twenty yawns Reviews & Opinions
Submit twenty yawns review or read customer reviews:
100 Reviews Found
Watch twenty yawns video reviews and related movies:
See Twenty Yawns on youtube.
See 5 Minute Bed Time Story - TWENTY YAWNS on youtube.
See Audio Books for Kids 📚 TWENTY YAWNS on youtube.
See Twenty Yawns on youtube.
See Twenty Yawns GRA16 on youtube.
See Twenty Yawns by Jane Smiley and Lauren Castillo on youtube.
See Twenty Yawns on youtube.
See Everyone is Yawning by Anita Bijsterbosch on youtube.
Scroll down to see all opinions ↓
My five year old small girl and I sat down to read my fresh book, _Twenty Yawns. After reading a couple of pages, she started to yawn. By the end of the third page, I was yawning too. About that time, her brother (teen) walked into our family room and asked what we were doing . I said,"We are reading a book, Twenty Yawns. Why don't you join us?" He looked at us like we were crazy, but he listened too and soon started to seemed we all were reading and yawning. I know, it's contagious! We read to the end, getting sleepier and sleepier. I closed the book, and my five year old looked up at me, still yawning said, "Let's do it again." I said, "we will have to search a soft zone to take a nap if we test it again." With all of us still yawning,we decided to place the book away for now and do it again soon.
Lucy has a unbelievable day at the beach with her parents. She digs in the sand, plays in the waves, and walks all the method to the end of the beach with her mom and dad. By the end of a day filled with sand castles, kites, and rolling down the dunes, everyone is ready for an early bedtime. When her mother falls asleep in the middle of reading her a bedtime story, Lucy decides that she needs her teddy bear. After she gets her bear (Molasses), and all her other animals tucked in, she finally gives one latest yawn and falls ere is so much to have fun about this book. The cultural diversity of the family is welcome, especially in the current push for more inclusion in media of all sorts. It is nice to see a family enjoying each other and their day together. The illustrations capture the warm golds and browns of the sand and the cool blue of the water. Castillo shows the long walk down the beach by having the family appear several times along the length of the sand. In each appearance they are doing something various - watching Lucy run after a seagull, helping her fly a kite, swinging her between them as they keep her hands. It is simple to see why they are all yawning as they head back home. The attractive twilight sky with the silhouettes of palm trees will have readers longing for their own trip to the beach. There are unbelievable vocabulary words such as horizon, veil, and mysterious. And I love the small info like Lucy putting her pajamas on inside out because she is so tired.Whether you have beach memories of your own family trip(s), Twenty Yawns is a unbelievable bedtime story. Younger kids will have fun counting all the yawns throughout the book or helping out with the sound effects. Those who are reading independently will have fun the humor of parents falling asleep while the kid is wide awake, or the idea that a teddy bear looks especially tired. A cozy method to end the day for everyone.
Jane Smiley, the well-known Iowa-educated author who has written award-winning novels, has now written her first children's picture book. When our kids were young, I loved books that were excellent for bedtime because reading was part of our nighttime ritual. I typically read the same books with a few fresh ones thrown in from time to time. But part of the ritual was reading stories that got the children ready for quiet time and sleeping. TWENTY YAWNS would have easily become one of our ter a fun family day on the beach, Lucy is being place to bed by her mom. Lucy and her mom fall asleep to the book her mom is reading. Later in the evening, Lucy wakes up to a dark room and a quiet house. As she explores and gathers up her stuffed animal mates to hold her company in bed, she starts to obtain sleepy again. Reading this at bedtime and mimicking all the yawns in the story is guaranteed to obtain your small one off to stillo has made attractive illustrations of the family on the beach and a gorgeous sunset to close out their day. Once in Lucy's home, the more muted photos present that we are preparing for bedtime. The adorable expressions on Lucy's stuffed animals give each of them a personality and your kid will wish to go and gather up their stuffed animals for bedtime.Even though I read this as an eBook, I still found it enjoyable. The text, in the format of an eBook, is highlighted by a box when it is the next to read. This will support even your earliest readers to follow along on the pages while you read.Jane Smiley may have a found a method to grow her audience as a children's book author and I certainly think hope she continues writing for all her fans, fresh and old.
Telling a kids that the pictures on the wall are looking back at them is just a poor idea...especially at bedtime! Oh my gosh, I hoped this would be a amazing bedtime story based on the reviews, but my son got very anxious as soon as I read the part about everyone in the house is asleep EXCEPT everything around Lucy is looking back at her! OH!!! I knew the second I read that, that a fresh fear had just been born in my son's mind. I had to reassure him that that doesn't happen and isn't true & continue to have to do so, since the idea was planted there. I would not recommend this to any child! This is just my opinion..which is what a review is supposed to be!
This is primarily a picture book. The story itself is very short. There are 16 page swipes and it's over. The story is cute and very relatable to small children (under 5 yrs), both girls and boys. The story illustrates the fun of a day at the beach, followed by the need to have all one's mates (stuffed animals) snuggled in bed at bedtime. The illustrations are very well-done and perfectly match the e size of the font cannot be adjusted in this book. It is not text-to-speech compatible. However, you can double tap on the printed words which makes them pop-out at a larger size. From then on, your small one can swipe the screen to move from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page; it's clever and small children will like bedtime stories go, this is an perfect wind-down story which results in everyone actually going... to.... sleep!
I read 24 Hours as my morning & evening meditation portion of my 'Quiet Time.' It speaks to the alcoholic in me & it speaks to my spiritual needs. I search comfort, growth and reminders of my recovery course. It has been an integral part of my recovery for 11 years now.
This application is amazing for everyday reflections. It has a bug in that it will hold the alarm icon always showing in the Android device status bar at the top of the Android device screen. The only method to remove this annoying icon is to force a stop on the app. I would ask the application author to add an option to enable / disable the alarm icon. As it currently is, I cannot tell if I've set a wake up alarm for myself.
