Where's the Left's Ben Shapiro. . .
Fortune Favors the Bold . . . Or At Least It Used To
I’m Going Full KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). . .
Things have been all sorts of swirly squirrely lately. I’ve sat down to write three posts in recent weeks only to put them on the shelf as they spun off in weird directions, which make sense in my head, but would need treatise length attention to resolve. The ideas are good. I’ll come back to them, but I’ve got to figure out a way to untangle them.
One solution . . . this time I’m going to keep it simple . . . kind of.
A Convergence: Step One. . .
I recently finished reading Yascha Mounk’s The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, which I cannot recommend enough. It’s a thorough, approachable, and decisive repudiation of identity theory from beginning to end. I won’t belabor the details (go read it), but instead highlight an idea which hit me like a ton of bricks.
In the last section, Mounk lays out his strategy for how to effectively argue against identity theory. Now, there’s no guarantee attempting such a feat won’t still find you labeled a bigot or worse, but them’s the breaks if you decide to lock horns with the irrational.
The first step in doing so, and the thing I can’t stop thinking about, is to “Claim the Moral High Ground.” In other words, don’t start your discussion on the back foot, but instead stand firm in your belief that there’s something deeply amiss. Almost no one does this anymore, and if they do they often come across a bit self-righteous and smarmy. But what if you did it without sounding like a prig? What if “claiming the moral high ground” came from a good place, a certain place, but one which remained open and humble?
The reality is the vast majority of people who object to identity theory fail to do this. They actually come from a place of shame, and for understandable reasons. It’s incredibly difficult to stand up in the face of overwhelming societal pressure to conform to the status quo, and it’s incredibly easy and common to assume failing to do so reflects poorly on you. In other words, if you think differently, then there must be something wrong with you . . . after all why would everyone agree if they weren’t onto something? (Again, a paraphrase Bukowski is helpful . . . the masses always get it fucking wrong.) These feelings lead many to nervously apologize for their views, to hedge points, to equivocate, to backtrack, to both side an issue until, they’ve opened themselves up to the very criticism and intimidation they sought to avoid in the first place. All because they fail to have conviction in their thought.
On the flip side are those who’re embittered by the inability to speak out against the orthodoxy. These are the people who harbor resentment for their lack of courage to speak up, and so they overcompensate and come out swinging. In these cases the shame is hidden, but it’s still there, just more internalized and shadowed. The defiance hides the feelings of inferiority and lack of control motivating it, and makes it extremely difficult to hear what may be good ideas. Both of these “heretics,” as Mounk labels them, are bound to weaken their perspectives by coming from a place of doubt.
The solution is to come from a place of calm, humble confidence. Mounk writes,
So when I notice that I feel nervous about arguing for a position that is unpopular among many of my friends or colleagues . . . I remind myself that I am proud of the views I hold. I have thought about them long and hard. They are rooted in a noble tradition that has done a tremendous amount of good for the world. And though I recognize that I am, like everyone else, likely to be wrong about some important things, the views I hold are–virtually by definition–the ones that seem to me most likely to prove right.
So, why should we cede the moral high ground? Maybe we’re wrong, but maybe we’re right. Whichever the case, it’s okay to think your ideas are good, otherwise why would you hold them?
Somewhere along the way the modus operandi became to avoid firm positions lest you offend someone’s sensibilities. But again, why? I know why I do it. Most people lack the stability to engage with ideas which are different than their own. This explains why so many people think the same things, and when they encounter an idea which, Goddess forbid, runs contrary to their own they feel pressured, put upon, manipulated, or challenged. And so they react. These same people typically lack the ability to differentiate between an idea and a person, and so the reaction is directed at the individual (me) rather than the idea. There are only so many times you can play out this scenario before you find yourself asking, “Is this worth the hassle?” And, depending on my mood, I’ll admit I keep my mouth shut most of the time. But I’m beginning to rethink this.
Just because I have an opinion doesn’t make me an asshole. I used to think it did. After you’ve been called one so many times, it’s easy to adopt the idea for yourself. I’m giving it back though. I’m done renting space in my head for free. Having thoughts and expressing them doesn’t make me an asshole. We can disagree and still be friends. We’re so much more than what we think and feel. So, from here on out, my mission is to speak calmly, cooly, collectedly, and decisively even when “discretion would be the better part of valor.”
A Convergence: Step Two. . .
As I’ve mentioned before I’m a loud and proud Anglophile. Give me a scone with jam and cream, a landscape home to more sheep than trees, a right hand drive car so I can draw my sword, and a thatched roof pub (strictly for ambiance and a good meal) and I’m a happy man. The UK also houses some of the greatest academic institutions. You can’t beat Cambridge or Oxford for history, tradition, and at least theoretically, a deep and unabiding commitment to free speech, discourse, and open debate. Both the Oxford Union and Cambridge Union channels on Youtube are my kink. You can imagine my delight when both channels rewarded me with an example of what it looks like to “claim the moral high ground.”
