The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great

by Ben Shapiro

America has a God-shaped hole in its heart, argues New York Times bestselling author Ben Shapiro, and we shouldn't fill it with politics and hate.

In 2016, Ben Shapiro spoke at UC Berkeley. Hundreds of police officers were required from 10 UC campuses across the state to protect his speech, which was -- ironically -- about the necessity for free speech and rational debate.

He came to argue that Western Civilization is in the midst of a crisis of purpose and ideas. Our freedoms are built upon the twin notions that every human being is made in God’s image and that human beings were created with reason capable of exploring God’s world.

We can thank these values for the birth of science, the dream of progress, human rights, prosperity, peace, and artistic beauty. Jerusalem and Athens built America, ended slavery, defeated the Nazis and the Communists, lifted billions from poverty and gave billions spiritual purpose. Jerusalem and Athens were the foundations of the Magna Carta and the Treaty of Westphalia; they were the foundations of Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Civilizations that rejected Jerusalem and Athens have collapsed into dust. The USSR rejected Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law, substituting a new utopian vision of “social justice” – and they starved and slaughtered tens of millions of human beings. The Nazis rejected Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law, and they shoved children into gas chambers. Venezuela rejects Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law, and citizens of their oil-rich nation have been reduced to eating dogs.

We are in the process of abandoning Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law, favoring instead moral subjectivism and the rule of passion. And we are watching our civilization collapse into age-old tribalism, individualistic hedonism, and moral subjectivism. We believe we can reject Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law and satisfy ourselves with intersectionality, or scientific materialism, or progressive politics, or authoritarian governance, or nationalistic solidarity.

We can’t.

The West is special, and in The Right Side of History, Ben Shapiro bravely explains that it’s because too many of us have lost sight of the moral purpose that drives us each to be better, or the sacred duty to work together for the greater good, or both. A stark warning, and a call to spiritual arms, this book may be the first step in getting our civilization back on track.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Audiobook, Religion, Cultural

Audible Audio

First published March 19, 2019

About the author

Benjamin Shapiro was born in 1984 and entered UCLA at the age of 16, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in June 2004 with a BA in Political Science. He graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in June 2007. Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate at age 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the U.S.

His columns are printed in major newspapers and websites including Townhall, ABCNews, WorldNet Daily, Human Events, FrontPage Mag, Family Security Matters, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Arizona Republic, and Claremont Review of Books, among others. He has been the subject of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Christian Science Monitor; he has been quoted on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," at CBS News, in the New York Press, in the Washington Times, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.

The author of the national bestsellers, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (WND Books, May 2004), Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Regnery, June 2005), and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House (Thomas Nelson, 2008), Shapiro has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows around the nation, including "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "Fox and Friends" (Fox News), "In the Money" (CNN Financial), "DaySide with Linda Vester" (Fox News), "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC), "The Dennis Miller Show" (CNBC), "Fox News Live" (Fox News Channel), "Glenn Beck Show" (CNN), "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (Fox News) and "700 Club" (Christian Broadcasting Network), "The Laura Ingraham Show," "The Michael Medved Show," "The G. Gordon Liddy Show," "The Rusty Humphries Show," "The Lars Larson Show" (nationally syndicated), "The Larry Elder Show," The Hugh Hewitt Show," "The Dennis Prager Show," among others.

Reviews

[Jerrid Kruse · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book. I believe the judeo-Christian tradition to be a powerful framework to guide our living. However, the book was filled with logical fallacies, false equivalencies, spurious correlations, half truths, and cherry picking of ideas. For example, the author repeatedly makes causal claims based only on the fact that one event happened before the other. He believes the enlightenment was only possible with judeo-Christian values, but ignores the scientific advancement of non-European civilizations. He consistently misrepresents the arguments of the left. In one example, he critiques intersectionality with a clear misunderstanding of the construct. Other times he dismisses logic other than his own a priori and provides no explanation and seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of premises in formulating coherent logic. His mishandling of basic logic is exemplified by his spending so much time creating straw men of his opposition that he forgot to argue for his premise. It seems the author has strung together a line of thinking that will resonate very well with those who uncritically nod along. I suppose that is one way to sell a lot of books. Luckily I read mine from that left wing socialist non-Christian institution that is ruining our country called a library.

[Brian Popp · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The Right Side of History, Ben Shapiro gives a stirring defense of the enduring truth found in the philosophy of our founding fathers. In this compact book he manages also to give a high level overview of the entire history of western thought that will be sufficient to understand the "big ideas" of the various contributors and also be good starting point for those who want to dig deeper.

In these turbulent times we are often hyper-focused on the "right now"; this book in my opinion helps us understand the broader context of our times. This was my first experience reading Ben Shapiro, and I was impressed at the seriousness of this book. A good read; would definitely recommend to people on the right and left alike.

[Dan Graser · Rating 2 out of 5]

I always enjoy reading works of authors with whom I likely have little in common, at least when it comes to social and policy positions. Ben Shapiro is someone frequently cited as the most prominent thinkers of one side of the political divide, and based on the shear number (yes I intend that spelling, I'm calling them sheep) of people I see offloading their own critical thinking to him I suppose that is true. So, even though I was quite annoyed with the extended-rant style of his previous books on academia, ignoring the fact that he has made a recent career over campus protests of his speeches even though he is a hugely frequent speaker at campuses across the country and boasts of his academic credentials in every bio while at the same time claiming that institutions of higher learning are leftist indoctrination camps, I decided to give this recent work of historical summation a try.

The main problem with this work is that it doesn't really attempt to be anything of great significance, ironic given that its chief argument is there is a hole in the Western heart, bereft of the meaning it once contained. I will say I loved his introduction and I don't think there was a word there with which I would disagree. However, the disparity between the cogency of this introduction and the meandering non-sequitur nature of the conclusion is indicative of the intellectual clutter between the two.

