Reflecting on Israel/Palestine Debate: Grumpy Groyper Lawrence Roche, aka Laurence of Europa

Lawrence Roche, Grumpy Groyper

                                                            

On October 30th, 2024, I had a debate on the broad Arab-Israeli conflict with Nick Taurus of Laguna Hills.

We had debated the topic last year:

Nick wanted to bring me back to discuss the issue again, this time in a public forum before an audience. Yes, the debate was recorded, too:

I wrote some brief comments about the debate last month, but now I have time to comment on one key issue that erupted--disrupted--the debate.

And that was the grumpy moderator, Lawrence Roche:

Grumpy Groyper tipped his hand
in the Arab-Israel debate with Nick Taurus

He also goes by the name Lawrence of Europa. Seriously. That is the name that he uses on Instagram. 

He is a rabid anti-Zionist, and after you read his comments below, we can safely conclude that he is an anti-Semite, as well. Of course, it's getting more difficult to separate the two.

He was charged with moderating my debate with Nick Taurus on October 30th, 2024.

He was an immoderate man who repeatedly interrupted me and shouted at me and others in the audience. He was tipping his hand from the beginning, and that is understandable.

However, that did not stop me from speaking the truth.

He allowed a member of the audience to argue and interrupt me, when everyone was supposed to be quiet and listen once they asked a question. He told me to be a "debater" and let him run the debate, which he did not do very well.

Here is the lowest of lowlights of this immoderate moderator: (Click here)

During the Question and Answer period fromteh audience, I confronted Andrew the JQ guy about his reference to the Lavon Affair. During that exchange, Roche jumped in to stop me from speaking. At that point, Nick and I had tacitly understood that we could answer questions posed to us and respond to other questions or comments previously. But Lawrence did not like my confronting and correcting Andrew regarding his hostility to Israel!

It got better, of course, because when I called him out on it!

Roche Interrupting me

You will notice in the last video, Nick Taurus literally had to moderate this Moderator: "Let him finish!"

Yes. The moderator lost his cool. He could not control himself, and he felt justified interrupting the debate.

What is this?

What I have noticed is that this interruption culture is a constant with pro-Palestinian acolytes. They do not want to debate this issue fairly. The moderators all too often tip their hands. The only time I have seen an experienced and effective moderator was the debate between Robert Barnes and Nick Fuentes on InfoWars. 

At the beginning of the debate, I had given Grumpy Groyper Lawrence the benefit of the doubt. Nick Taurus invited and expected two moderators, but the pro-Zionist moderator did not show up.

At the end of it all, I am glad that I could debate sometimes three people at once.

When I posted the debate on Instagram the next day, Lawrence Roche swept in and pushed his short-lived revisionism:

Here's his entire rant, in an attempt to justify himself:

You're a liar, Schaper. The debate hall & atmosphere was very fair & you had every accommodation afforded to you. So much so that after the meeting you took home all the remaining food without it first being offered to you! What a leach [sic]! And yes, I stood & watched this transpire. lol

This guy is supposed to be an educator, and he spells "leech" wrong. Also, Nick and his team offered to let me take food home, or it would have been thrown away, so there's that. Notice that he does not discuss the substance of any issues, but just attacks people personally. Why? Because he has no facts or basis for criticizing someone.

Schaper kvetched: "The moderator would fight with me, but I learned from @jdvance how to fight back, and even Nick took my side at one point."

All of this is true. JD Vance had to debate Tim Walz and two moderators during the Vice-Presidential debate earlier that month. During the last question of my debate with Taurus, I had to fend off Lawrence, Andrew (the JQ conspiracist) as well as Nick.

No one was fighting you Schaper, just attempting to counter your disruptive behaviour. So I did, as I did with the Barking Jews you brought as your "cheering" section (cheering, as in loudly barking & interrupting Nick). I had to forcefully overpower your attempts to disrupt the debate & shut it down.

See the videos for yourself. He argued with me, and he got upset when I called him out for not enforcing the rules of the debate. Grumpy Groyper literally interrupted me when I called out Andrew over the Lavon Affair. There was no justification for that, and Nick Taurus had to correct Roche and tell him to calm down. When members of the audience interrupted me, Roche didn't care. In contrast, when members of the audience chimed in or asked if they could clarify or add to the discussion, I told them that they could not. And some of those people were my guests, but even then I did not let them break the decorum.