On October 30th and October 31st Ben Shapiro was invited to speak at Oxford Union and Cambridge Union respectively. Now, I know what you’re thinking, Ben Shapiro, seriously?!? I’m not saying I agree with everything Ben says. In fact, I’m not saying I agree with most of what he says, but I did find myself nodding along enough to make me uncomfortable. Nevertheless, I’m not suggesting you watch him for what he says, but how he says it. If you’re pressed for time, I suggest the Oxford event as it’s a bit shorter and a bit more heated, and a better demonstration of his skill. When you’re done, I double dog dare you to tell me he isn’t the living, breathing, walking, talking embodiment of non-apologetic, confident, assertive, no nonsense, articulate, reasoned, and determined presentation the world needs right now.
Granted, he’s not 100% free of smarm, especially towards the end of his time at Cambridge, but he doesn’t ever pull punches. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you like what he’s saying, he’s going to tell you what he thinks. He’s also going to support what he thinks with evidence. I can’t speak to the veracity of Ben’s evidence, but that’s besides the point because he understands an argument is based on evidence and not feelings. He’s trying to persuade his audience by appealing to their reason rather than their emotions. As I said, I didn’t agree with most of what he said, but watching him was a breath of fresh air.
I also appreciated his willingness to admit when he didn’t know, wasn’t sure, or needed more time to think. If he’d stood up there and postured as if he had an answer to every question, I would’ve been less impressed. He also wasn’t afraid to ask questions. Ben is smart and he knows it, but he knows he doesn’t know everything. So, let’s see . . . wicked smart, eloquent, articulate, clear, concise, unequivocal, no hemming, no hawing . . . I wish to God he was on “my” side. Or that “my” side had somebody like him I could get behind, instead of me sitting here trying to figure out when and where the Left got hit with an idiot stick.
A Convergence: Step Three
Before I return to my search for “Lefty Ben,” I thought I’d take a moment and draw the above convergences together. What if I assume the moral high ground/put on my “Lefty Ben” hat, and engage in a bit of “telling it like it is” about a topic I fear the woker factions of the Left are getting all mixed up? It might look a little something like this.
I watched in horror as the events of October 7th unfolded. As I tuned into the atrocities, the rapes, the decapitations, the murdering of families in front of each other, or all together, I foolishly assumed this would be a no-brainer. I mean, who could support such a thing? Turns out far too many people, and people who I would’ve thought I had more in common with than Ben Shapiro. Like I said, I was foolish.
And look, I’m no expert on the Middle East, but I have a fairly reliable sense of right and wrong. I also genuinely feel this moment is significant. I know everyone thinks their era is when society falls, and maybe I’m wrong, but there’s always at least one group who gets it right. Short of societal collapse, I think those of us who still believe in reason, rationality, common sense, and right and wrong are the last line of defense. If we don’t stand up and say “enough is enough” then for all intents and purposes the jig is up.
I’m under no illusion that what I say matters that much. My readership is tiny . . . but speaking out, being bold isn’t about results. The impact we have is outside our control. What I control is what I say. And should my son ever read what I’ve written, I want him to know I said what I thought was right. And so, I’m going to show up, be present, and engage the world regardless who pays attention.
Here are some themes I’ve see on repeat recently which make me wonder where have all the thinking people gone?
War Crimes:
War is a crime (allowing for the possibility of “just wars”. . . think World War II), but it isn’t a war crime.
Things which are war crimes include targeting civilian populations. Turns out, taking any of those civilians hostage is also a war crime. Don’t forget that housing military infrastructure and soldiers in and amongst civilian populations are also war crimes. Civilian causalities, it turns out, are not war crimes, especially in instances where mitigating actions are taken. We can argue about whether or not this right. They’re unfortunate to say the very least, and for me a significant reason why I believe war is a crime and should always be the last resort.
You don’t have to look at the above list for too long before a pattern emerges. There are definitely war crimes being committed during this conflict, it just so happens it’s not Israel doing them. As for civilian causalities, we should consider who, the IDF or Hamas, bears the most responsibility for the mounting death of innocent Palestinians. Hamas are the governing body for Gaza, they could end this conflict in a heartbeat if they so desired. That they don’t, along with their uncontested list of war crimes, some of which directly place their civilians in harms way, I’m comfortable laying the responsibility at their feet.