I appreciate that he attempts to bring in elements of 2000+ years of history, philosophy, religion, and economics but what this amounts to is gross generalization, a line of causation drawn merely because he wishes it to be there, and strong indications that this was written by a pundit, not a scholar. I am not saying he isn't intelligent, merely saying that he is a smart pundit who has attempted to summarize the achievements of western society in 200 small pages and has come up short. There is a lot of opinion here, not a lot of fact. He stipulates that he is focusing on the West but then ignores talk of any other cultures when dealing in things he himself calls "universals." As such, this contains a very impassioned summary of his own notions of Judaism which are very well spoken, and also ridiculously vague summarizations of Greek philosophy, Enlightenment philosophy, and the entire history of the Dark Ages, a term he despises but does nothing to undermine.

If this work actually spurred people to study Spinoza, Dostoyevsky, Kant, Locke, Voltaire, Pinker, and any of the other great thinkers that Shapiro short-shrifts here then perhaps it has some value. However, given the superficial nature and pundit-speak he uses when discussing them I sincerely doubt this will be the case. As such, the book fails in its most basic premise as it will contribute nothing to the discourse about greater meaning and truth as a part of the modern human's heart, it will merely have his preset audience nodding in agreement as they already do during his podcasts. One would hope a long form book would be heavier on substance, alas, not the case. Those seeking the historical depth the title of this work would promise would be better served by historian Niall Ferguson's work.

[Brooke Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm putting my personal views aside—so far aside you won't be able to spot them for miles—to write this review.

Because preconceived personal beliefs don't really make for an interesting review of another person's nonfiction writing, do they?

Anyway, this book is just stellar. The amount of quotes that made me sit and really think is crazy! I can tell he really put a lot of time and effort into his research. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who likes learning about Western philosophy and religion.

It's not just a bunch of complaining about politics. It's really thoughtfully written, which I appreciate. And, as always, he added in a few casual roasts here and there to give it that genuine Ben Shapiro feel.

My only complaint is that some of the descriptions got lengthy, as in I got a little sleepy. But everything he said had a purpose to it, so I can forgive the slower parts.

(Connect with me.)

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This won't be a long review. I've been down this road before.

Let me say up front that I'm not in blanket agreement with everything in this book... That said I wish I could simply get everyone to read it thoughtfully. It is not the most valuable book you'll ever read. It is not the most insightful book you'll ever read. It is however a well written book that deals with ideas and facts that need to be considered. There are simple facts here that few are aware of...today.

I have so often reviewed books that tend to come down largely on the conservative side of history and political thought. I know going in that a large number of people will simply dismiss the book while never cracking the cover. We are as a society more and more often throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I know that's a cliched saying but cliches become cliches because someone came up with a good way to say something and then it gets repeated...and finally people have heard it so often that they stop hearing it at all.

If we do not as an entire society begin to stop and listen to each other as well as speaking AT each other we will soon as a society end.

I'm going to beg you again, no matter your basic political self identification just try...try to read this book with an open mind...read it and think with an open mind, it's all I ask.

[Brenden · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ben Shapiro's book is well researched......however

He managed to write an entire book without once arguing for his premise: that Judeo-Christian is the best, most rational, and ethical system to use for meaning and society.

He spent the entire book dismissing every other position as foolish and never said why or why his viewpoint is better. Very bizarre.

[ZRC · Rating 1 out of 5]

This entire book is one, slow, painful eye roll; it’s a discounted, expired, dollar-store history lesson for spiritually deprived Sunday school adult dropouts (that have somehow remained devout but require assurance).

Shapiro clumsily argues that the abandonment of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the root of an existential, spiritual crisis in America (a popular narrative among conservatives). To Shapiro, the lack of spiritual meaning or moral purpose in our lives results in a slew of modern day difficulties. He also aims to provide a lopsided history of the progression of Judeo-Christian philosophy from Moses to today, which he uses in a roundabout way to point fingers at philosophical figures that chose ‘poorly’ by rejecting religion (and as a result lead civilization astray).

Look, I’m not dismissing the influence of Judeo-Christian “philosophy” as a significant contributor (or/and pillar) to western civilization, but get the fuck over it, Ben. To suggest that its modern day deprecation somehow explains every societal breakdown is a farce. It’s impossible to take this book seriously.

This book was written by a pundit and it's evident.

[Jeanette · Rating 5 out of 5]

This review is beyond my ability to adequately describe the thoroughness and point to point focus over historical periods for homo sapiens' individual and collective cores for their own existence and rules of/for behaviors.

In one point in particular, this finally made me understand the huge differences between two massive Revolutions that happened mere 3 short years apart (American and French) and why they evinced such alternative approaches within both processes and outcomes.

If you have taken few or many philosophy classes- you will benefit for this read. Regardless of what studies re those that support your own gifts received from both Jerusalem and Athens or either or neither. Especially if you are of the core belief that passion, feelings or instincts often rule well for general good or collective purposes.

The 4 elements of human society, interchange criteria that are essential for the homo sapiens "better"!

I've guessed what the empty hole of needy void and incessant angst filled anger of the most "lucky" presently comes from; it's become much worse in the last 20 years. But I never could begin to posit and define the what and why of all that observable scowl reaction perception. Ben can in this succinct and exact work of historical/ philosophical Western civilization "structural moral law vs reasoning" history as components in the mix.

Read this. If only for the placements and exact recordings of what the history of collective as power have wrought. Or if you want to grasp all the essence of the Founding Fathers ideas for a governance of individual rights with built in protections against the top down powers.

[Simon Mee · Rating 1 out of 5]

It would be easy to characterise The Right Side of History as a testament to the Archduke of Grift. Which it is. But it's also crazier than that.

Ben Shapiro leveraged his status as a precocious right-wing firebrand into a media empire. Shapiro is an honest seeker of objective truth that, whaddya know, completely accords with his position. Proud owner of a webpage where he disowns his previous articles of absolute truth, Shapiro replaces them with new articles of absolute truth. He recently melted down over some pretty innocuous questioning from Andrew Neil of the BBC, complaining that the Neil had no interest in the “substance” of the book. So here is my analysis of the substance:

It’s insane. Even for a grift.

The core argument of Shapiro's book is that life without a higher purpose has no meaning and the lack of meaning is what undermines society today, rather than "non-existent" economic struggle nor "non-existent" institutional racism. A higher purpose is found in a society based on Greek reason and shared "Judeo-Christian values", best encapsulated in the shining beacon that is the American Constitution. Individual liberty from government is paired with communal nongovernmental (and essentially religious) institutions. Science is the objective search for the rules governing God's wondrous creation. Shapiro uses the term "Western civilization" to describe his utopia, but his definition isn't imbued with the liberalism generally associated with the term. Instead, it appears exclusionary of any philosophies of subjectivism or government imposed communalism.