Of course, who can ignore Grumpy's rant in his comment above: "Barking Jews." Seriously.  We are talking about a grown man here, and he is writing such dreck. Besides, most of my guests were not Jews, and I knew five of the people in the audience. Everyone else was a new face tome.

Roche is physically grown, but not matured, to say the least. That is a common trait among pro-Palestinian agitators. They don't display emotional maturity (or intelligence).

Content-wise, you were pathetically comical as all Zionists are when trying to justify the GENOCIDE going on in Gaza today. Your retarded, long ago de-bunked Dennis Praeger-tier takes will live forever as comedy gold(stein). My favorite moment? Perhaps it was when you praised Israel's strategy of bombing hospitals in Gaza! Typical depraved Zionist morality.

When someone uses "genocide" to denigrate Israelis protecting themselves, you know that that person has completely lost the argument. He loves to talk about Dennis Prager, whose name he misspelled. Nick told me that Roche was an educator. I think his students should sue him for breach of contract.

I am glad the videos are out & about for all to see, so please refrain from editing them!

Yes, indeed, I have not edited the videos at all. I encourage everyone to watch them. A number of people commented a month after the debate that they liked what I had to say, they enjoyed the debate, and they complimented me on standing for truth.

Flabby Groyper "Scoop" Against MassResistance Backfires

Casey Whalen: "Arthur doesn't agree with me.
That means he's 'controlled opposition'!"

I love my haters!

In Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, there is a lingering effort of white nationalist freaks trying for some degree of relevance.

The Idaho GOP is making great strides to keep Idaho great, and make the state a standard for other states to follow.

However, there are still some of those perverse, dishonest elements in Northern Idaho, who want to corrupt constitutionalism, conservatism, and common sense into more racialism and empty bigotry.

Check out the latest attempt by one of these types, an over-done, flabby Nick Fuentes "groyper" [the nickname that Nick Fuentes followers use to describe themselves] named Casey Whalen:

Exposing Mass Resistance

The organization Mass Resistance, formerly known as Parents' Rights Coalition, is showing its true colors. This is a heads-up for anyone in this network.

This org is not for freedom of speech and likely controlled opposition.

Please share, ask… pic.twitter.com/sqlU5XKmlN

— Casey Whalen (@casey_whalen) July 20, 2024

Normally, such hollow hit pieces don't deserve a response, but the allegations are so laughable, and the dishonesty is so great, and they are so easy to debunk, that I just couldn't resist commenting. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, it's so easy to trash. This was fun!

First, the notion that Whalen was "exposing" MassResistance is rather silly. Everything that he recorded my saying in that phone call, I have said in public as well as private. It's quite vindicating when people  record you secretly, with the express attempt to shame you, only to further affirm your integrity and honesty to the general public.

I have dealt with a number of Israel First fanatics like Mr. Whalen, who have taken my private conversations, made them public, only to vindicate myself and put themselves to shame.

Here are a few other things that I want to point out:

1. Whalen calls MassResistance "Israel First." Huh? Not once did I mention Israel in my conversation with him. 

2. When I called anti-Semite white nationalist Nick Fuentes a liar, he did not challenge me or correct me. There was no denial from Casey Whalen, thus in a broad sense, confirming my point.

3. Whalen cries that I do not support freedom of speech, or that MassResistance does not support freedom of speech. What he really means is: "You don't like what I am saying, and therefore you are silencing me." Such complaints are rather childish, immature. Part of freedom of speech is the freedom not to listen and not to associate with views which one finds offensive.

Never have I silenced or sought the cancellation of Mr. Whalen or his comments. He is free to post or publish whatever he chooses, provided he does not violate the natural rights of others. That is my stance on the issue.

Now, let's consider the comments that Casey Whalen made:

4. He asserts that the whole notion of cultural Marxism and thus transgenderism comes from "the Jooz." He sounds a lot like Joy Reid, who used to blame "The Jooz" for everything. Yes, there are passages in the Talmud from some commentators, who allege that there are more than two sexes. But those are opinions and discussions among many clashing views within that text. I do not read the Talmud, and most Jews do not read the Talmud. I have even read that most religious, observant Jews recognize that the Talmud is not inspired. I explained all of this to Casey.

More importantly, though, I pointed out to him that there are other wayward cultural views that have wrongly asserted that there are more than two sexes. Southeast Asian Indians believe that there is a "third sex" for people with dubious genitalia. Also, American Indians believe that here are more than two sexes. In fact, this false notion is quite widespread in my cultures and their myths of origin:

           

I shared this information with Casey, and he could not refute that, either.