I don't know but I've been sober for a small over 6 years and I don't create meetings as much as I'd like to. If it wasn't for this book [app] and other AA literature my days would be much more difficult. Thank you AA book publishers and application people. 😀
I am dissapointed, this series has been going for a long time, enough is enough now, I have never given Hannah's books such a low rating, but it is getting frustating and the books obtain shorter, I pay $3.41 at Amazon and then it gets converted to South African Rand, as you can imagen with all 25 books that I have purchased, it has cost me a lot of cash so far, I have fun the whole story line, Hannah is a grear writer, but is too long drawn out now, can we please end it now with a amazing HEA.
I can't believe I'm still reading this series! I had bought the first 5 books before I got Kindle unlimited. Now, 25 friggin' books (chapters, actually) later, there is still no end in site. Please, beautiful please, finish this story already!!! Will there be a HEA or not? In the words of my daughter "Ughh"!
I love love love Hannah's books. I do want they were a bit longer and that Charlotte and Noahs story would be wrapped up, 26 books is a lot, but regardless I love all the books. This book wraps up book 24, but has another awesome cliffhanger.
I honestly don't know what to say that I haven't already said. I stopped reading this series at around article 17. Small articles each with its own frustrating cliffhangers until the next article comes out two months later. I will not read anything by this author unless it is a complete series. Do us all a favor, [email protected]#$%! and bundle the entire set up for $0.99
Please, someone, anyone, save me from this book series!!! This is self-torture! It took me about 30 mins to read this book (I fell asleep lol). Thank goodness it was free with my kindle unlimited account! Same old story as the latest books. Noah is as demanding and secretive as ever. Charlotte is as naive and stubborn as ever. It answered one question from book 25, but ended with about 5 fresh questions. I really feel sorry for the people that actually paid cash for this book. I'm vested in this series now that I'm 26 books in, but only bc it is free for me. Here's the thing...the series is interesting, but the author is being cruel and petty to hold stringing readers along for $2.99 for 20 mins of reading.
I love this author, however the latest 3 or 4 books have been shorter & shorter. Created no true advancement to the story and just felt like you waited for beautiful much nothing ..but the author had to throw in the pregnancy cliffhanger or neither I nor judging from reviews would anyone go on to the next book. The first books I was so involved with the characters and it took time to read each book, though they weren't novel length. This book took me less than 15 mins to read, and like other reviewers , if I wan't part of Kindle Unlimited, I would be more than diappointed and I'd wish my cash back! I hate to say it but after being a long time fab of this author I am losing faith.
Used to love this series, but it now reallu has to end, I finished this book in no time, DON'T KNOW WHY I AM STILL BUYING IT!!!!!, please can this streched out series now come to an end, Charlotte always gets the short end of the stick and Noah rules, this is actually now becoming predictable Hannah please have mercy on your followers,
This book- would cost about $72,00 so far waiting for all these 20-minute chapters... Utterly Ridiculous... Hannah Ford I stopped reading your book at about Chapter 15. You are writing chapters- not books. Amazing for you- Horrible for us.
Read book 26 in no time and yet, another cliffhanger. The only thing that will create me truly satisfied right now, is that Clementine will eliminated PERMANATLY from this series. Love to hate a hero like her.....Come on now, finish this up with a really unbelievable HEA PLEASE. Your dedicated readers need this to end.
Are u friggin' kidding me!!! This is really getting to be too much! These are chapters, not books. So glad I have Kindle unlimited, otherwise I would be royally @#$%ed right now! I can't believe this is being dragged on!
I don't know how a lot of people I've recommended Mr. Snyder's Bloodlands to, but this ridiculous tract sends me back to that book to figure out how I could have been so wrong about Snyder wrote this book in an hysterical frenzy following the totally unacceptable (to Snyder) effect of a duly conducted democratic election. Mr. Snyder has come up with twenty "lessons" from the Twentieth Century to teach us . . . what? Mr. Snyder seems uncertain whether the Fascists/Communists have already taken over America (he questions whether there will be Congressional elections in 2018) and whether we merely have to be on our guard.I would like to think that no matter how much someone hates President Trump, they would search the lack of intelligence behind this diatribe obvious, but the number of positive reviews of this pamphlet truly makes me worry about the future of this country. Snyder's Twenty Lessons range from the obvious (Be Wary of Paramilitaries - but even here he has blinders on: he decries the presence of security guards at Trump rallies, but never mentions the "Antifa," the shadowy group dedicated to violence and the disruption of peaceful parades and city hall meetings), the lessons so ambiguous as to be useless (Do Not Obey in Advance - does this mean that when FDR declared battle on Nazi Germany, a amazing citizen should have waited until the battle was won?) and the outright loopy ("Make Eye Contact and Little Talk" - don't bother reading his explanation; it's still loopy, not to mention startlingly ignorant about how life in dictatorships is lived).This work is also intellectually and morally sloppy. He makes much of Yale Professor Stanley Milgram's popular experiment supposedly proving that up to 91% of all try topics were willing to inflict a fatal dose of electric shock to innocent people if they were ordered to do so. But ever since Professor Gina Perry's devastating study of the Milgram Experiment, showing that Milgram manipulated the results of his study to a level of academic fraud - no one takes Milgram seriously. Yet here is Snyder, citing Milgram as fact, without even a Barry Bonds e most disappointing aspect of this book is Mr. Snyder's ignorance of the topic on which he is an expert and of the country in which he lives. I studied the rise of Fascism under Stanley Payne, one of the world's leading expert who forgot more about tyranny than some people I could name will ever learn (and Prof. Payne had a memory like a steel trap). Two lessons of tyranny that Payne would consider essential obtain no mention from Snyder at is the necessity of tyranny to define as heretical beliefs and opinions which are contrary to the party line. We have an ideologically biased media which have embarked on a neo-McCarthyist campaign to undermine an elected President (and if you think that they are inspired by journalistic standards or patriotism, just compare the column zone devoted to Hilary Clinton allowing Russia to acquire 25% of America's uranium supply; forget the $145MM donation to the Clinton Foundation, why would anyone give a country