Anonymous
who is in the wrong here 01/08/26(Thu)10:27:23 No.18281964

File: Screenshot 2025-12-22 153225.png (700 KB, 1241x693)

700 KB PNG

who is in the wrong here Anonymous 01/08/26(Thu)10:27:23 No.18281964

The specific reference to Baal Berith in the feud between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro (which escalated throughout 2024 and 2025) is a heavy-handed theological accusation. When Owens or her supporters use this term, they are not just discussing archaeology; they are using the ancient "Lord of the Covenant" as a symbol for a "false" or "demonic" alliance. From a historical and linguistic perspective, here is why that term carries such weight in this context:

> The Insult: "God vs. Mammon" Owens frequently quotes Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters... You cannot serve both God and money (Mammon)."
By invoking Baal Berith, the implication is that Shapiro (or the "political establishment") isn't serving the God of the Bible, but rather a "Lord of the Covenant" who represents worldly power, political contracts, or secret alliances. Historically, Baal Berith was the god of legal treaties and silver treasuries in Shechem. Using this name today implies that someone's "covenant" is based on political/financial gain rather than spiritual truth.

> The Conflation with B'nai B'rith
In many of these online debates, there is a deliberate or accidental conflation between: Baal Berith: The ancient Canaanite "Lord of the Covenant" at Shechem and B'nai B'rith: The actual Jewish service organization (meaning "Sons of the Covenant").
Critics often use the similarity in names to suggest that modern Jewish organizations are actually "serving Baal." It is a way of taking the historical "pagan" history of Shechem and projecting it onto modern Jewish figures to label them as "heretics" or "pagans."