We should also breed more, at least that's what the introduction suggests twice, but it is then abandoned without explanation.

Let's start with the easy stuff. Like this review, this book is both too long and too short.

Too long in that a large portion of is devoted to a rambling trip through a history of philosophers and public figures that have always been targets for conservative thought. It is also same boring reheated screed against the French Revolution, Darwinism and Woodrow Wilson's progressivism. It's just copy-paste-publish. Yes, it's related to Shapiro's main point. No, he does not do a good job of actually relating it to his main point other than saying these people and ideas are bad and lead to the evils of Nazism, Communism and minority rights.

Too short in that this trip though history at 90,000 feet is pretty disinterested in actual history. Shapiro excludes important events in Judeo-Christian thought, starting with the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Maybe Shapiro excluded the Crusades because of the subsequent Islamic sources for Western thought. Maybe he excluded them because, unlike the apparently critical to include Battle of Tours, the West mostly lost. Maybe he excluded them because the Crusades were the catalyst for some of the worst pre-Holocaust, and very un-Judeo-Christian, massacres of Jewish communities throughout Europe. I also cannot recall any discussion of the Age of Discovery or Colonialism other than an opaque reference to the "myriad evils in which Western Civilization has participated", which is then immediately undercut with the line "But Western civilization has freed more people than any other, by a long shot; it has reduced poverty, conquered disease and minimized war". Even his coverage of personalities is spotty, commenting on Voltaire making some mean asides about religion yet, incredibly, not even mentioning Voltaire's Treatise on Tolerance.

Shapiro occasionally includes his own personal twist, which tends to backfire. He states of Spinoza "He declared that Moses did not write the Torah; he stated that the Torah had been written centuries later by another figure." Despite Shapiro's implication, Spinoza was only wrong as to the number of figures who weren't Moses that wrote the Torah. Shapiro deems Zoey Tur's threat to send Shapiro home in an ambulance as worthy of inclusion as evidence of the Left's thuggishness in the face of facts. Mere days before this review Shapiro, on air, stated he would have a gun ready if anyone forced his children to learn about LGBTQ acceptance. I just can't make this stuff up.

But the above are just the minor complaints. Well, the major-minor ones (pages and pages were left on the cutting room floor).

Shapiro is explicitly an orthodox Jew. He keeps Sabbath, appears to believe Moses wrote the Torah, and cites King Solomon as an author of the book of Ecclesiastes (read the incredibly filthy Song of Solomon and tell me with a straight face they are by the same person). It's therefore incredibly funny to me that Shapiro unwittingly sets afire the concept of religion, via the unhistorical term of Judeo-Christianity.

Judeo-Christianity, as Shapiro uses it, dates from the 20th century. Shapiro defines Judeo-Christianity as belief in a monotheistic God, which is apparently innately superior than polytheism because monotheism presupposes a logical God. In stating this, Shapiro expects the reader to accept that a deity having absolute unbridled power and without peer is a pathway to logic. I cannot recall why Islamism, which is far more monotheistic than Christianity, is excluded but since it's all made up anyway, it doesn't really matter.

In the course of one page, Shapiro states that for Judeo-Christianity: (a) its God isn’t random but has rules and abides by those rules; (b) nature operates according to a set of predictable rules from which God could stray if He so chose; (c) God has a standard, which He does not randomly change; and (d) we can't fully comprehend God's standard.

Take a moment to think about this. Shapiro's God can break nature's rules according to His own rules that you can't comprehend, but He is logical (according to rules of logic that you cannot comprehend). Shapiro's God might not be "random," but He might as well be. Imagine playing a game against someone with a secret rulebook that they apply against you without a discernible pattern - would it not it feel random to you? It's an old issue but for Shapiro in the space of one page to blithely make such a rubbish argument about a logical God without anticipating any of the manifestly obvious objections really speaks as to the lack of effort in thinking his position through.

The lack of forethought gets worse. In stripping down to the shared core values of two somewhat-related religions, Shapiro strips away the core values of each religion. In case the name didn't give it away, Christianity places a heavy emphasis on this guy called Jesus Christ, who redeemed Adam’s sin and, according to non-Unitarian adherents, forms part of the Trinity. Judaism does not share that view. Judaism also has several its own beliefs that are not shared with Christianity (witness Peter the Apostle's dream in Acts releasing him from Jewish dietary restrictions). While Shapiro talks about Judeo-Christianity providing individual and communal capacity, and individual and communal purpose, I couldn't actually extract from the book the common set of rules. Arguably, neither can Shapiro, as he refers to the Seven Noahide laws as part of Judeo-Christianity, which aren't widely recognised as binding in Christianity. In terms of dealing with the differences between the two religions, Shapiro states that Christianity "focused more heavily on grace", which is an exceptionally sparse summary of the New Testament.

Perhaps I am being too harsh - isn't Shapiro offering the hand of tolerance (though not to Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist values) by saying "I don't mind who your God exactly is, we have a shared heritage and value system"? And, yes, you can run with that. But I am left asking questions - if certain parts of my God aren't essential for my individual and communal capacity, and for my individual and communal purpose, why are certain other parts essential? Shapiro doesn't care if you are Jewish or Christian, so long as your values are some form of Jewish or Christian. Shapiro has created a concept that is both amorphous and exclusionary, and it reeks of cynicism. I am 100% certain that there are Judeo-Christian values that are morally good, but they don't depend on being Jewish or Christian. I want to emphasise that I am not advocating intolerance of different religions, but that Shapiro's strictures that we adopt certain values is far less religious than it might appear.

Putting that issue aside, consider Shapiro's goals, in his own words:

"The pursuit of individually and communally virtuous goals can only be effectuated when strong social institutions thrive - institutions like churches and synagogues and social clubs and charity organizations - and when government is both strong enough to protect against anarchy and limited enough to check its tendency towards tyranny."