like Russia a quarter of our nuclear material?). We have students attacking professors at elite universities for the crime of allowing mainstream conservatives to speak. We have professors requested "muscle" to silence student journalists just doing their job. Then there is Snyder's apparent comfort with the paramilitary Antifa group, which likes to bash old men to the ground for the crime of wearing a red nservatism is a rich intellectual tradition full of competing ideologies ranging from libertarianism to social conservatives to "big stick" nationalism to compassionate conservatism and a lot of more. Compared to the lockstep left, it is a wonder that the right can agree on anything. But that is how democratic ideologies should e other aspect of fascism is the control of the economy with fascists opting for control of privately owned corporations controlled by central government while Communists choose to own property outright. In either case, the purpose is not to make a better world, but to make a system of sticks and carrots to wield control over people. Snyder's failure to even mention this aspect of tyranny speaks volumes. In fact, one could create the case that the election of Donald Trump was the American electorate's attempt to fend off can see how the threat to democracy from the left is much stronger than from the right just by looking at Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act was passed by a Congress which behaved more like a Politburo or Reichstag than a democratic legislature: it was written by an insurance company and assed without allowing Congress to know what was in it. Then it was shoved through by back channel maneuvers instead of the normal legislative process. Then, despite winning election largely on the promise to replace Obamacare, the Republicans have problem agreeing on the details. This isn't a failure. It is democracy.Of all the attacks on free speech, the most disturbing acts of tyranny - not just because it was happened at Mr. Snyder's own university, Yale, once one of the world's leading academic institutions, but because it was sanctioned by the leadership of the university - was the forced resignation of Erika Christakis, a Yale lecturer, and her husband from the university because she dared to suggest that censoring Halloween costumes was inappropriate for such an august institution. As it happens, Dr. Christakis is a noted kid psychologist whose studies have led her to conclude that kids do not attain intellectual and moral maturity without being exposed to offensive material. Evidently, intellectual and moral maturity is not on the curriculum at Old ars from now, this pamphlet will only be referenced as an exhibit to the current madness of the entrenched establishment, an establishment so blinded by its own comforts that it is oblivious to the need for reform. Whether that reform will come from Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or someone else capable of appealing to the masses hardly matters. Reform will come because of the unwillingness of people like Timothy Snyder to see any challenge to the status quo as anything but a sinister plot.
[Pre-post-script: And, of course, since my review is almost alone in dissenting from the five star ratings being handed out by the herd of open-minds and lovers of diversity and tolerance, my review is picking up negative votes, which sort of proves the point of my review. Thanks for the confirmation. I am surprised that I am not getting complaints about being triggered and accusations of being a racist, homophobic, e lessons we learn from history about not excluding others and being begin to various ideas are legion.]I purchased this expecting a thoughtful discussion about the lessons that an academic can draw from 20th-century totalitarianism. I was hopeful about some insight and depth from the author of Bloodlands, which did a really amazing job of bracketing Nazism and Communism into a coherent is is not that book. To spare others from the shock of this discovery, allow me share that author Timothy Snyder's central thesis is that the current Republican President is Literally Hitler. Of course, this should probably not come as a surprise. Every Republican president is Literally Hitler during their tenure, and then they are rehabilitated as the Model of Bipartisanship to be used versus the next Current Republican President who is Literally Hitler. George Bush is now in the middle of rehabilitation as the Model of Bipartisanship, but there are those of us who remember that not so long ago he was "[email protected]#$%ler."I expected better.I wanted to give Snyder some credit for some his observations. Some of his points about tyranny are classic and memorable.Unfortunately, I have to wonder, where was he for the latest eight years? During the latest eight years, a lot of people of faith have felt that they were under the heels of a tyranny that threatened to divide them from the rest of America and create them give up their freedom of conscience in order to avoid governmental oppression. The 2012 presidential campaign began, allow us remember, with the perennial Democrat shill George Stephanopolous asking an off-the-wall question about contraception. Beautiful soon, we saw a presidential campaign largely framed around the idea that Catholics were UnAmerican dissenters who irrationally refused to pay for contraception. The Small Sisters of the Not good were needed to toss a pinch of incense to appease abortion lest they face draconian penalties that would end their historic mission of caring for the poor. Likewise, we saw the government assume direct control over a substantial part of the economy with the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act, which carried an unprecedented intrusion into private life and private decision-making by requiring that Americans divert upwards of 20% of their income into the purchase of health insurance for the enrichment of insurance though any of this could be described quite easily as "fascist", we heard nothing from wise, the latest eight years have seen an unprecedented normalization of hostility to free-speech, as colleges, inter alia, instituted speech codes and rules versus triggering. We have seen college students assault and intimidate people who didn't adhere to the progressive line.But, again, nothing from Snyder.During the latest presidential campaign, we saw numerous videos of the loser's side attacking, hitting, punching, throwing things at, and assaulting those on the president's side. We've seen riots in the aftermath of an election an attempt to obtain Electors to violate their might have seen in this the photo of Brownshirts and the destruction of democracy by ignoring the spirit of the law, but, again, nothing from milarly, we remember that under the former president, the IRS was used in an unprecedented method to harass and target conservatives. One might view this as an unhealthy fascist tendency.But, again, crickets from is an interesting feature of Snyder's slim book - which is easily read in a single sitting - that it is so conservative. For example, Snyder gives the very amazing tip that "institutions should be defended." Quite right, but message this from his book:"It is institutions that support us to preserve decency. They need our support as well. