigned to them as “the kind of thing we know they would think”? Or do we now have the ability to re-interpret peoples’ words (via “dog whistles” and “code words”) to mean what we think they probably really mean?

            And this is NOT the kind of bullshit-spewing we need anyone to be teaching. They can hire her, sure. They can also not hire her.

    3. So was I (came in 2nd). Once you pass the online test, getting on is more a matter of being “tv friendly” than necessarily knowing anything.

      1. getting on is more a matter of being “tv friendly”

        I’d hate to see some of the people who don’t get on.

      2. Had a friend get invited, then he realized that you have to pay for your whole trip yourself. If you don’t win any money to make up for it, too bad so sad.

    4. What an edgy pop culture reference.

      1. Metonym?

        What a synecdouche.

  5. Many figures on the right took the opportunity to turn Notre Dame into a metonym for Western civilization as a whole

    What?!?! Noooooooooooo

    1. Western Civ gets to claim democracy, capitalism and individualism. I think that gaudy religious architecture financed by labor stolen from peasants should be included too.

      1. The Cathedrals were not built by labor stolen from the peasents. They were paid for and cost a fortune. Peasents owed rent to their lords in the form of labor. That was running the farm not building a Cathedral in Paris.

        1. I think that you’re being deliberately obtuse regarding feudal economics John. Sure, the artisans who built the cathedrals were paid for their services. But how was the massive fortune to pay for them come by? I
          We celebrate these buildings today because we appreciate their aesthetic and historical significance. But one needs only to walk into a building like St Peter’s in Rome to see that every scrap of wealth from the surrounding area was appropriated to build and decorate it.

          1. How was that massive fortune come by? Mostly by the selling of indulgences and by convincing rich people that paying the church to pray for their souls would get them out of pergatory eariler.

            You don’t seem to know anything about medieval history.

          2. But one needs only to walk into a building like St Peter’s in Rome to see that every scrap of wealth from the surrounding area was appropriated to build and decorate it.

            St. Peters was built entirely by selling indulgences. They didn’t appropriate anything to build it. People voluntarily purchased the indulgences. The fact that it was funded that way caused this thing known in the history books as the “Reformation”. It was kind of big deal.

            1. “St. Peters was built entirely by selling indulgences. They didn’t appropriate anything to build it. People voluntarily purchased the indulgences.”

              Keep going. And how do the wealthy come about their money in a feudal system? And who can push back against gross misallocations of funds?

              1. St. Peters was built in the 16th Century, a couple hundred years after feudalism was finished in Europe. Beyond that, do you think only rich people bought indulgences.

                Just stop it already.

                1. Dude has a narrative and dammit! it all fits together!!

            2. Check and mate.

          3. In Chicago some of the biggest, most elaborate churches were paid for by contributions from one of the poorest immigrant groups in the city, willingly. It’s known as Polish Cathedral style. Don’t underestimate the enthusiasm for these projects in an age of faith.

      2. I don’t care what anyone says, I refuse to use any kind of sarcasm notation.

    2. “What?!?! Noooooooooooo”

      It should be synecdoche.

  6. I don’t think Lavin being wrong means she is unfit to teach journalism at NYU

    To be sure, it’s not like teaching journalism at Columbia…

    1. Given the current state of journalism, being a serial liar and slanderer probably makes her more qualified to teach journalism.

  7. If you describe yourself as “too online,” you probably are.

    #dontlearntocode
    #please

    1. Her twit bio now reads “extremely online”. Talk about someone you hope to never meet.

  8. The irony of Soave having to make a correction to this article for doing substantially the same thing as Lavin is most amusing.

    1. these same tendencies—bad-faith assumptions and immature attacks on political adversaries

      literal LOL

      1. The important difference being that he added a correction and an apology.

        1. Yes, yes, he did. It was still funny.

  9. I have removed the reference to him.

    I’m pretty sure the accepted journalistic response would be for Reason’s Twitter account to tweet “fuck you” to Cernovich on your behalf.

  10. I don’t think Lavin being wrong means she is unfit to teach journalism at NYU

    I doubt anyone really thinks occasionally being wrong in good faith should disqualify Lavin. The problem is that there’s a clear pattern to suggest that Lavin isn’t being wrong in good faith, but is using her public platform to dishonestly smear and demonize those she disagrees with. If those are the sort of journalistic standards NYU wants to endorse by choosing her to instruct their students, that stands to undermine the credibility of NYU’s journalism program as anything but a partisan hatchet job.

