Scan barcode
A review by trywii
Campus Battlefield: How Conservatives Can Win the Battle on Campus and Why It Matters by Charlie Kirk
1.0
Hilariously disingenuous.
While the book attempts to inform the reader that universities have somehow been overtaken by Marxist-extremists who bash innocent conservatives into submission, it does little to provide citations, context, and transparency between mentioned opponents in these stories.
Much of the book is retelling accounts of which TPUSA members or anonymous users online experience seemingly sudden and unwarranted pushback for ‘free speech’. The author provides no citations of which to look further into these allegations, and upon further research, I later discover some much needed clarification that the author somehow must’ve ‘forgot’ to mention.
For instance, more often than not TPUSA members usage of ‘free speech’ includes but is not limited to:
- holocaust denial and antisemitism (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/turning-point-usa-americafest-infested-antisemitism-1234930583/)
- Organized and sometimes paid harassment of college faculty (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/us/university-professors-free-speech-online-hate-threats/index.html /// https://truthout.org/articles/young-fascists-on-campus-turning-point-usa-and-its-far-right-connections/ )
- Rubbing elbows with white nationalists
and more. (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/02/16/turning-point-usas-blooming-romance-alt-right)
The issue is the author ironically praises the college activists of old, with their anti-war and anti-racism sentiments, while rehashing red-scare talking points when referring to activists of today.
By also misappropriating MLK Jr’s ‘I have a dream’ speech, it’s made clear that the author hadn’t regarded the iconic activists other quotes, such as:
“We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifices. Capitalism was built on the exploitation of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor, both black and white, both here and abroad”
or even
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God's children."
Fascinating how he didn’t include these.
Criticism non-conservatives have of republican politicians are presented as moot, or as if the criticism is simply of a politician’s ’small government, free speech’ stances. Scott Walker is one such politician mentioned as being ‘smeared’, though I believe it’s less about ‘small government’ and more about his stances including not allowing abortion for rape victims, prison privatization, public funding for private schools, promoting climate change denial, and more.
Throughout the book, the author’s tone and the double standards are laughable. The lack of transparency and citations are red flags when it comes to presenting situations as black-and-white. The author does little to dismantle his opponent’s stances, instead focusing on how hard it is for him to understand. He presents student-led groups and classes or random online blogs as if they are mandatory curriculum.
This book is not a dissection of college campus life and curriculum, this is an advertisement for the author’s conservative club made all the more evident by the closing chapter framing it’s members as hapless victims without stating what exactly the author and the organization’s stances are.
While the book attempts to inform the reader that universities have somehow been overtaken by Marxist-extremists who bash innocent conservatives into submission, it does little to provide citations, context, and transparency between mentioned opponents in these stories.
Much of the book is retelling accounts of which TPUSA members or anonymous users online experience seemingly sudden and unwarranted pushback for ‘free speech’. The author provides no citations of which to look further into these allegations, and upon further research, I later discover some much needed clarification that the author somehow must’ve ‘forgot’ to mention.
For instance, more often than not TPUSA members usage of ‘free speech’ includes but is not limited to:
- holocaust denial and antisemitism (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/turning-point-usa-americafest-infested-antisemitism-1234930583/)
- Organized and sometimes paid harassment of college faculty (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/us/university-professors-free-speech-online-hate-threats/index.html /// https://truthout.org/articles/young-fascists-on-campus-turning-point-usa-and-its-far-right-connections/ )
- Rubbing elbows with white nationalists
and more. (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/02/16/turning-point-usas-blooming-romance-alt-right)
The issue is the author ironically praises the college activists of old, with their anti-war and anti-racism sentiments, while rehashing red-scare talking points when referring to activists of today.
By also misappropriating MLK Jr’s ‘I have a dream’ speech, it’s made clear that the author hadn’t regarded the iconic activists other quotes, such as:
“We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifices. Capitalism was built on the exploitation of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor, both black and white, both here and abroad”
or even
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God's children."
Fascinating how he didn’t include these.
Criticism non-conservatives have of republican politicians are presented as moot, or as if the criticism is simply of a politician’s ’small government, free speech’ stances. Scott Walker is one such politician mentioned as being ‘smeared’, though I believe it’s less about ‘small government’ and more about his stances including not allowing abortion for rape victims, prison privatization, public funding for private schools, promoting climate change denial, and more.
Throughout the book, the author’s tone and the double standards are laughable. The lack of transparency and citations are red flags when it comes to presenting situations as black-and-white. The author does little to dismantle his opponent’s stances, instead focusing on how hard it is for him to understand. He presents student-led groups and classes or random online blogs as if they are mandatory curriculum.
This book is not a dissection of college campus life and curriculum, this is an advertisement for the author’s conservative club made all the more evident by the closing chapter framing it’s members as hapless victims without stating what exactly the author and the organization’s stances are.