Ceasefire vs. Surrender:
There’ve been no shortage of calls for a ceasefire from the Left. I assume the intentions behind such calls are good. They largely seem motivated by a desire to limit, or ideally eliminate, the lost of innocent Palestinian lives. However, focusing on a ceasefire seems a bit self-serving for those intent upon always seeing Israel as the guilty party.
To begin with, do you know when there was a ceasefire? October 6th . . . by October 7th not so much. And if I recall, it wasn’t Israel who broke it. If Hamas’ goal was a ceasefire, they could’ve simply not murdered and tortured civilians.
But they did, and so you have to ask yourself, why should Israel agree to return to a ceasefire? It seems such an action essentially rewards the atrocities committed by Hamas. Their actions were unequivocally evil. They need to be held accountable. A ceasefire does the exact opposite. It rewards their evil by blurring the line between right and wrong and shifting the moral burden back onto Israel. There isn’t a nation in the world which wouldn’t respond in kind to such attacks. To ignore this fact is to hold Israel to a higher standard than the rest of the world.
A ceasefire is also not a long term viable solution to the conflict. A ceasefire will provide Hamas an opportunity to regroup, resupply, or disappear into the civilian population from where they will launch future attacks like those of October 7th . . . as confirmed by the leader of Hamas on Lebanese radio. In light of this, a ceasefire at best can temporarily stem the lost of innocent Palestinian lives, since a return to conflict will be inevitable.
So, we face a dilemma. A ceasefire will not satisfactorily resolve the conflict, nor will it provide a long term solution to the mounting civilian causalities. I am, like everyone I know, horrified by the lost of innocent lives. There’s a solution though, and that’s for an immediate, unconditional surrender by Hamas. There isn’t a world in which Hamas can win this fight. There isn’t a world in which Israel will be safe with a viable Hamas living next door. If protecting innocent lives is a top priority then the only option is for Hamas to lay down their guns, return the hostages they managed to keep alive, and turn themselves in to face justice.
The utter absence of calls for surrender strikes me as highly peculiar. You only ever see calls for a ceasefire. When I’ve pointed this out to several people, they often provide a confusing word salad about how “ceasefire” doesn’t preclude “surrender.” To which I say, give me a fucking break. In a world where microaggressions accompany the slightest inattentive use of words, you’d think clarity would be more highly prized.
A ceasefire is not morally equivalent to a surrender and those who’re calling for the former know this. It’s imperative that we not lose sight of who’s responsible for this conflict. It’s Hamas. A surrender is a long term solution as opposed to the stop gap offered by a ceasefire. A surrender would stop civilian causalities now and in the future. If protecting civilian lives is really the main goal, then we should all be advocating for such a decisive end. That we don’t speaks to either a moral failing, or some unspoken agenda other than those lives.
Genocide:
At the risk of beginning to sound like a broken record . . . if you think Israel is engaged in genocide, you might want to take a moment to reconsider. And perhaps start by reviewing the definition of “genocide.”
Genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” A couple of things. First, I could’ve lifted parts of this definition from Hamas’ charter as it relates to the Jews. Because, it’s true there is genocide occurring, it just so happens it’s Hamas, and not Israel, doing it. Hamas’ stated mission is to not only destroy Israel, but to kill any and all Jews they find. Israel has no such mission regarding the Palestinians.
I think it’s an understatement to say Israel, as a state actor, is no friend to the Palestinians. However, it requires an enormous stretch of the imagination to get from this to genocide. Given the extreme power differential, if Israel wanted to eliminate the Palestinian people from the world, they could easily do so, and probably already would have done so. The fact Palestinians continue to exist, along with the numerous mitigations (including but not limited to offering advance warning of their attacks, providing safety corridors and safety zones, encouraging migration out of areas of potential conflict, and providing medical assistance as part of their military ground operations), the IDF takes to limit the loss of civilian lives provide a strong counterargument to accusations of genocide on their part.
A thought experiment is helpful here; what happens if Hamas surrenders today? The war is over. Food, medicine, water, and fuel flow into Gaza to aid everyday Palestinians. What happens if Israel lays down their arms tomorrow? The world would witness the beginning of another holocaust.
“Words are Violence” Crowd:
Over the past few years we’ve been innundated with the idea that “words are violence,” however, it turns out actual violence gets a pass. This is probably because those selling this absurd notion have very little experience of real violence and so they don’t have the ability to make a proper distinction. This is what happens when you’ve been playing “let’s pretend” for so long you can no longer separate fact from fiction. There’s a lot to say here, but honestly, all I’m asking for is a little less hypocrisy.