Instead of answering my questions, he resorts to complaining and defaming me, defaming MassResistance.

5. I just loved the part when he talked about MassResistance, and he mentioned Brian Camenker, the President of MassResistance, who "admits that he is Jewish." He "admits" it ... as if it's something to be ashamed of or that he has to hide. Seriously?

6. Building on the point above, Casey shared an article from CBN, i.e. the CHRISTIAN Broadcasting Network, and the passage specifically which Casey highlights points to Brian's wish to defend CHRISTIANS from persecution. All of this hostility to "The Jooz" makes even less sense, and Casey really made himself look bad after sharing this.

7. Casey Whalen calls MassResistance "controlled opposition." What does that even mean? Our organization has made considerable strides in Idaho, as well as other states. We even helped parents in Coeur D'Alene and helped the Kootenai County library board of trustees deal with all the crazy, left-wing cultural rot which has infiltrated the region.

8. I have to revisit this smear: "Israel First." Again, what is all this about? It comes down to this: if you don't like Nick Fuentes, if you do not share the groyper cult-like fascination/obsession with a spoiled bigot from Chicago and their hatred of Israel, that means you are not "America First," and thus "Israel First." All of those anti-American groypers have such an unremitting hatred of Jews, of Israel, of any demographic that is not "white." How that is "America First," has never been made clear to me. 

Funny thing is, MassResistance has a number of Jewish people who support our work, but they do not support Israel. We even have ardent anti-Zionists who not only work with MassResistance, but have donated to our cause! Strange indeed that he calls us "Israel First."

9. Whalen wails that I might have--might have? great journalism there!--reported his website or his reporting to some left-wing smear machine like the Southern Poverty Law Center. He clearly has not done his homework. MassResistance, and myself personally, have been smeared, defamed, maligned, and libeled by the SPLC multiple times. I have actually taken steps and made strides to get the SPLC libel removed from major newspapers. But Whalen calls us "controlled opposition ..." Sure.

And a few other things ...

10. MassResistance is an international organization, not just national. We have worked with people in other countries, not just the United States, and we have had successes in those countries, as well.

11. My last name is "Schaper," pronounced "shopper," not "Sharper." I am really stunned how often people get that wrong, especially from someone like Casey Whalen, who calls himself a journalist,

Instead of exposing MassResistance, Whalen exposed himself, and his "scoop" backfired on him big time. Local activists in the Coeur D'Alene area shared their alarm with me when they saw Whalen's hit piece. They have had enough of the ethnic bigotry, the Jew-bashing, the anti-natural law sentiments which do not help, but rather hinder the fight against cultural Marxism. Whalen is free to wail, and I am free to keep fighting the good fight.

You can't fight the lies of the Left with more lies, though. I stand with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who boldly exhorted: "Live not by lies." Whalen chose to lie about me and MassResistance, and he has the freedom to do so. I am grateful for the freedom and opportunity to expose one more groyper, especially an older man who should think about serving his community, rather than acting like a child.

Ben Shapiro's Take on Homosexuality, Stanford U Speech, November 7, 2019: A Reflection

"How does anal sex help us win the culture war?"

That's a question which one of the Groypers asked Turning Point USA at The Ohio State University in October, 2019.

Ben Shapiro responded to this question at the outset during his Stanford University Speech on November 7th, 2019.

Here's the entire speech.

Here's the Daily Wire upload of the speech, with the questions that followed. Click here.

Here's the portion of the speech that I wanted to focus on in particular:

"Criminalizing consensual activity without externality is by definition losing the culture war. What helps America win the culture war is freedom, and liberty, and the government not being involved in your life.

"And if you, like me, believe that certain personal activities are a sin, you know how you win that culture war?  By having people join your church, by engaging with your community, by teaching your children your values. That's the way you win a culture war.

"In fact, I'm bewildered by it, there's great irony in watching alt-righters claim that they should use the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others, while complaining that the left uses the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others. You can't really whine about using the government shutting down your viewpoint if you plan on using the government to shut down everyone else's viewpoint.

"But many folks on the alt-right are playing true believers by suggesting that social conservatives like me, people who wrote entire books on the evils of pornography in American society, or people like David French, who spend their days fighting for religious freedom, are standing ardently in favor of Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. 