Strong social institutions sounds nice enough but closely read the reference of churches and synagogues (not mosques or temples) with the need for Judeo-Christian values. Shapiro is advocating ceding a substantial portion of power to religious bodies with a scanty history of transparency and accountability. Shapiro does state that the wide reading of the Bible overthrew theocratic power (e.g. Luther), and there is truth in that, but I remain suspicious of his policy of everyone having the same values relying on those bodies to interpret those values. As an example of where it gets messy is when Shapiro gives Christianity the credit for ending slavery but concedes there were religious people on both sides. His answer is that:

"Yes, religious people have been on both sides of those movements. Of course they have, since we live in a world shaped by the Bible. But that's precisely the point: those arguments have taken place in a common context in which Biblical values are held up against other Biblical values, in which Greek teleological reasoning is held up against itself."

Soooooo.... ...we need to trust in social institutions that we do not elect, which espouse Judeo-Christian values, which are contestable, and we can reason ourselves as to which Biblical value is better. That someone will refuse to move from their position as an article of faith is not even considered as a risk, nor is deference to the unelected authority. I'm guessing Shapiro is relying on the concept of reason to move the debate forward in a religious context. At best, that's optimistic. Less generously, it links with the cynicism referred to previously - not only does it not matter which brand of Judeo-Christianity you adopt, you will change your view according to "reason." Oh, ye of little faith, Shapiro.

There is a good argument that Ben Shapiro shouldn't be taken seriously, and better people than me have made it. But it is worth taking a shot at exposing the flaws in this thinking, because he writes with alot of certainty. Check every footnote and work through every story cited. Or just read something else.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Lasting happiness can only be achieved through cultivation of soul and mind.”

Ben Shapiro’s THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY is exactly what its sub-title promises, an overview of how “reason and moral purpose made the West great”. The book is a compelling exploration of the philosophical and moral foundations that have shaped Western civilization.
With sharp analysis and historical depth, Shapiro takes readers on a journey through the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman traditions (from the ancient to the present day) demonstrating how these ideas have influenced the development of reason, morality, and individual rights. As I was reading this book I kept thinking of introductory Philosophy of Western Civilization classes from college. This book is a more interesting version of those classes. And since many crap colleges probably would not deign to teach a course like that anymore, it is a needed text!

Shapiro’s writing style makes complex philosophical concepts accessible, while his passionate defense of these principles highlights their continued relevance in today’s cultural and political landscape. If there is an overarching theme to this text it is the idea of the necessity of a cultural moral foundation. Shapiro writes, “…cultivating our souls and minds requires us to live with moral purpose.” This book does a nice job of fleshing out that argument.

In the Introduction these two thoughts are posed to the reader: # 1, “Why are things so good?” and # 2, “Why are we blowing it?” This book gives one lots to think about in regard to both questions.
Whether one agrees with all Mr. Shapiro’s conclusions or not, THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY offers a thought-provoking and insightful reflection on the values that have defined the Western world.

[Carolyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author's strong opinion that every American should believe in God, or our culture is lost. Sorry, I disagree.

[Negin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was the first book that I have read by Ben Shapiro. I enjoy listening to him when I have the time. He’s intelligent, spot on, and speaks with reason. This did not disappoint. Much of it is historical. Despite it not being a lengthy book, it gives a thorough look from the Greeks until modern time. He explains that the twin philosophies of Athens (reason) and Jerusalem (monotheism) gave rise to Western civilization. Ideally, everyone should know this in order to appreciate how good we have it. So many people today, young people especially, are unaware of how blessed they are to live in such a great country. I don’t live in the U.S., but it will always remain one of my favorite countries on earth. As Pamela Geller said, “America is not the only good thing in the world, but it is the best thing in the world.”



It also reminded me of another book that I read, a book by Michael Medved, America is not perfect, but after reading this, I realized that it’s a country that’s incredibly blessed with an exceptional history.
The other is his reminder that although God has intervened in American history, Americans should act nobly and have an attitude of gratitude and humility. In other words, they should not forget how blessed they are, what a truly exceptional and unique country they have, and finally, they should remember to honor Him. I wish that books like these would be required reading in high schools and colleges. It would be such an inspiring and refreshing change when compared to all the negativity these days.



Here are some of my favorite quotes:

“Facts have been buried to make way for feelings; a society of essential oils and self-esteem has replaced a society of logic.”

“Politics isn’t the root of happiness for me. Politics is about working to build the framework for the pursuit of happiness, not the achievement of it; politics helps us establish the preconditions necessary for happiness, but can’t provide happiness in and of itself. The Founding Fathers knew that. That’s why Thomas Jefferson didn’t write that the government was granted power to grant you happiness: it was there to protect your pursuit of happiness. The government existed to protect your rights, to prevent those rights from being infringed upon. The government was there to stop someone from stealing your horse, from butchering you in your sleep, from letting his cow graze on your land. At no point did Jefferson suggest that government could achieve happiness. None of the Founders thought it could. Yet more and more Americans are investing their happiness in politics. Instead of looking inward to find ways to better their lives, we’ve decided that the chief obstacle to our happiness is outside forces, even in the freest, richest country in the history of the world. This desire to silence—or subdue—those who disagree with us has been reaching new, terrifying heights.”

“Lasting happiness can only be achieved through cultivation of soul and mind. And cultivating our souls and minds requires us to live with moral purpose.”

“We don’t live in a perfect world, but we do live in the best world that has ever existed.”

“The best countries—and the best societies—are those where citizens are virtuous enough to sacrifice for the common good but unwilling to be forced to sacrifice for the ‘greater’ good. Flourishing societies require a functional social fabric, created by citizens working together—and yes, separately—toward a meaningful life.”

“The USSR rejected Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law, substituting the values of the collective and a new utopian vision of ‘social justice’—and they starved and slaughtered tens of millions of human beings.”

“Happiness isn’t rolling around in the mud at Woodstock, nor is it a nice golf game after a rough week at work. Happiness is the pursuit of purpose in our lives. If we have lived with moral purpose, even death becomes less painful.”

“We’re continually drawn to false gods. We proselytize endlessly for everything from intersectionality to consumerism, from Instagram to organic food, from political protest to essential oils. How many of us truly feel that lifelong purpose is to be found in those transitory distractions?”