When Rashida Harbi Tlaib stands in front of a crowd and parrots the phrase “from the river to the sea,” but then gets a pass because she didn’t “mean” it in the antisemitic way but as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”, I die a little inside. I’m sorry. You can’t just pretend words and phrases mean what you want. I can’t use the wrong fictional pronoun without being labeled a bigot, and Rep. Tlaib can doublespeak a phrase in a way that would make the Ministry of Truth blush, and those who’ve tasked themselves with being the arbiters of word justice simply nod along. There really is no shame. We’ve been lectured ad nauseam that “intent” is irrelevant. Well, fine, but then let’s ensure the rules of the game are applied equally across the gender, race, and political divide. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, and again, and again . . . words and ideas matter.
As for those who chose to reveal themselves as sub-human by glorifying the grotesque, inhumane, and lower than animal degree of barbarism enacted on October 7th, I have nothing to say other than thank you. Thank you for showing the world your true colors. Thank you for showing me the real-world consequences of post modern thought gone off the rails. Thank you for showing me who the real enemies are. Thank you for showing me who you are. You have lost your moral compass and are irredeemable.
As for the lesser known villains in this spectacle, those who’ve made it a sport of ripping down posters of abducted children, I’ll admit I hold a sliver of hope in my heart they’ll find their way out of the darkness. As I do for the 48% of 18-24 year olds who “support” Hamas, because if they fail to grow up somewhere between now and whenever they take over the reins of society, then the entire American experiment is over and done with.
Colonization:
Finally, the root of the issue: colonization. I’ll barely scratch the surface here since mountains of ink have been spilt over the “Arab-Israeli” conflicts, as well as colonization/decolonization. Two things to bear in mind. First, the demographics of Israel.
Israel’s population, as of March 2023, was reported to be 9.73 million. Of those, 73.5% are Jews, 21% are non-Jewish Arabs, and 5.5% are “other.” Out of the 73.5%, roughly 70% were born in Israel as either 2nd or 3rd generation Israelis, 20% migrated from Europe or the Americas, and the last 9% came from Asia and Africa, including the Arab countries. And while there’re no official statistics classifying the Jewish population according to ethnicity, it’s estimated that 45% are Mizrahi (stemming from either Africa or Asia), 32% are Ashkenazi (roughly “European” in origin), 12% are “Soviet,” 3% are Ethiopian, and the remainder are some combination of the above. If you crunch these numbers, you end up with, give or take, 4 million Israelis are of color, and, more or less, 5 million of them are endemic to the land.
So, contrary to the popular narrative, the vast majority of people living in Israel are both native and/or Black or Brown. How, given the theoretics which undergird the classification of groups into “oppressor” or “oppressed,” are we to understand the Israeli population as the “bad” ones? Not only are the Jews a minority, making up less than 2% of the world’s population, but they’re also predominantly people of color. Which leads us to the second; where exactly could all these people “return to?” Israel is their home. That’s where they’re from. They’ve no place to go back to, anymore than I’ve a place to return to in Ireland, Scotland, or Germany. (I’m happy to consider any opportunities Ireland and Scotland are willing to provide me to live there full time . . . not because I hate America, I just really love the UK . . . yes, I know Ireland isn’t part of the UK, at least the part I want to live in, but it’s close enough.)
Maybe It’s Me?. . .
So, there it is. My best impression of Ben Shapiro, in this case in both demeanor and content, this being the one area where I do agree with him. Maybe I should apply for the position of “Lefty Ben?” Sadly no. (Although I’d be happy to have his notoriety, influence, and earning potential.) As you can see from the above, I lack the skills and from the other things I’ve written, you can see I think way too much to be a mouth piece for any side in any movement anywhere. I’m a gadfly, or maybe a coyote at best. I barely even have a team, except by default. My allegiance is to “thought” itself. I’m so old school I don’t even think the quality of an idea is determined by who’s saying it. In my world, ideas stand or fall on merit alone.
I also come up short in the command of vast amounts of information criteria necessary for the job. Ben has this in spades. Love him or hate him, the guy does his homework and has probably forgotten more than I’ve remembered. My intelligence has always been more situational and synthesizing rather than recalling shit I could look up. This is why I would bomb on Jeopardy.
But, enough about me. I don’t really even want the job, but I long for someone who does. I want someone from “my team” to stand in front of a crowd, speak uncomfortable truths, defend their positions with actual argument, point out flaws, and call bullshit within the blink of an eye and punctuate it with a clever quip. I want this for me as much as for everyone. If I’m being honest, I could really use some convincing the positions of the Left are worth fighting for and that they’re capable of standing up to scrutiny. I fear without “our Ben” we’re in a lot of trouble. Please, if you’re out there, come save the Left. Come save common sense. Come save logic. Come save reason. Come save morality. Come and save us from ourselves.