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you create them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about—a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union—and take its side."That is amazing advice, but I was amused at what his tip omitted. My amusement stemmed from my extensive reading into the history of the Nazi Kirchenkampfe. Snyder omits "churches." Obviously, the church has been a major institution in the resistance versus totalitarianism, although Snyder seems to omit this point. In a later section, he manages explains how Polish workers allied with atheist scholars to bring down Polish Communism without mentioning John Paul II or the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church gets one reference here when Snyder observes:"The one example of successful resistance to communism was the Solidarity labor movement in Poland in 1980–81: a coalition of workers and professionals, elements of the Roman Catholic Church, and secular groups.""Elements." As if the Primate of Poland, the Bishops of Poland and the Pope were just "elements." And this is a history professor?I have to wonder about this. Is it just the case that a Yale professor lives in such a secular bubble that he edits the data to form his arguments? Or is it the case, that he wanted to stay away from the tyranny of the prior eight years? Or is he simply an urban elite entirely out of touch with the country that voted for the president? I found this to be a not very edifying example of , Snyder is strangely quiet about one kind of institution, but he is very conservative in his demand that everyone pay proper deference to the press and help it with cash and loyalty.And here again one wonders where Snyder has been for the latest sixteen years. It has come to the point where everyone knows that the mainstream press is an arm of one political party, which isn't that of the current president. Even Communist China has pointed out that media was biased in favor the loser. The press has an approval rating lower than that of a cold sore because people have seen the press blatantly misrepresent facts. The time is long gone when the press can't be fact-checked in true time, and stories that were run during the prior administration can't be found by a easy internet find and set versus current stories to present the slanting and bias of press coverage.On the other hand, the most independent and professional reporting is often found among amateur bloggers who have true experience, and, while they may have a bias, they are not pretending that they don'yder would properly have compared the modern mainstream press to the Gleischaltung ver of the press that existed in 1933 Germany if he wanted to create a fair comparison.(Given the revelation through Wiki leaks that there were media members who running their stories past the Clinton campaign, Gleischaltung is not too powerful a word.)Here is another example:"17 Listen for risky words. Be alert to the use of the words extremism and terrorism. Be alive to the fatal notions of emergency and exception. Be mad about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary."How about "racist"? Or homophobe? Or Islamaphobe?Such things do exist, but it seems to me that Snyder is entirely unaware of how "dangerous words" are used by his tribe to stifle speech and tag people as "outcasts."Here is an example where Snyder goes unhinged:"14 Establish a personal life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware on a regular basis. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have private exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. Tyrants seek the hook on which to hang you. Test not to have hooks."This may be amazing advice, but Snyder is injecting poison into the body politic by teaching people that they are presently at risk.Of course, those who are not on the left have known this for awhile. Brandon Eich was fired by Mozilla because of a progressive campaign that was manufactured on the outrage that Eich had dared to participate in politics by donating to one side of a California initiative that was dly, we are at a point where personal citizens are targeted for things they say on Fb and the people who do the targeting - on both sides - justify their mean-spirited actions by saying that their target was a poor person because the person voted this method or that or violated some piety or other.I was disappointed in some rules that Snyder didn't offer. Here are a few:1. Beware of those occasions when someone you like begins to chop away at the spirit of restraint that previously existed. Hitler might not have been able to obtain his Enabling Act if Kurt von Schleicher had not led the method with his own efforts to circumvent the wise, although Democrats cheered, and the media was silent when Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option, it did set a precedent now that the "Fascists" control Congress. Similarly, there was loud cheering for the former president's use of executive decrees, but what precedent did unilaterally changing immigration law set for the fresh president?At different times during the former president's administration, I was place in mind of the risky precedents he was setting, not unlike that of Schleicher.2. Beware of the Coordinated Press. The press has to be truly independent. If it becomes a lapdog for one party, it cannot fulfill its job of being a watchdog. A population that has seen it be a lapdog for eight years will probably not pay it much attention when it continues to serve the interest of the party that is out of ware of Charismatic Leaders who are called the Lightworker and create vapid claims about "Hope and Change" and being able to stop the rise of the oceans.4. Beware of enemies of federalism and advocates of centralizations. Hitler eliminated the federal states and centralized power, such as coordinating political and economic power, such as creating a centralized health insurance yder is histrionic. The former president may not have seemed like an authoritarian, but to those who were place to the choice of religious convictions or penalties, the former president was very authoritarian. Nonetheless, only those on the fever-swamp did not believe that the former president was not going to surrender power to his successor. The current president seems to have an authoritarian personality - some might say Fresh York personality - but his policies tend away from authoritarianism. Eliminating the ACA is a pro-federalist position. Reducing the size of government is anti-authoritarian.Certainly, if the current president oversteps, and even if he doesn't, the media will be there to expose him. Since the media protected the former president and were absolutely in the tank for the loser, it would seem that the election of the current president is a net benefit for the watchdog function of the press.And does any sane person really think that the president will not surrender power to his successor exactly the same method that the former president gave up power?Snyder is doing no one any amazing with this paranoid fantasy.We survived the former president as a democracy.We will survive the current president as a democracy.