“We must believe that even in the direst circumstances, we have the capacity to better ourselves. As Frankl wrote about living through the Holocaust, ‘Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate.’”

“Western civilization has freed more people than any other, by a long shot; it has reduced poverty, conquered disease, and minimized war. Western civilization is responsible for the economic betterment of the global population, and for the rise in human rights and democracy.”

“Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt of New York University points out that the most effective type of therapy for distorted thinking is cognitive behavioral therapy, in which people are taught to break chains of thought by using reason and evaluation — precisely the opposite of what our modern universities have been doing. ‘The recent collegiate trend of uncovering allegedly racist, sexist, classist, or otherwise discriminatory microaggressions doesn’t incidentally teach students to focus on small or accidental slights,’ he writes. ‘Its purpose is to get students to focus on them and then relabel the people who have made such remarks as aggressors.’ This, Haidt concludes, makes society more censorious, and makes students more psychologically unstable: ‘The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.’ Even worse, people who perceive themselves as victims are also more likely to become aggressors; as social psychologist Roy Baumeister explains, ‘Many violent people believe that their actions were justified by the offensive acts of the person who became their victim.’ Which is precisely what we’ve seen from campus rioters and social media malcontents and the movement to use government force to shut down particular types of disapproved speech. But, we are told, at least this new awareness of our intersectional problems will bring about a more aware world, and thus perhaps a better one. Not so. Focusing on right-able wrongs is worthwhile; blaming all disparities on discrimination leads to more political polarization and individual failure.”

“As Ronald Reagan put it, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.’”

[Michael Huang]

Skippable unless you enjoy flawed reasoning.

[Olivia · Rating 1 out of 5]

am only 10% of the way through and dear god where to begin. wanted to engage in a piece on the opposite side of the political spectrum as myself and this was clearly *not* the way. this reads like a white, suburban 14-year old’s attempt at writing a clunky rhetoric piece for AP language that would have scored a 1 out of 9 points (if that). Continuously self-aggrandizing, Shapiro does not hesitate to employ every logical fallacy in the books to support his shortsighted, contrived conclusions that rest upon the idea that morality is limited to those of judeo-Christian backgrounds (the term in use is incredibly ironic considering he repeatedly compromises his own religious integrity as an Orthodox Jew to appeal to his conservative, evangelical base) and that his idea of morality (which he never clearly defines) is the only means to happiness and that happiness is the barometer of a country’s wellbeing (where wellbeing is synonymous with whitewashed history, anti-immigration sentiments, and denial of those with different experiences and backgrounds than himself). lacks critical insight, reeks of thinly concealed rage, and blithely engages in the same behaviors and tactics of which he accuses his opponents. what a load of trash. all my enamel is gone.

[Daria Williamson · Rating 1 out of 5]

My overwhelming impression after listening to the audiobook is that Shapiro is terrified of anyone who thinks differently, or has a different experience of the world. So terrified that he has written a book to "prove them wrong".
But he doesn't even bother to investigate and understand what life is really like for women, for people who don't live in the USA, for people who deal with mental health issues, or for people with any other quality that doesn't align with being a financially-safe, white, educated, Judeo-Christian, English-speaking, male. So, his arguments are made with blinkers on. In addition, he uses an awful lot of logical fallacies and cherry-picked data to support his points while castigating liberals, Democrats, people of colour, feminists etc for doing the same, which is intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.
I guess that, if you agree with his starting premise that the Bible is a key source of direction for how everyone, everywhere, all the time, should live, then you'll disagree with my review.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a big fan of Ben Shapiro. I listen to his podcast most days. I find him intellectually honest. He brings conservatism back to its fundamentals. In fact, I could say that I agree with him on 90% of his policy and reasoning.

This book presents an extremely important premise. Western civilization, which is built of Greek reason and Judeo-Christian values, is one of a kind. It brought us several core beliefs which eventually led to the foundation and the success of the United States. Losing those values and reason will bring about our demise.

So why only three stars? Because other books have done this better. Read ‘A Little History of Philosophy’ and then ’Why Liberalism Failed’, and Ben Shapiro’s laziness and lack of innovation become apparent.

It is a fine read for those who are only now embarking on the historical and philosophical study of conservatism, but for the rest of us, it feels like more of the same.

[Tyler Thomas (Pages of Light) · Rating 5 out of 5]

An exceptional read!

With only 200 pages, Ben Shapiro summarizes the history of Western philosophy in a thrilling and exciting fashion that makes you want to keep reading. He masterfully boils down each philosopher to the root of their ideas, explains its impact in the culture at that time and how each new philosophy led into the the next step of history.

He makes a compelling case for what we have lost in culture and gives clear and concise steps for us to take action on that will move us as a society back to the Judeo-Christian values that brought us here.

[Yuri Krupenin · Rating 1 out of 5]

TL;DR Бен Шапиро даже несколько более ёбаный клоун, чем мне казалось ранее; это достаточно беспомощный текст, рассчитанный на неподготовленного (или счастливого быть во всём согласным) читателя.

Центральная тема книги — решающая роль иудео-христианская парадигмы в формировании облика современной западной цивилизации, что было бы вполне умеренным и обыденным тезисом, но, будучи очевидным приверженцем традиционализма, Шапиро эту самую западную цивилизацию идеализирует и использует связь между ней и иудеохристианством как центральный довод в доказательстве морального превосходства традиционных ценностей и моральных систем над ценностями более прогрессивными и моральным универсализмом (под последним понятияем Шапиро объединяет вообще всё, что ему чуждо).

Шапиро корректно определяет роль лютеранства, секуляризма и науки в эрозии иудео-христианской системы ценностей; с наукой и лютеранством интереснее, наверное, всего: постулируя превосходство значимости факта над значимостью чувств и эмоций в другой своей книге (и, честно говоря, используя это как какую-то невероятную end-all gotcha примерно во всех своих публичных выступлениях) Шапиро вынужден теперь обрисовать науку как врага объективного знания.