    1. Agreed. She clearly has trouble (1) discerning reality and (2) knowing when not to hit send, when her SJW paranoia is aroused.

    2. being wrong intentionally libeling

  11. This article initially claimed that Twitter personality Mike Cernovich was among the far-right figures spreading misinformation about Notre Dame. Cernovich disputes this, and pointed me to a video in which he talks about several recent attacks on European churches but notes that “I am not saying they are connected” to Notre Dame. He also says the fire was “probably an accident.” I have removed the reference to him.

    Uhm…. #MeToo?

  12. Does Robby think he’s significantly better than Lavin? I’ll give him that he isn’t outright trying to lie all the time, but he mischaracterizes people and situations due to his bias.
    1. What far right people said Notre Dame WAS caused by Islamists? Please offer some names and proof. I’m not saying they didn’t make the claim, but show the proof. As a side note, I don’t think that you can immediately discount the possibility that it was intentional.
    2. There is war between Islam and the west. What right wing figures were using the cathedral as an example of that war? You’re making assertions without proof because you dislike “conservatives.” Your only examples of conservatives saying anything falls far from what is being claimed.
    3. I think she has proven herself to be intentionally and maliciously wrong several times. I think she is guilty of libel and is hiding behind interpretations and “ignorance.” No, she should not be teaching joirnalism anywhere because she doesn’t follow the principles that make one a journalist.

    Good on you for updating the article, but the bias and misleading narrative remains even when the point of the article is to defend individuals. Why smear a political faction just to point out an egregious error of an opponent while quasi-defending the subject of that opponent’s smear?

  13. People hate Shapiro more than Libertarians:-) Seriously, I read that all the ad agencies in NY and California refuse to advertise on his site. What is so dangerous about this guy?

    1. He has the power to make people agree with him. That’s dangerous.

      1. Didn’t you read the thread above? Several highly-regarded REASON commenters have concluded that he’s an idiot and a gasbag and…what was it? Oh yeah, a “paid propagandist”. So he’s dismissed.

        Thus do highly-regarded REASON commenters maintain their standing.

  14. “Lavin is right to criticize all those* who tried to spin this terrible tragedy as something deliberate and nefarious. ”

    Nothing at all odd about how the most iconic Catholic church of France is burnt down by an “accidental” fire at the beginning of Holy Week after staying fire free for almost a thousand years prior to fire alarms, sprinklers, smoke detectors, and security cameras. Anyone suggesting otherwise is obviously just a Nazi.

    Did I mention no fires during centuries of lighting based on flame?

    Another odd thing. Shouldn’t we have seen the security footage by now?

    It may every well *not* be some Islamic attack. Could be. But playing NoIslamToSeeHere is just a denial of reality. Notre Dame is exactly the kind of place you should expect Jihadis to attack.

    Speaking of odd, how is it that the Las Vegas mass shooting disappeared like a fart in the wind, with no real information ever coming out?

    Notice how the mass shooting that gets no play is a country music festival?

    NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG CITIZEN!

    1. Perhaps the strangest on Notre Dame is the determination of “no arson”, “no terrorism” within a span of 24 hours, is that possible?

      Here’s another one. The Sy Hersh tapes on the FBI/Clinton/Trump. I’m surprised YouTube kept the video/tapes.

      1. They don’t know what it is, but are certain of what it is not.

        Uh huh. Sounds legit.

        Where is the security video?

        1. Nah, there’s no “narrative”. Even though on French TV any MENTION of the 875 church burnings and desecrations that have occurred over the last two years is immediately cut off (I’ve seen two such responses). I gather some people in France consider that these activities have been deliberately under reported.

          OTOH, I haven’t heard ANYBODY on the “right” claim Muslim responsibility. That won’t stop the projection and delusion spouted by the crazies on the “left”. They know what those bigots REALLY think.

      2. “Perhaps the strangest on Notre Dame is the determination of “no arson”, “no terrorism” within a span of 24 hours, is that possible?”

        Terrorists typically either call in to warn police before the attack, as the IRA used to do, or claim responsibility after the attack. There is little point in going to the trouble of launching an attack if people are going to assume it was merely an accident.