Reductio ad absurdum: The Logical Fallacy of Timothy Snyder’sOn Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy SnyderAs someone who finds the past fascinating to no end, especially in regards to totalitarian dictators such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, and as someone who seeks out fresh history books on a regular basis, I was excited to delve into Timothy Snyder’s book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth yder attempts to rely 20 lessons from history that, if utilized by individuals, can support democracy continue to flourish and prevent the U.S government versus the threat of tyranny. He states that modern Americans have not learned the lessons of the past, and that we are not immune from being subjected to a totalitarianism government here in the U.S. When looking at the statement’s critically, its apparent that Snyder’s arguments are undoubtedly a form of Reductio ad absurdum: a form of argument that attempts to disapprove a statement but while trying to prove their notion, it leads to an absurd or impractical connection. I am a firm believer in the necessity of logic when striving to display a point, regardless of your opinion on the U.S President and the U.S Government. This is why I was surprised that an accomplished professor and historian chose to write so illogically about this topic, making it impossible not to recognize his private bias that allowed him to completely ignore primary e most overt utilization of Reductio ad absurdum can be seen when pointing out the different instances in which Snyder constantly relates the current U.S President to Adolf Hitler and the forces of the Nazi regime. In chapter 7, the author compares the S.S, one of the most strong and feared forces in Nazi Germany, to the President’s security service and his behavior during rallies. Knowing that the S.S was responsible for torturing political prisoners, for shooting anyone they deemed to be a threat to the third Reich, and for stripping all minorities from necessities such as food, this comparison is more than far-fetched. In chapter 11, he falsely equates the President’s response to criticism with Hitler’s refusal to even acknowledge criticism and neglects to mention the fact that Hitler’s Nazi regime completely controlled the entirety of the press in the third Reich and would “respond” to any sort of criticism by automatically arresting, jailing, and a lot of times executing political opponents. In chapter 12, he goes as far to connect the feeling of fear the roads of our nation due to the President’s election with the fear that was forced upon the people in the roads of Nazi Germany, where people were constantly terrified of several very disturbing yet frequent occurrences such as: being captured and used by the Nazi scientist’s for experimentation, being forced into ghettos, and being shot down immediately for any form of disobedience towards Nazi ideology and the Nazi yder does not only align the President with Hitler, but he takes a few jabs at the American people and the American system of Government as well. He does so by utilizing reduction ad absurdum more specifically by selectively cherry picking info that he provides. We can see most clearly as we note several unfair comparisons between the mindset of Nazi citizens and the government in the third Reich with the mindset of U.S citizens and the government of the United States of America. The most strikingly flawed comparison is created as the author attempts to draw an accurate connection between what he deems to be the “magical” thinking that occurred during the 2016 election and the delusional thinking that took put in Nazi Germany. He states, “The next mode is magical thinking, or the begin embrace of contradiction. The president’s campaign involved the promises of cutting taxes for everyone, eliminating the national debt, and increasing spending on both social policy and national defense. These promises mutually contradict” (66). First off, the author does not bother to justify his actually statement claiming that the President promised to increase spending on social policy nor does he provide any explanation as to why any of these promises are contradictory. The author then goes on to equate believing these campaign promises to the “magical thinking” that was encouraged in Germany in 1933, where people were told to “abandon yourself to your feelings, and you must always focus on the Führer’s greatness, rather than on the discomfort you are feeling at present” (66-67). There are a lot of things wrong with this. First off, one cannot assume that people who voted for the President believed everything he said. In fact, it would be safer to say that they did not believe everything that he said, because what rational being can actually believe someone 100% percent of the time, especially if that someone is running for office and is working to get votes. Second off, there is simply no comparison between believing campaign promises based on policy and believing that your leader is God and that you must focus on him at all times. Knowing a substantial amount about Nazi Germany, I search it essential to point out that believing ANY politician’s campaign promises, even the really crazy ones, cannot be equated to seriously trusting the teachings of the third Reich, such as: “say to yourselves at every decision which you make, how would the fuehrer decide in my place? In every decision ask yourselves, “is this decision compatible with the national socialist conscience of the German people?” (Shirer 268). It is imperative to note that this type of rhetoric was used to brainwash people so that they would be eager to reject law and instead rely on National Socialist ideology as the authority of principal laws, and thus act on behalf of the movement and not in accordance with rationality. Thus, it is clear that a correlation between any politician’s campaign promise and the teachings of Nazi Germany cannot be taken e author attempts to draw a comparison between the republican dominated congress and senate and the government of the Reichstag by mentioning the Enabling Act, which was passed by the Reichstag that allowed the Nazi’s to fully consolidate their power by gaining control of all institutions within the state. Snyder claims that we are at risk of becoming a ‘single party state’ and completely misrepresents the reality of our system of checks and balances as he claims, “We believe that we have checks and balances, but have rarely faced a situation like the present: when the less famous of the two parties controls every lever of power at the federal level, as well as the majority of statehouses” (Snyder 29). There are a few things wrong with this comparison. First and foremost, any proposed bill does not just go through one party’s fixed system like the Reichstag in Nazi Germany. The Congress and the Senate are separate bodies that are both needed to approve the passing of any law. Moreover, there are both democrats and republicans in congress and senate, and even if one party as a majority, that does not necessarily give one party all the power. One singular party only has the ability to pass bills smoothly if they have a clear, centralized agenda that they all agree upon and can count on all members of the party to vote on these specific terms. Due to the number of people in both the senate and the congress, it is not always the case that as entire party maintains a completely identical view on every bill or policy. This notion is clear when considering the current republican dominated administration’s failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Secondly, the bill must be able to create it through both houses, unlike the Reichstag’s single session that automatically passed the legislation of the Enabling Act. Finally, there are 100 senators that sit in the senate. There are 435 Representatives that sit in the house of representatives. This puts the total of the two houses 535, from two to three various political parties. So tell me then, how can you accurately compare this to vote that was passed the 444 members of a single party in the Reichstag? You l things considered, the central flaw of this book is what it does to its audience when it compares all these elements so illogically. The use of Reductio ad absurdum reasoning results in arguments that are simple to regard as foolish, which makes the entire book as a whole easier to reject. There are a lot of amazing pieces of tip that Snyder offers, such as ‘Stand out. Someone has to’, ‘Be active in organizations, political or not, that express your own view of life’ and my private favorite, ‘First, ideas about change must engage people of different backgrounds who do not agree about everything.’ However, the fact that there are so a lot of unwarranted and frankly insulting assertions overshadows the value of these and other truly perfect encouragements offered by reover, to falsely equate the evils of Nazism along with the atrocities that the movement entailed severely undercuts the seriousness of what the Nazi regime did and the threat that true totalitarian dictators pose as a whole.Overall, this book is an overt exploitation of history that serves only to falsify the show in accordance with the author’s own political preference. As Snyder recommends in chapter 10, “Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.” Indeed it is, and I would recommend that anyone who reads this book understand this notion thoroughly. And more importantly, I would extend my recommendation to the author himself, obliging him to practice what he is preaching.
I'll begin this by that I'm mostly a Libertarian, so I'm not a blind Trump supporter or a Republican. The author desperately tries to compare Trump to Hitler. In one chapter he compared Trump to Hitler because he had a personal security force at one of his rallies and was using them to throw people out. First off, why wouldn't a billionaire (especially one who is running for president) not have his own security? Secondly, maybe he was having protestors removed from rallies because they were being too disruptive and in a lot of cases even assaulting people. He also claims that 78% of everything that Trump said is a lie. Where is he getting number from? Politifact? Because Politifact is owned by a Florida newspaper that endorsed Hillary Clinton and they've caught lying before. I'm sure Politifact is really reliable. Seriously? Is he actually trying to cite Politifact? Would he allow his students cite Wikipedia?Edit. I suppose if I were to write a book based off of memes my liberal mates shared on facebook, it would be like this.