Это, вообще говоря, довольно просто: достаточно в корне не понимать роли и механизмов научной эпистемологии и академической структуры современной науки (в чём Шапиро охотно признаётся, приводя Декарта, с его интеллектуальной интуицией, как идеал чистого стремления к познанию), тогда легко увидеть в них попытку разрушить такой замечательный работающий веками механизм (большой спойлер: каждый человек, читавший хотя бы Голдакра, знает, что механизм, конечно, далёк от идеала сейчас, но был чудовищно далёк от идеала ещё хотя бы 100 лет назад), и назначить каких-нибудь "леваков" виновными (напоминает кого-нибудь?).

"Объективный факт" в понимании Шапиро также инструмент гибкий и удобный: всегда можно насоздавать своих! В кажется первой главе книги для доказательства превосходства иудеохристианской морали над моральным универсализмом Шапиро приводит "результаты медицинских исследований", якобы показывающие, что люди, поступающие "хорошо" в соответствии с традиционной христианской доктриной, "объективно" чувтсвуют себя лучше.

Это не ключевой момент какой-то, это один из сотен моментов, когда у опытного читателя могут возникнуть вопросы к фактологическоиму базису. Я готов сдаться на этом: необходима книга в три раза более объемная, чем писанина Шапиро, чтобы показать, почему это наглая глупая манипуляция. Что на самом деле исследовали те исследования? Не психосоматику ли? И не существует ли общественного, институционного, и психологического дав��ения на людей, поступающих против постулируемых западной цивилизацией моральных норм?.. I wanna see the receipts.

Постулируя власть факта, Шапиро на самом деле постулирует собственную власть создавать нужные факты по мере необходимости.

Собственно, есть некоторая ирония в том, что выделяя роль лютеранства в развале старого мира Шапиро заходит на территорию интересного центрального тезиса Fantasyland Курта Андерссена: позволив каждому трактовать Библию по своему усмотрению, Мартин Лютер дал начало современной культуре, где каждый свободен иметь собственную систему фактов, столь же весомых, как и факты эксперта в сфере.

Макулатура.

[Keith Turek · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reactionary nonsense. A right wing fairy tale utterly oblivious to any real understanding of history and the profound moral shortcomings of "the West".

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 1 out of 5]

The easiest book I've ever read, where with each passing page, all I did was mutter "no" over and over again. Frankly, I don't even know where to begin...but if you create an amalgam of all the other 1 and 2 star reviews for this book, you'll get the general idea of which side of the review/debate I'm on.

[Christian Tempest · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was very surprised by the historical and philosophical depth of this book. It was admittedly not what I expected from Ben Shapiro, mainly due to its non-political nature (at least until the end) as well as the fervor with which he advocates for and defends religion and the belief in God (something that he generally avoids discussing in detail, at least while in the public eye). In any case, regardless of my initial surprise at his approach and ambition, by the end I was quite taken with many of Shapiro’s ideas.

It’s a testament to his vast historical knowledge (particularly of philosophy) and his skill with persuasion, that despite certain moments where I felt I disagreed with his arguments, overall Shapiro was still able to garner significant enough esteem in my mind that these instances often resulted in me doubting my own perspective even as I questioned his explanations or reasoning. In fact, despite any occasional doubt or trepidation I may have had in accepting some of his conclusions, Shapiro ultimately won me over to his case (which I must say is actually quite stirring by the end).

I learned a great deal more from this book than I expected, not the least of which concerns the importance of recognizing and understanding the influence of Judeo-Christian values on the West. I developed a much stronger appreciation for the Founding Fathers and the vision through which they organized the american constitution, I came to better comprehend just how dangerous the current trend of postmodern subjectivism (and it’s assault on reason and purpose) truly is, and, perhaps most significantly, I now feel much less inclined to discount the distinction of religious values (specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs) as possibly the most proven and reliable source of universal moral guidance.

That said, with regards to this last point, I do still find myself wondering if religion’s effectiveness at providing an unparalleled universal morality and sense of purpose is really due to it being “true”, and therefore the best/only source of that guidance, or merely due to it being the most efficiently persuasive and pervasive. After all, in many ways simply accepting Judaism or Christianity seems like the most simple and appealing solution to the crisis of purpose and faltering morality.

Refreshingly, Shapiro does address the ever-lingering nature of this uncertainty, admitting that he himself has felt this way. Also, considering the sheer abundance of philosophical musings on this very point that are explored in this book, perhaps it’s reasonable to assume I’ll always be uncertain, and that’s part of the point of free-will, having the freedom to believe and doubt as you wish. Regardless, reading this definitely left me with much more to ponder, as well as even more respect for Ben Shapiro. His advice concerning our moral obligations as citizens, and more importantly as parents, really resonated with me deeply, and I finished the book feeling quite inspired.

I’d definitely recommend others give this book a try. Even if you’re not too keen on Shapiro. I wouldn’t be surprised if this changed your opinion of him, as he’s clearly far more than just a fast-talking rightwing political pundit. In my opinion he’s quickly becoming a thought-leader of immeasurable value to our country.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main thesis of the book is this: “There can be no individual or communal moral purpose without a foundation of divine meaning. There can be no individual capacity or communal capacity without a constant, abiding belief in the nature of our reason. The history of the West is built on the interplay between these two pillars - divine meaning and reason.”

Some who are not religious might dismiss the book entirely and argue that reason alone is sufficient for a good and happy society. To me, whether or not we need “divine purpose” depends entirely on what you mean by that expression. Are we doomed if we don’t convert to the same orthodoxy? Surely not. But we might be destined for failure if we can’t leave open the possibility of a discoverable moral order embedded within reality. We might need to be humble about what we don’t know concerning the nature of reality, for example, why there should be something rather than nothing, or what consciousness is. We might need to embrace the idea that believing something means acting it out, and that we are better off acting as if there is a moral order to the universe that we did not (and in fact could not) create ourselves.

What is really frightening about our society today is that some are actually taking a pickaxe to reason. This seems unimaginable - because without reason how can you function? - and yet it is happening. College professors argue that science and logic are merely the tools of oppression and serve no legitimate purpose in human affairs. I can understand the pickaxe some have taken to religion, usually in the name of reason, but trying to uproot reason itself? This is freaky.



