This is not the usual kind of book I would read. The only reason I read it is because someone close to me and I decided to challenge our viewpoints. If I read this book, she would read the new book by Bernie Sanders that I had already read. We had some interesting discussion points, and I'm excited to hear what she brings to the table after reading Bernie.
I did not like this book, and it made little sense to me. There was a distinct lack of compassion.
Thirty pages in, the phrase 'word salad' came to mind. I didn't particularly like that in one place he called the less fortunate "the less motivated," especially when later in the book he said something to the effect that people who would fit into a "less fortunate" category deserved/needed help and compassion, or something to that effect. It seemed like a lot of picking and choosing concepts to support what the author was saying, then later using basically the same concepts in a derogatory way. The book was a rant.
I found it interesting how the author wrote about a poll that was done in the UK and how he misleadingly discussed the results of the flawed study. I know this because I looked up the actual study/poll. He was talking about British Muslims, but declined to mention that the poll he was referencing only included 1081 British Muslims. It wasn't an opinion of all British Muslims, just the opinions of those 1081 individuals polled. I didn't appreciate all the name-calling of the different people discussed. I thought we stopped calling people names based on their similarities to other words in elementary school. I also couldn't help but note that the author continuously referred to former President Obama by his middle name. He didn't use anyone else's middle names. I can only assume it was because his middle name is 'Hussein,' which is the last name of Saddam Hussein, even though it was irrelevant to what was being discussed. It seemed like subliminal messaging type stuff. He says 'Hussein' and readers associate Obama and Saddam together even the relationship or lack of has nothing to do with the topic.
I have got to hand it to the author though. It seemed like every single word was painstakingly chosen for the most emotional, visceral effects that could be produced. I believe it takes talent to be able to put together such colorful, expressive words and phrases. He even used alliteration, which is a handy, clever writing device that I have always been fond of.
The author called Christianity an 'authentic religion,' whereas other religions apparently are not authentic. I wonder what he means by 'authentic.' (I would also love to hear his definitions of 'American values,' 'family values,' and other emotionally-loaded buzzwords that people use but are left up to the listener/reader to interpret and assume they know what exactly is being discussed. For example, I came to learn that when the term 'family values' is used, people generally aren't referring to eating dinner together as a family every night.)
I also can't help but wonder why he chose to call everyone who is not a Christian a pagan. Muslims are Muslims, Hindus are Hindus, etc. I suppose traditionally that was one of the ways pagan was used, to identify anyone who wasn't a Christian and who worshiped 'pagan' gods. I am curious what the Wiccans and followers of Asatru (etc.) think. I found it interesting that the author called atheists pagans too. Last I checked, atheists didn't believe in any gods, so cannot be pagan.
The author mentioned that followers of Islam invade countries and kill citizens if they won't convert, which makes Islam a political ideology, not a religion. I can't help but wonder if he is selectively forgetting history, because I'm pretty sure that is why Christianity became dominant in the Americas. I'm sure the author would take umbrage if someone suggested that Christianity isn't a religion, but is instead a political ideology. (Perhaps an 'authentic political ideology'? Haha, I digress.) This is an example of one concept that the author states is accurate for one group, but apparently does not apply to another group, in this case, Christianity, even though historically both religions are guilty of violence and violence is called for in both religions' holy books.
I was perplexed that the author was calling someone a socialist, an anarchist, and a communist all in the same sentence. Last I knew, they were all different political ideologies, not identical. Perhaps I am mistaken. The author liked using almost any word that ended in an '-ist.' He seemed to very much like labeling others with broad strokes of a brush.
I found it interesting that the author claimed to be a minority in one paragraph, describing how he fought his way for an education (which is admirable), but then two paragraphs or so later, he stated that he was not a minority, which was why he allegedly was not hired to be a college professor. I'm not sure how the author can be both a minority and not-a-minority, except for when it suits his purposes.
Something else that caught my attention was he kept talking about illegal immigrants. He stated that he has/had a housekeeper from El Salvador, but he didn't bother to mention if she was here legally. I would think that would have been a perfect opportunity for the author to brag about how his housekeeper is a legal immigrant, rather than illegal.
The reason he brought up his housekeeper was because he asked he what she thought of former President Obama, and she replied that "he is a serpent." After what the author wrote following this, I'm not entirely sure if he was being literal or metaphorical about Obama being a serpent, much like the one from the Garden of Eden. You can tell me I'm being absurd, but much of what the author has written can be found in the same circles as information or conspiracies of Reptileans secretly ruling the planet. I wasn't sure if he was being metaphorical or was pondering if Obama was actually a Reptilean like the British Royal Family allegedly is. The author discusses the New World Order, and Reptileans are often a part of conversations that include the NWO/Illuminati/etc. (For the record, I don't recall the author mentioning the Illuminati.)
Thirty pages in, I was so perplexed by what I was reading that I was curious about the author's credentials. The back flap of the book had a brief author biography that stated that the author graduated from Berkeley. I now have a theory. From my understanding, Berkeley is one of the more liberal/progressive schools in the US. The author stated that he started out as a liberal. I'm not sure how liberal he was to begin with, or what his definition of liberal even is, because he didn't elaborate, and I'm not sure how he could have graduated from such a liberal school if he had such extreme beliefs. Though not impossible, I'm not sure how anyone could have tolerated an atmosphere of being told all the time that everything one is saying is wrong, etc. My theory is that the author is not a right-wing-conservative-whatever at all. I wonder if he is actually just a normal guy, maybe somewhat liberal or centrist in his views, but he's found his cash cow by writing books like these and speaking such things on the radio for like 22 years. He's making money. I wonder if he's not laughing his way to the bank.