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS: Below please search my two critiques of ON TYRANNY, the first posted on 29 May 2017 and a second posted 20 June 2017 and both found below the following two introductory e quotation--from Polish poet and writer Sanislaw Lec--at the end of the latest paragraph of my 20 June piece is strong in its simplicity and impact. Look for the mainstream media to use Lec's words--without giving credit to the Polish writer--sometime in near future.A quote from G.K. Chesterton--a British poet and philosopher--goes toward explaining why I wrote a second critique of ON TYRANNY, the one posted immediately below. The quote: "The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right." For while President Trump appears to all to be a flawed human being (Who isn't?) and occasionally warrants criticism for his decisions and actions, Timothy Snyder's call for making all things right by, in effect, nullifying the 2016 election by going to the roads seems an irresponsible prodding toward the end of bringing heavy civil unrest. As the history professor must know, this is risky stuff. In this, Snyder is--methinks--menacingly "wrong about what is right."SECOND POSTING -- 20 June 2017Like a short jab in boxing, Timothy Snyder’s short book aims to deliver a knockout punch. On first reading ON TYRANNY, I wondered if this book--since it departs significantly from what I trusted was Snyder’s seeming commitment to academic rigor and intellectual honesty—might have been the product of a late-night encounter between the author and his keyboard abetted by a glass or two of spirits.On reflection, however, I know my offhand explanation was wrongly charitable. ON TYRANNY is no casual meandering; the book is full of purpose, and it is designed to create the “resistance” (page 84) Snyder calls for into a mass movement that lurches from the pages of his book onto America’s roads and into globe THE TRUE BELIEVER, Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, the author observed mass movements (page 119-20) come to existence through the work of three types of men:• First, the MAN OF WORDS who “imperceptibly . . . undermines established institutions . . . and sets the scene for the rise of a mass movement.”• Next, the FANATIC who “hatch[es] . . . an actual movement” onto the streets.• Finally, the PRACTICAL MAN OF ACTION who consolidates, institutionalizes, and pushes the mass movement toward its end yder is the MAN OF WORDS whose role is to undermine Trump and set the scene for the mass movement that will consume Trump’s presidency. This almost certainly is Snyder’s purpose for writing ON TYRANNY. The Yale historian is no longer merely observing history; he is in my opinion now straining to create history.A “mass movement,” cautions Hoffer, “is a ruthless affair,” and the prevailing order must be destroyed. And almost any means that brings a desired end, Saul Alinsky adds in RULES FOR RADICALS, is acceptable (page 29).In a 1 May 2017 critique of ON TYRANNY, a reviewer described Snyder’s writing as “loopy.” Maybe it is. For certainly Snyder’s illogical conclusion that “the less famous of the two parties controls every lever of power at the federal level, as well as the statehouses” suggests the question how the “less popular” party managed to obtain so a lot of of its candidates elected to so a lot of federal- and state-level offices to which the mechanisms of the Electoral College do not apply. Moreover, Snyder’s leap from this unsound statement to the conclusion that the “less popular” party’s candidates’ elections to numerous offices means either that this party “fear[s] democracy or [intends to] weaken it” (page 30) comes from somewhere other than rational thought.Even Snyder’s call for making eye contact and little talk as “the first step toward change” (pages 81-82) stems from well-known radical-Left writings. In RULES FOR RADICALS, Saul Alinsky declared the community organizer could lack any quality except one: “the art of communication.” In Snyder’s world, eye contact and making little talk become tactical weapons aimed to grow the resistance. This is Community Organization en there is Snyder’s pronouncement that the “whole notion of disruption is adolescent” (page 121). Yet he calls for “resistance,” which is disruption by a various name. His rejection of the obvious makes one question Snyder’s thought process in this instance and, by extension, throughout this short yder and his fellow radicals behave as though they are playing the latest seconds of the fourth quarter in their long-planned-out end-game, and Trump stands alone between them and their final goal. For the Left there are no rules other than winning, and with Snyder recasting Trump’s election as the “favorable emergency” (page 110) that calls for and justifies any means to gain desired ends, ON TYRANNY seems aimed to spark the ignition the Resistance needs to take to the roads and violently reshape America to its CROWDS & POWER (1962), Elias Canetti wrote about the dynamics of crowds (mobs) and the use of manufactured conflict toward an end, or sometimes toward no end other than to engorge further the crowd’s power. This manufactured conflict versus President Trump will, if Snyder is successful in moving it to the streets, bring some level of chaos, and chaos creates a vacuum into which radicals from the far Left and reactionaries from the far Right will flow. As Canetti showed in CROWDS & POWER, crowds are organic, they grow by themselves and disorder and extreme disruption often result. Is this Snyder’s called-for resistance? “Nothing is true that does not end on the streets,” Snyder wrote on page 84. If in my studies of totalitarianism I have read CROWDS & POWER, so has Snyder. He knows the danger. Once the resistance goes to the streets, it becomes the crowd that can grow to be the out-of-control animal of which Canetti yder cites Hanna Arendt to help different of his pronouncements. My reading of Arendt’s THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM is various from Snyder’s. I think Arendt would be place off by ON TYRANNY, and search herself suspicious of Snyder’s methods and aims. Arendt knew of disordered society, and would likely oppose Snyder’s call to take to the streets. “Contempt for law,” wrote Arendt, “became characteristic of all movements” (page 312).If Snyder feels confident enough in his professional life to begin this feel-bad book full of illogical assertions and emotional conclusions--all calling for action in the streets, I can only imagine the latitude the professor gives himself to push his politics and private views on students. Moreover, and since Snyder is himself a student of tyranny and totalitarianism, who better to know and use proven strategies to build the “resistance” and bring the hoped-for mass movement?A “mass movement is a ruthless affair” and can be expected to spill blood and bring not good disorder to America’s streets. But just as “no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsibility,”* THE MAN OF WORDS will never accept blame for any hurt brought to people and institutions.