Summary of Big Ideas:

+ Freedom is built upon two ideas in tension with one another. Removing either one collapses the bridge built between the two. We are losing Western civilization because we have spent generations undermining these two deepest sources of our own happiness: divine meaning and reason
1. God created every human in his image (Jerusalem - divine meaning)
2. Human beings are capable of investigating and exploring God’s world (Athens - reason)


+ Four elements are required for a good and happy society.
1. Individual moral purpose
2. Communal moral purpose
3. Individual capacity
4. Communal capacity


+ America was founded on the twin principles of divine purpose and reason with the aim of promoting individual and communal moral purpose as well as individual and communal capacity
- “The founding philosophy [of America] acknowledges the possibility of individual purpose. That purpose isn’t to be supplied by a government, or by molding individual citizens to the service of the polis. That purpose is supplied by a Judeo-Christian tradition of meaning and value and a Greek tradition of reason”


+ There is both a moral and a logical order to the universe. Humans cannot alter these fundamental realities, we can only align ourselves to these orders or experience the peril that ensues from misalignment or from trying to establish new orders on our own, from scratch
- “If it were beneficial to us to kill babies and eat them, that would not make it moral. If it were beneficial for us to calculate that 2+2=5, it would not make it true. We care about both the moral and the true, and that requires a baseline assumption that we can discover the moral and the true”


+ There are some key differences between Judaism and Christianity, although they share the same fundamental belief that all human life is sacred and that we are created in God’s image
- “Judaism rebuked the notion of a corporeal God in ringing fashion. Judaism is anti-materialism. It specifically rejects the idea that what we can see is all there is, or that the spiritual must be made physically manifest”
- “In making faith paramount, Christianity demoted the role of Greek reason in the life of human beings. Despite Christianity’s vision of God as the logos - the logic lying behind all of the universe - Christianity conflated that logos with the person of Jesus”


+ History reveals that scientific progress was pushed forth by religious people because they had faith in reason as a means of understanding God’s order in the universe
- “The age of scientific progress didn’t begin with the Enlightenment, it began in the monasteries of Europe”


+ No shocker here: FDR’s political philosophy is among the worst America has ever produced; he is perhaps the greatest enemy of freedom our country has ever known (my editorial summary, not Ben’s)
- “Ignoring the injunction by economically laissez-faire thinkers that no set of individuals can know more than the entire market at large, FDR his cadre of ‘geniuses’ lengthened the Great Depression by nearly a decade by manipulating the currency, setting wages and prices, and bullying those who objected into silence. As Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian of UCLA concluded, ‘the economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.’ Those misguided policies included FDR setting the price of gold based on his lucky number. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau wrote in his diary, ‘If anybody ever knew how we really set the gold price - through a combination of lucky numbers, etc. - I think they would be frightened.’ Ironically, as Cole points out, ‘The fact that the depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and lawmakers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes’”


+ Freud’s ideas were also terrible
- “Freud was a charlatan - a phenomenal publicist but a devastatingly terrible practicing psychologist. He was a quack who routinely prescribed measures damaging to patients, then wrote fictional papers bragging about his phenomenal results. In one 1896 lecture, he claimed that by uncovering childhood sexual trauma, he had healed some 18 patients. He later admitted he hadn’t cured anyone. Freud himself stated, ‘I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker; I am, by temperament, nothing but a conquistador, an adventurer’”


+ Self-esteem from thin air is a terrible way to attempt creating happiness. The Left has used self-esteem as a means for destroying the pillars of Western civilization
- “It turns out not that self-esteem makes people more high-achieving, but that more high-achieving people tend to have higher self-esteem, thanks to their achievements.” The true effect of the self-esteem movement “wasn't to create generations of more fulfilled human beings, it was to create generations of more self-obsessed human beings.”
- “Where children had once learned from Pinocchio to ‘always let your conscience be your guide,’ now they were taught by Frozen, ‘no right, no wrong, no rules for me, I'm free, let it go.’”
- “By focusing on self-esteem, the new Left could kill three birds with one stone. They could overturn reliance on Judeo-Christian religion, Greek teleology, and Capitalism [because these three] all have something in common: none of them cares particularly much about ‘your bliss.’ Religion suggests that your self-realization lies in consonance with God, and that any attempt to placate your ego through pursuit of personally defined happiness is bound to fail. Religion suggests that ‘your bliss’ does not exist, only God’s bliss does. Greek teleology is utterly unconcerned with your personal definition of self-realization. The only thing that counts is whether you are acting virtuously in accordance with right reason. And Capitalism cares far less about how you are feeling than about your ability to create products and services someone else wants”


+ Don’t tear down a wall before you know why the wall was built


+ So, what do we teach our children?
1. Your life has purpose
a. Life is a struggle but is guided by a higher meaning
b. Defend the rights of the individual and the preciousness of individual lives
c. Act with virtues including justice and mercy
d. Restore the foundations of your civilization and build new and more beautiful structures atop those foundations
e. What you do matters
2. You can do it
a. You have freedom to choose your path
b. This is the freest civilization in the history of mankind, make the most of it
c. You are not a victim
d. You are responsible for your actions
e. Look to your own house before blaming the society that bore you
f. If society is violating individual rights, it is your duty to work to change that
g. You are made in the image of God, bound to the earth but with a soul that dreams of the eternal
3. Your civilization is unique
a. Most human beings throughout time have experienced more pure pain in their first few years than you will likely experience in your whole life
b. You did not create your freedoms or your definition of virtue, nor did they arise in a vacuum; learn your history
c. Be grateful for your roots and defend those roots
4. We are all brothers and sisters
a. Our common cause is a civilization replete with purpose, both communal and individual
b. We must share the same definition of liberty when it comes to politics and the same definition of virtue when it comes to creating and maintaining social capital




Potent Quotables:

"The consideration that human happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected, will always continue to prompt me to promote the progress of the former, by inculcating the practice of the latter." George Washington, Letter to The Protestant Episcopal Church, 1789

We humans cannot completely understand God... The human notion of good and evil doesn’t mirror the divine notions of good and evil. But God does have a standard, even if we can’t fully understand it.

Material human progress in the absence of spiritual fulfillment isn’t enough. People need meaning.