      3. Pretty sure I heard the first determination of “no terrorism” before the fire was even out.

        1. They should have waited?

          1. I suppose they could have, you know, said they didn’t know? Anyway, good point about the lack of “claim of responsibility”. Any fledgling, go-getter wannabe terrorist org would gain instant cred from it.

    2. Architect of 90s restoration of Notre Dame speaks out on the extensive upgrades they made in the electrical systems, fire detection, and security.

      Says that oak that old is very difficult to burn, and would require a large amount of kindling to get burning.

      https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/1118664191064399872

      1. You mean, like a giant scaffold being used for current renovations?
        But you’re right, the absence of evidence is just more proof of the coverup.

    3. “Another odd thing. Shouldn’t we have seen the security footage by now?”

      Certainly no odder a thing than no name or photo of the guy who walked into Saint Petes’ with two gas cans, lighter fluid and couple of grill lighters the other day.

      I mean, if he’s an Arab named Machmoud al Hazra, that doesn’t prove anything about all Muslims, but it might prove a media conspiracy to protect Muslims from the disapproval of their neighbors. Which disapproval, dare I say, might sometimes be warranted.

      Of course, if calling a politicians’ ill-considered comments “unbelievable” is “LITERALLY A CALL FOR VIOLENCE”, I can understand media trepidation in these matters.

  15. These conspiracy theories are ridiculous. The fire at Notre Dame was not a terrorist attack any more than the La Guardia airport shutdown was. You guys know how silly my neighbors can get.

    1. On a slight tangent, my phone check-in with the parole officer (it is part of my pre-trial conditions) went well today.

  16. I keep on seeing everybody online complain about how wealthy the Catholic Church is and how it is appalling that people are raising money to rebuild the Church, but this is almost entirely the fault of the French government and their insane law on religious structures. Every single religious structure built before 1908 is owned by the French government and leased (for free) to religious organizations. The government and church fought for decades over who has to pay for repairs, but the French government didn’t even allow the Church access to much of the Church, including many of the interior spaces where structural damage was happening, until a few decades ago. Had the Church owned it outright from the start, and the French government not seized all churches, the Church would be in far better shape and this fire likely would have never happened.

  17. “The scaffolding magically burned down Notre Dame” is just the latest in an endless series of left-wing government-media complex lies, right up there with:

    -Trump conspired with Putin to steal Hillary’s victory
    -Brett Kavanaugh is s rapist
    —The DNC servers were hacked by the Russians
    -If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor
    -“Hands up, don’t shoot”
    —Stephon Paddock just “snapped”
    —Antonio Scalia always slept with the pillow on top of his head instead of underneath it
    -Seth Rich was murdered by a random D.C. street negro
    -Benghazi was over a YouTube video

    And the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

  18. It’s not inconceivable that Muslims would target a place like Notre Dame. But as for the recent spate of church burnings in the southern USA, I’ll bet that Judeo Christians are responsible.

    1. We’ve been through this shit before with your “spate of church burnings”. Wasn’t it back in the 90s the libs were trying to get everyone all het up about the bigots burning black churches? Then they went and looked at the facts and black churches were not catching fire any more frequently than white churches. OR, for that matter, hardware stores.

      Once again, why bother with facts when you’ve got a narrative?

      1. “Then they went and looked at the facts and black churches were not catching fire any more frequently than white churches. OR, for that matter, hardware stores.”

        Whether our Judeo Christian arsonists burn down white churches, black churches or hardware churches, it’s still a crime. Still. I take your point about the silliness of getting het up about someone burning down a black church.

        1. Lots of fires don’t involve someone burning down the building at all. They’re just fires. My house burned down a few years ago and I didn’t blame Antifa or ISIS or Don Lemon…though none of them can prove where they were on that fateful day. Just sayin’…

  19. […] by bemoaning the loss of “a magnificent monument to Western civilization.” This was reported as a covertly racist sentiment, meant to stir up violence against […]

  20. […] by bemoaning the loss of “a magnificent monument to Western civilization.” This was reported as a covertly racist sentiment, meant to stir up violence against […]

  21. […] by bemoaning the loss of “a magnificent monument to Western civilization.” This was reported as a covertly racist sentiment, meant to stir up violence against […]

  22. […] by bemoaning the loss of “a magnificent monument to Western civilization.” This was reported as a covertly racist sentiment, meant to stir up violence against […]

  23. […] by bemoaning the loss of “a magnificent monument to Western civilization.” This was reported as a covertly racist sentiment, meant to stir up violence against […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.