"I also think that in governmental terms, if you allow the library to decide which speech to ban, it's much more likely to ban the Bible than drag queen story hour. I'm for limited government, because I do not trust the government to decide what kind of speech it wants to ban."

The biggest point of departure for me in this speech occured when Shapiro declared the following:

"Criminalizing consensual activity without externality is by definition losing the culture war."

This standard, this metric is deeply flawed. If we apply it fully, that means that prostitution should be legal. For many intents and purposes, prostitution is a consensual activity between adults, right? The externalities are not flagrant or manifest are they?

Actually they are, because fundamentally sexual conduct, even between two consenting adults, automatically has externalities. Sexual activity leads to the conception and birth of children, for example. There are the mental and emotional and psychological consequences which follow after two people have sex. The impact on human capital, the integrity of the family, the effects on public health--all of those outcomes are clear-cut externalities.

Yes, indeed, the government can, does, and should regulate what behaviors happen in the bedroom. The question is "which ones?" Again, prostitution should not just be regulated, but it is both necessary and proper to criminalize the conduct. The unintended society and cultural consequences cannot be ignored. Beyond the potential spread of venereal disease and unintended pregnancies, there is the degradation of the moral culture, the public health problems which ensue, and the inevitable rise of sex trafficking, human trafficking, and drug trafficking which ensues. Legalizing everything is not going to solve the problems. There are corrosive aspects of human nature which need to be confronted fully, not pandered to. 

Incest can also be construed as consensual conduct between adults. Yet too this behavior should be criminalized. Such abominable conduct has larger, initially unforseen consequences which cannot be ignored. Allowing for relentless sexual license does nothing but harm for a community. With the collapse of sexual mores comes the collapse of the entire civilization. This sad pattern has repeated itself from one empire to the next. The United States has fallen into that same pattern, as well.

So, prostitution should remain criminalized, along with incest. One can make the stronger argument for recriminalizing sodomy, as well. Shapiro was dismissing the notion that the state should take a stronger role in disapproving of this conduct because "consensual conduct without externalities." 

However, the normalization of homosexuality has led to all kinds of problems in the public sphere. As Paul Johnson documented in his autobiography "The Quest for God", homosexuals have been able to form militant lobbies that push their agenda into every facet of the public square. They are now eroding the natural rights of all while redoing the whole purpose of government to please themselves and grant them a place of prominence, at the expense of everyone else.

Indeed, it's time for conservatives to restore moral order in the public square, and it is appropriate to use government sanction to discourage and restrain evil. Consensual activities and their consequences do not stay in the bedroom, and it is wrong to believe in this libertarian "Live and Let Live" naivete as an answer to many of society's ills.

Charlie Kirk Fail (Again): Calls Christian Truth "Anti-Gay Extremism"

Charlie Kirk may have backed off on handing out green cards to foreign nationals who graduate from American Universities.

But he has not backed away from defending homosexuality as acceptable.

Charlie Kirk with openly gay "conservative" Rob Smith
at The Ohio State University Culture War Town Hall

He keeps pushing this idea that "gay" is some kind of identity, when it's a set of behaviors which should not be normalized. There are many ex-gays. There is no such thing as an "ex-black" or an "ex-male".

Consider this exchange that Charlie Kirk had with another college student at another "Culture War" event:

I believe marriage is one man one woman

Also gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement

As Christians we are called to love everyone

I will always stand against people who wish to establish their own personal values as a reason to kick others out of our movement pic.twitter.com/7QmuEWlt49

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 22, 2019

At the outset, Kirk shames the questioner with "Wow, that's the slippery slope fallacy!"

But it's not a fallacy. The slippery slope is real. Brian Camenker, the President of MassResistance, warned the public about the dangers, short and long-term, posed by normalizing homosexuality, false marriage, and the rest.

Once again, as in other posts and statements, Charlie Kirk goes along with this false premise: "gay people."

It's not an identity. It's a behavior, and it's a mental disorder which should not be promoted or celebrated. Any set of behaviors which diminishes an individual's life-span is neither wise nor good. Why would anyone consider this wise or appropriate?

On another note: loving all people does not mean endorsing their behaviors. It does not mean promoting lifestyles that are destructive and wrong.