* Stanisław Jerzy Lec (6 March 1909 – 7 May 1966), born Baron Stanisław Jerzy de Tusch-Letz, was a Polish aphorist and RST POSTING -- 29 May 2017Since ON TYRANNY is Professor Timothy Snyder’s call to arms versus President Trump, let’s start with ump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally, while his detractors take him literally but not seriously, or so it has been ump is a disruptor. Add to this that he is a unique kind of Fresh York nasty. First, he deployed his special, if caustic, skill set and his Huge Apple brashness to conquer a cabal of politically inbred, self-serving Eastern Seaboard elites; then he used these same tools to conquer the Chosen Kid of the radical Left. It was brutal, it was ugly, and it was as effective as it was ump is the person we want we had been in high school when the clique pranced and pirouetted within their protected and personal two-way looking-glass bubble confidently knowing those on the outside existed only to watch and adore but never to touch the bubble. But Trump did not adore, and he broke the bubble. He attacked it and its effete cast of political Brahmans by trashing long-cherished, system-preserving a young lad growing up in Montana, I once asked a stranger to our little city where he was from. Later, my father quietly took me aside and instructed me that I was being forward, because if the stranger had wanted me to know his business, the stranger would have told me. As a product of that Montana culture, I found Trump painfully hard to watch. Trump is forward. Yet, he is the weapon required to disrupt the established order before it and its real believers destroy America and One-World us into lives of irrelevant essor Snyder’s emotional and political distress bleeds into his writings. That Trump has disrupted Snyder’s known truths and private beliefs for how a excellent globe should unfold is obvious. Even more, the professor has bent the map—the sometimes-deadly act of misinterpreting surrounding geographic and map features to confirm wrong assumptions about where you are and where you are going.While—as a student of and writer on policy, long retired--I do not regret buying and reading ON TYRANNY, I do regret I must now question Professor Snyder’s intellectual courage and honesty. Surely, he knows the tyrannies of the Twentieth Century were the aim of the political Left, not artifacts of the “far right” as he claims in this small book. Or maybe the professor doesn’t know. Maybe he has bent his map to help the Left’s unsupportable claim that Hitler was a man of the political Right--which is not real and, through historical and logical argument, is simple to prove is not true.Disappointingly--for I read and admired BLOOD LANDS--Professor Snyder seems to be one in a package of lone-wolf attackers of a president elected to office to stop precisely what the professor prophesies a Trump presidency will bring. With this book, the professor has become of what he writes, and while the Left is playing a no-holds-barred android game of power politics, the establishment Right (you know them by their lack of deeds) continues its feckless and mal-focused plea for the Left’s approval and acceptance. What the Right doesn’t seem to know about the Left is that the Left knows that in an environment where the rule of law is selective or weak, power is taken, not given. Moreover, the Left—as latest history clearly shows—is working hard and will do whatever is important to take ’s unlikely Trump is the boogieman or the political Right is the movement that will take down America—the Right still believes, perhaps naively, in democratic process and reasoned debate conducted within our constitutional republic toward the end of peacefully and respectfully persuading others to its points of view. The same cannot be said of the Left. If Professor Snyder and his brand of far Left activists are successful in taking down the Trump presidency, the tyranny the professor writes of may well visit itself on America and her people. In Snyder’s world, “nothing is true that does not end on the streets.” (Page 84)
This is a short, fast book to read, perhaps 30-45 mins of your time. And at only $2.99 (on Kindle) you can't afford not to buy it. For those who found his list of 20 points elsewhere on the web for free, don't allow that suffice. The book adds commentary to his list, and it's worth the little r those of you not acquainted with Snyder, he's a historian of Eastern Europe and has written extensively on the turmoil--the killing fields--of Eastern Europe in the 20th century. He knows whereof he speaks.I will offer you a couple of his thoughts from his concluding remarks. In addressing what he terms "the politics of inevitability," he notesUntil recently, we Americans had convinced ourselves that there was nothing in the future but more of the same. The seemingly distant traumas of fascism, Nazism, and communism seemed to be receding into irrelevance. We allowed ourselves to accept the politics of inevitability, the sense that history could move in only one direction: toward liberal democracy. After communism in eastern Europe came to an end in 1989–91, we imbibed the myth of an “end of history.” In doing so, we lowered our defenses, constrained our imagination, and opened the method for precisely the kinds of regimes we told ourselves could never yder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (Kindle Areas 765-769). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.But he then addresses the converse attitude, what he calls "the politics of eternity." About this attitude, he statesIn the politics of eternity, the seduction by a mythicized past prevents us from thinking about possible futures. The habit of dwelling on victimhood dulls the impulse of self-correction. Since the nation is defined by its inherent virtue rather than by its future potential, politics becomes a discussion of amazing and evil rather than a discussion of possible solutions to true problems. Since the crisis is permanent, the sense of emergency is always present; planning for the future seems impossible or even disloyal. How can we even think of reform when the opponent is always at the gate?Id. at 810-815In contrast to both of these attitudes, he locations history (an encomium with which I could not agree more):Both of these positions, inevitability and eternity, are antihistorical. The only thing that stands between them is history itself. History allows us to see patterns and create judgments. It sketches for us the structures within which we can seek freedom. It reveals moments, each one of them different, none entirely unique. To understand one moment is to see the chance of being the cocreator of another. History permits us to be responsible: not for everything, but for something. The Polish poet Czesław Miłosz thought that such a notion of responsibility worked versus loneliness and indifference. History gives us the company of those who have done and suffered more than we at 822-827In his peroration, he exhorts young people especially (although it applies to all of us)One thing is certain: If young people do not start to create history, politicians of eternity and inevitability will destroy it. And to create history, young Americans will have to know is is not the end, but a beginning. “The time is out of joint. O cursed spite,/That ever I was born to set it right!” Thus Hamlet. Yet he concludes: “Nay, come, let’s go together.”Id. at 830-834Buy this book and read it!
