And We All Fall Down
a book by Ben Shapiro
(our site's book review)
The Amazon blurb says that Over the last few years, culture has swum upstream of politics; social liberalism has deteriorated the American future; and the meaning of the conservative movement has been put up for grabs. Provocative radio host Ben Shapiro is the “principled gladiator” who’s militantly defending conservative ideas amid this chaos.
With over 10 million podcast downloads a month and an audience that is 70 percent under the age of 40, Shapiro has been dubbed the voice of conservative millennials. Picking apart liberal arguments and offering sharp, nuanced takes on current events is what he does best.
In this column collection, you will be both enlightened and entertained as Shapiro takes you on a journey through the losses conservatives—and America—have endured
Provocative radio host Ben Shapiro is the 'principled gladiator' who’s militantly defending conservative ideas amid this chaos where the conservative movement is confused and undefined
Shapiro decided to share a personal communication with his audience—the kind of personal stuff that is nobody's business but his. But by sharing it with us and making the private stuff public, he invited commentary about it to be included in any book review and we have done this, sincerely.
He wrote a letter to his 6-day-old daughter that included: "you are the future of the Jewish people and the American people, and that we are preserving God's word and His freedom for the next generations. That's why we gave you your name: Leeya — in Hebrew, 'I Belong To God.' And you were our answer, Leeya. After Mommy and Daddy prayed very hard to Hashem to give them a healthy little baby, God answered them: Eliana. So your first name is about your relationship with God, and your middle name is about how thankful we are for you. We hope you grow up to be the best, most principled, most joyful person in the entire world. We want you to be a leader for God, no matter what you choose to do . . . to carry forward our mission as a family and as a people. . . . It is our mission to help you find the best path to serving God."
There are so many inappropriate things in this letter that one hardly knows where to begin. It is fine to bring up kids in a religious home and have a personal God mission, but not so fine to saddle her with a religion-based name. It is great to be full of love for an offspring, but not so great to tell her she should be a leader for God—how about letting HER choose?! It is fine to have hopes for one's child, but not so fine to saddle her with carrying forward YOUR mission as a family and as a people to be serving God. When she decides to rebel against all the dogma and indoctrination and refuses to go to temple or church or have any connection whatever to your God mission, and then decides to be lesbian and change her name to Starflower, will you honor your pledge to always love her and never leave her? One gets the feeling that the love she gets will be conditional on how well she fills YOUR needs and follows your mission for her, so you'll be sorely tempted to fail to honor your promise to her. Is she going to feel "do as we say or go away" from you even though you never say it?
Send love, not missions
That would be likely in an authoritarian religious household that includes indoctrination rather than honoring her choices. All of this is very likely to inspire rebellion of the type mentioned above. When this occurs, will you punish and scold and guilt-trip and even insult, or respect her as a human free to make her own choices, showing understanding and compassion and love? Tip: let religious matters be a matter of choice, not pressure. That way she will make the choice that feels most right for who she feels she is, not the choice that pleases you. It always backfires when someone goes a certain way just to please someone else. It is difficult enough for a child to find herself in today's world without having to endure pressures to please parents and guilt trips when she doesn't wish to let you make choices for her. Another tip: let your "mission" for her be something you keep in your mind but never tell her a word about it. It is a recipe for strong rebellion that you will hate. How would you like it if you were trying to define who you are as a child/teen and you found out your parents have a mission for you, as if your own desires are irrelevant? Children are not pieces on a gameboard for you to move—she needs to move her own piece. See good methods for parenting.
When fascism comes, it will come not with jackboots but with promises of a better world. The jackboots come later, when we've all been shamed and threatened into silence. Only them will fascistic stormtroopers be goosestepping their way to our doors
". . . Forget the notion of disagreeing with your opinion, but defending your right to say it — in the view of the leftist totalitarians, such a notion is inherently unworkable. When fascism comes, it will come not with jackboots but with promises of a better world. The jackboots come later, when we've all been shamed into silence — when we've been taught that to allow that with which we disagree is to agree with it, and when we've accepted that the best method of preventing such disagreement is government power. We're on the verge. All it will take is the silence of good people — people on all sides of the political aisle — who fall prey to the ultimate temptation in a republic: the temptation to force their values on others utilizing the machinery of government. We're already more than halfway there."
This is Shapiro at his best, saying very important things that we totally concur with. The danger he cites is real. We too hear the drumbeats of fascism over the next hill, getting louder and more ominous by the day. The left has apparently gone bonkers.
ObamaDon'tCare is a windfall for insurance and pharmaceutical companies that raises costs and lowers access to vital services. It is a fraud based on bogus expectations and exaggerated benefits: 'you will get to keep your current doctors and healthcare plan' lied Obama
Shapiro cites ObamaDon'tCare as a windfall for insurance and pharmaceutical companies and raising costs and lowering access to vital services. It is a fraud based on bogus expectations and exaggerated benefits: "you will get to keep your current doctors and healthcare plan" said Obama, who knew it wasn't true. When conservatives cried foul, telling the truth about this travesty of bureaucratic trickery, Obama's response was "Why are they so mad about the idea of people having health insurance?" Notice this was mere distraction from the valid questions the conservatives were asking, which went unanswered. When conservatives played gotcha about the ObamaDon'tCare farce, the liberals response was to depict conservatives as moral midgets who are rotten to the core. "Forget the issues—vote liberal because the conservatives are evil racists without compassion or hearts." And this strategy of smearing and false characterizations worked, while conservative truths fell flat—Obama was re-elected in 2012, which gave us ISIS and a 20 trillion dollar debt, twice what it was when Dubya finished his term in 2008.