In fact, God's Word is pretty clear-cut when it comes to dealing with Christians who do not walk in concourse with the truth :

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

Conservatism should not be normalizing homosexuality, transgenderism, and other sexual paraphilias. It is essential to fight for the family, to fight for children to have a mom and a dad as much as is possible.

I also want to speak to the phrase "I believe marriage is one man and one woman."

It does not matter what I believe. Facts, truth, evidence are not based on what I believe, or what someone else surmises. They are true because they reflect reality. They are true because they are in concert with what is so.

Why Charlie Kirk insists on caving on this issue is just surprising to me.

His exchange with the young student in the video above was really bad form, as well.

When Kirk questioned whether the young man was a proud Trump supporter or not, he then denounced the student because Trump has allied with some openly gay individuals. Peter Thiel, for example, spoke at the RNC Convention. That really is a problem. Our culture is dying. Our culture is in trouble.

You can be a proud Trump supporter and still not agree with everything that he says or does. In fact, even Ed Koch, the liberal New Yorker who began supporting Republican candidates, often told prospective voters: "If you agree with me 70%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, see a psychiatrist!"

Then Kirk wanted to deflect the core issue--which is the conflict between calling yourself a Christian and promoting homosexuals who share other conservatives.

He wanted to put the speaker on the spot and make him look bad in front of others. Charlie then went off on how the Bible is the greatest book ever written. OK, great, that is true. But why then does he support promoting lifestyles that are destructive and unbiblical? If the Bible is the greatest book, and he believes in championing Judeo-Christian values, why does he then make exceptions for promoting and accommodating homosexuals?

Then Kirk fired back with this final question: "Why does what people do in the privacy of their own homes matter to you?"

First of all, this whole LGBT agenda, movement, etc. is no longer---and never has been--about safeguarding individuals to engage in sexual perversions in private.

Second of all, sexual perversion has public consequences. The declining human capital, the monetary costs, the mental illness, the venereal diseases which have become so widespread because of these beahavior make it all clear that private behavior has public consequences.

The government has every right to criminalize prostitution, incest, terrorist plots, lying on one's tax forms, etc. These behaviors often occur in private, but they have public consequences.

For moral good to have any guidance, it must be consistent and referenced as unchanging. The principles have to apply in public and in private. Simple as that. This argument of "live and let live" no longer lives up to its standards, simply because the homoseuxal lobby has never been interested in "Live and Let Live".

For decades, the general public heard from homosexual activists that they did not want to disrupt other people's lives. They merely wanted to "live and let live." Yet the truth has always been from LGBT activists: "We live, and you have to live with it", or as one homosexual activist had told me "You have to accept me. I will not accept tolerance." Yet the essence of tolerance is that we do not have to celebrate, like, enjoy, treasure, or prize ideas that we disagree with. Tolerance requires an adherence to clear-cut moral principles, or then a society, a culture turns into a miasma of tyranny,

This libertarian temptation which Charlie Kirk betrays is all too strong with some of these college-level Conservative Inc. types. It needs to be resisted, not accommodated.

Check out this powerful statement that best sums up the need to defend moral virtue:

There can be no social order without a fixed moral framework. Libertarianism is a great political theory that will never work unless there is a conservative culture predicated on family values, traditional marriage, and Christianity.

— Liberty Hangout (@LibertyHangout) November 22, 2019

There is no liberty without morality. There is no peace and prosperity without the rule of law.  There is no social order to allow freedom if there is no fixed moral framework.

It's time for these so-called groypers to get their facts together and strenghten their arguments when dealing with homosexuality, transgenderism, and the influence of other sexual paraphilias into the conservative moment.

It's not "anti-gay extremism" to stand up for natural marriage. The extremism came out of Charlie Kirk, when he went to great lengths to shame the person asking the questions calling out the conflict between Christian revelation and homosexual accommodation which Mr. Kirk has been engaging in for the last three years.

This has been going on much longer than most people realize. Check out what Mark Dice discovered:

No wonder the Zoomers (generation Z kids) are rising up and denouncing Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA.

What kind of a Christian supports same sex couples adopting children? pic.twitter.com/PyqK8VFuC5

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) November 6, 2019

No, homosexuals should not be adopting children. Children by many metrics need a mother and father, not two moms or two dads. Where did anyone get this foolish idea that we should begin compromising and appeasing homosexual activists? Why is this going on?

Because for too long, conservatives have continued to cave in the fight for what matters. They allowed the left to one battle after another without fighting back, and the consequences have become catastrophic.