The new scientific Athenians will have to make common cause with the devotees of Jerusalem, rather than making war on them. The same holds true in reverse.

It is our job to reconnect with both the word of God and with the philosophy of reason and individual liberty - two ideas that are, after all, inextricably intertwined.

When we accept our past, when we learn the lessons [our ancestors] teach us, when we recognize their wisdom, even as we develop our own, we become a link in the chain of history.

It is our job to carry on the tradition. It is our job to push the task forward… We will choose life.

[MJD · Rating 5 out of 5]

For those interested in exploring the marriage of Jewish and Greek thought further I would highly recommend the book A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy by Isaac Husik.

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certainly not what I expected. Love him, hate him or love to hate him, Ben is certainly a figure that regardless where you stand, you have to give him credit, one of the most
nimble people to debate. His quick witted and thoughtful responses are interesting to watch weather you agree or not. This is the Spairo I was expecting to read. Instead I got a decent book about Judeo-Christian society and its norms. Again not what I expected.

I applaud Shapiro on his faith and the decisions he makes regarding said faith. I can certainly appreciate them. I disagree with some of his beliefs but that does not take away from his execution
of his faith. For all of you anti-Trumpers, that love to hate him, I will have you know that he is NOT a shil for Trump. He slams him consistently when it makes sense.

[Beda · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.0 Stars Given its author, you would think this book would be about politics.

It’s not.

Or more accurately, it’s not much about politics.

Instead, it is an exploration of how the our country came to be founded based on a combination of Judeo-Christian values and philosophy (What he refers to as Jerusalem and Athens) and how losing sight of those values has been to our extreme detriment…and is a large contributor to our political polarization.

I came into this book very familiar with the history of Judeo-Christian values. I am well versed on the history of the Bible, Church history (Catholicism) and the history and beliefs of Judaism.

I am not as well versed in philosophy. Sure, I’ve read a little Plato. A little Hume. A little Rousseau. A little Locke. But not nearly on the level used in this book. And Ben discusses the thinking of many philosophers; not just these! So at times I was a little stretched by the discussion.

But the fact remains that in order to feel good about themselves and achieve fulfillment, people need purpose. And casting the existence of God out of the mix leads to a lack of purpose and ultimately, to a less fulfilling life.

People try to fill this gap with many things, but the dissatisfaction continues. And some conclude that their lack of fulfillment relates the American culture and/or their status within that culture, when it is not the governments job to make you happy. The government is merely charged with maintaining your right to pursue happiness. It is not charged with providing it. And how you go about pursuing that happiness has much to do with whether or not you end up achieving it.

(This is where it gets a bit political -about 3/4 of the way into the book)

Liberalism has eschewed much in the way of judeo-Christien values. And finding purpose then becomes harder. And often is even regarded as unimportant. But it is important. And so
I guess that the message of the book is to consider your relationship to religion and to finding real, meaningful purpose. By getting back to our original common vision as Americans. And our original judeo-Christian core values and use of reason in our pursuit of happiness.

I like books that make me think and that lead me to want to learn more. I’m still thinking about this book. And having recently retired and am thusly struggling with finding a real sense of purpose in my new iteration, I want to do what I can to make my life better and the lives of other Americans better. Will returning to our philosophical roots, our common vision, and a greater regard for religion make America a better place? Will it stop our slide into nothing but a big yelling match, 24/7/365? Will it help us avoid a complete collapse? I don’t know. But I’m willing to try because we can’t go on like we are. We are destroying ourselves. And we need to find a way to stop.

[Kendall Davis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Shapiro's narrative survey of the history of Western thought is interesting and at points well-done. However I think that his oversimplifications and un-argued assumptions mean that he fails to demonstrate his thesis in the way that he desires.

Shapiro's treatment of "Athens" and "Jerusalem" are at best oversimplifications. In particular, his analysis of the Hebrew Bible and the emergence of Christianity were poor. To argue that Christianity is fundamentally an attempt to marry Greek philosophy with Jewish morality is outdated and not supportable by the actual data. His treatment of the message of the Hebrew Bible and Christianity make it far too amenable to the Western status quo. Christianity in the first-century especially was a politically de-stabilizing force, for example.

When Shapiro gets to the late enlightenment he shifts too easily into a narrative of decline and I think fails to give credit to the legitimate criticisms that postmodernism has levelled against the modernist project.

Finally, Shapiro's uncritical praise of the West and of the American form of government was usually more asserted than argued, or it was based on results-based argumentation. In arguing that the West is the best, he fails to discuss what this means then for non-Western civilizations.

[Camilla · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I actually read this book through twice because some of the philosophical concepts were too difficult for me to understand with just one run-through. I've said before that Ben's books aren't exactly enjoyable because he covers things that are hard to hear, but it is always enlightening to pick up one of his books. This books steered clear of politics for the most part except inasmuch as political policy was formed by the trending philosophical ideology of the time. It was part an exploration of religion and moral philosophy through the ages, juxtaposed with European, Greek, and American history, culminating in current American ideology and an explanation for how our modern politics have been shaped by all the history preceding it. It's certainly a thought-provoking book and it raises an important question of where America is going to go if we refuse to return to our Judeo-Christian roots.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

It just didn’t blow me out of the water. Everything he says is true. But it felt almost too short. Too simple.

Looking at this with my theological cap on, I have two complaints. One, I disagree with his interpretation of the Abraham sacrificing Isaac story. Two, looking at it from a Law & Gospel lens, the whole thing is only law. It’s about constantly striving toward a moral purpose.

[Gopal Sadagopal · Rating 1 out of 5]

He states every civilization that did not follow Judeo Christian axis has become dust; I guess China, Japan and India are nothing! And that every good moral leader became that way only because of being a Judeo Christian - I guess Gandhi and Buddha must be nobodies!

I was hoping to learn a conservative point of view; in Ben Shapiro's view only way to live is to follow Moses, Jesus and the bible. Anything else is wrong.I think he is shaming conservatives with his narrow mindedness.

[Kevin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book for me was a waste of time. Majority plays out like a high school level philosophy course. I don't think his arguments are very solid. Would kind of like my time back I could have been reading something else.