Here's what Obama was really doing with the ObamaDon'tCare farce
Shapiro says it is abundantly clear that television has evolved from a medium for entertainment and advertising into a funnel for socially liberal messages, although we'd call it degeneration, not evolution
So what did the conservatives do in 2016? They used the Obama strategy of smearing and false characterizations to make Hillary look like a sick, feebleminded child molester. Did Trump ask for Putin's help on this smear? Who knows? But he got it anyway and received it graciously. In the post-truth era, emotions are the key, regardless of the facts. This is why Shapiro says " . . . it is abundantly clear that television has evolved from a medium for entertainment and advertising into a funnel for socially liberal messages." Post-truth politics like in 2016 is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. See Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV.
Americans did NOT think Trump was good. They knew he was a morally deficient, sexist, racist xenophobe that bragged about grabbing women's crotches. But the rich saw he was going to reduce their taxes a lot, so they helped him over the line with their support
Conservatives can win small battles with their facts, but they can still—until 2016—lose the war for the hearts and minds of the citizens. It is insufficient to be good on policy. Americans must think you are good, not evil, people. This is where the right had been losing until 2016. Trump violated all the rules but won anyway. Americans did NOT think he was good. They knew he was a morally deficient, sexist, racist xenophobe that bragged about grabbing women's crotches. But the rich saw he was going to reduce their taxes a lot, so they helped him over the line with their support.
Trump got conservatives fearing the Democrats would overwhelm them with taxes, so they elected him
If the PC-obsessed liberals have their way, the Thought Police will soon be at your door; their authoritarianism is horrifying
Los Angeles Clippers owner, Donald Sterling, is a racist. The market turned against him not because of what he said or did, but because of his thoughts. Our society now considers expression of thoughts to be significantly more important than one's actions. The thought police are alive and well and living next door. See Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True.
"Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets—anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered."—George Orwell, 1984
Washington once said 'I can't tell a lie, Pa, I did it' about chopping down a cherry tree; today, the PC crazies cannot tell a lie either—it will be they who chop down the un-PC Washington Monument
Polls showed that Americans agreed with President Trump by wide margins (2/3) when he said the Confederate statues should be left alone and the Left should stop desecrating and removing them. But try to stop an hysterically self-righteous social justice warrior from his sacred pilgrimage of destruction and you'll get Antifa all up in your grill.
Try to stop an hysterically self-righteous social justice warrior from his sacred pilgrimage of destruction and you'll get Antifa all up in your grill
"And so here we stand: On the one side, a racist, identity-politics Left dedicated to the proposition that white people are innate beneficiaries of privilege and therefore must be excised from political power; on the other side, a reactionary, racist, identity-politics alt-right dedicated to the proposition that white people are innate victims of the social-justice class and therefore must regain political power through race-group solidarity. . . . And so here we are. The mainstream Left has been increasingly suckered into walking hand-in-hand with the SJWs while ignoring the most egregious activities of Antifa; the mainstream Right has been increasingly seduced into footsie with alt-right associates while feigning ignorance at the alt-right itself." (Source: Antifa and the Alt-Right, Growing in Opposition to One Another, Ben Shapiro, National Review)
In HATE: Why We Should Resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship, Nadine Strossen shows why hate should be resisted with free speech, not censorship.
The Left's campaign to silence ideas that are disfavored, disturbing, or feared not only undermines liberty and democracy, but it leads to violence such as this pie in face assault
As Nadine Strossen says, "Even worse than speech's potential power to harm individuals and society is government's potential power to do likewise, by enforcing 'hate speech' laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups. To avert this danger, the Supreme Court steadily has reduced government's power to punish speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared. Instead, government may punish speech that relates to public issues, including 'hate speech,' only when it directly causes a specific, imminent, serious harm, such as inciting imminent violent or illegal conduct. These requirements curb government's censorial power, reducing the risk that it will be wielded only or primarily to suppress unpopular ideas. Unleashing government's power to silence ideas that are disfavored, disturbing, or feared not only undermines liberty and democracy; it also subverts the equality goals that animate 'hate speech.'"
Hate speech should be resisted with more speech, not censorship
Because the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality, SJWs relentlessly work to prevent normal people from thinking or speaking in any manner that will violate their ever-mutating Narrative. They police science, philosophy, technology, and even history in order to maintain the pretense that their agenda remains inevitable in a modern world that contradicts it on a daily basis.
'What gives you the right to call that lady overweight rather than the PC term dessert-avoidance-challenged?' 'But officer, she's my wife and she asked for my opinion.' 'Hey, are you getting smart with me? I'll ruin you and smear you and get you fired!'
Notice that when the PC police gets a perfectly good explanation that should get him to understand and drop the matter, he not only fails to accept the explanation, he threatens the innocent man, showing that THE FACTS ARE IRRELEVENT AND ONLY THE COP'S STRONG PC EMOTIONS ARE PERTINENT. This is how political incorrectness charges work and this is how post-truth politics work. Note that Trump receiving proof his inauguration crowd was smaller than Obama's had no effect on his continuing claims to the contrary. This bending of reality to fit one's beliefs comes right out of the demagogue's playbook. Alternative facts, anyone?