Let's be clear: this is a short op-ed repackaged as a 'book'. It took me about 45 mins to read front to back and I couldn't support but feel as though I had been ripped -- there are articles in 'Better Homes and Gardens' that are longer than this pamphlet. If you decide to buy this pamphlet, be prepared to know you're spending cash to pay for something that could have been a blog article. The author probably spent a week writing it and is now raking in the dough because instead of making a blog, he convinced a publisher to shop and sell it as a fore I obtain into the content itself, I wish to preface this by saying I am no fan of Donald Trump, have moderate liberal opinions, and am all too aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a democracy. My educational and professional background is in American , onto the content itself. The main point of the book is that if patriotic citizens don't take an active part in the democratic process (whatever form this method take... from donating to a charity, to running for office, to writing a blog, etc.), democracy can be fragile and easily co-opted by nefarious movements/individuals. Fair enough. Citizens must pay attention an take threats to democracy seriously. OK, amazing rule of thumb there. However: the author uses the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power as his prime example of democracy gone poor when citizens look the other method -- in the author's eyes there is a slippery slope between a functioning democracy and a totalitarian racist state bent on global destruction and if we're not careful, we'll wake up tomorrow morning and end up as the though the author does not identify Donald Trump by name, it is all too obvious what the author is really saying in this pamphlet: Trump is to American democracy America what Hitler was to Germany democracy in the 30s. This thinly veiled thesis is absurd. For those who didn't vote for Trump and are increasingly troubled by Trump's behavior, I don't see how this book is a helpful addition to the discussion. By pivoting to 'look how simple it was for Adolf Hitler to take over Germany due to apathetic citizenry!', the author is using scare strategies meant to fire-up liberals (and thus sell more copies of this pamphlet). This is not helpful and instead adds to the 'us vs them' narrative which, one could argue, is also a poison to democracy.If this was an op-ed published on a liberal blog: great! Interesting ideas. Author uses an extreme example to prove a point. Meal for thought, but nothing more. Again, this is an op-ed blog post masquerading as a serious book. Don't buy into it. Don't be a sheep and do what's expected of you based on your political opinions -- don't buy this book! How's that for irony?
Author Needs to Travel to RussisTimothy Snyder repeatedly refers to Russia as a totaliarin state. He also suggests that Americans aquire passports and travel more. He should follow his own tip and travel to Russia. I spent time in the Soviet Union in 1985 and again in 2015. The transformation that has taken put since Vladimir Putin has been President is truly remarkable. There is thriving entrepreneurial capitalism there that is still tempered by the egalitarian ideals of Leninism. The people are well dressed, the roads are filled with fresh vehicles of all makes, there are well stocked supermarkets, department stores, and specialty shops of all kinds everywhere. The people I met were happy, spoke well of President Putin, and said they voted for him. The arts are thriving. The police I saw were few and far between. They walked unarmed in pairs with nothing on their belts but a little walkie-talkie each, This is in stark contrast to cops here in the US who look like they just stepped out of a distopian film of a dark future with different methods of killing you or paralyzing you or electrocuting you from within their massive bulletproof armor. This book is bs. Don"t buy it or waste your time reading it.
Does Donald Trump tag “the tunnel at the end of the light” — is the United States on the verge of authoritarian rule? We’ve seen this meme on the Web since November 8. In the latest few months, it’s become a larger conversation. But in writing by experts? Not to my November, a piece headlined "Him: his election that November came as a surprise" read like a surprise. Because it sounded like latest history. The rallies. The racism. The conspiracy theories. Only toward the end do you obtain it — the year is 1933, the topic [email protected]#$%!ler.A few weeks later, I was rocked by "20 Lessons from the 20th Century on How to Survive in Trump’s America," a Fb post that had 12,000 “likes” and 15,000 “shares” — such a remarkable response it has been expanded and is now this book.What was especially disturbing was the byline on both pieces. Timothy Snyder is Housum Professor of History at Yale, author of “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin,” which received a dozen awards and has been translated into 33 languages. In 2015, Snyder published “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning,” now available in 24 foreign editions. Never has a subtitle been more accurate — or terrifying.“On Tyranny" may be the most necessary civics book of the year. It’s certainly the most urgent. As Snyder said in a latest interview, “I think things have tightened up very fast; we have at most a year to defend the republic, perhaps less. What happens in the next few weeks is very important.”Overwrought? Possibly. But I had relatives in Germany who, in 1933, felt that related sentiments were overwrought. They “normalized” Hitler. I don’t have those relatives any more. So I called Timothy Snyder..JESSE KORNBLUTH: Until I read “Bloodlands,” I knew almost nothing about what happened between 1930 and 1945 in Eastern Europe and the western Soviet Union, where Hitler and Stalin killed between 14 to 20 million people. In “Black Earth,” there was a new revelation: “Almost all of the Jews killed in the Holocaust lived beyond Germany.” Why were these revelations for me?TIMOTHY SNYDER: We tend to think about history nationally, so we follow the experiences of German Jews, and once you focus on German national history, it’s hard to see others. I started with Jews and asked: Where were they killed?JK: Why was the destruction of state institutions the critical factor in mass murder?TS: Institutions are everything. For Germany to slay Jews, they had to create Jews unconnected to states. In Germany, that was a slow, legal process. So they started elsewhere, in locations where for other reasons they destroyed the state.JK: “Black Earth” suggests that Hitler backed into the Holocaust. He wanted Jews to be sent to Siberia or Madagascar. Why didn’t that happen?TS: Hitler always wanted a globe without Jews. In “Mein Kampf,” he said nature could only be restored by their elimination. He did not know just how this would take place. It was not clear to anyone, even to him, that Germans would shoot millions of Jews face to face. But when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he gained a practical lesson in how mass murder is done.JK: For Hitler, failure to defeat the Soviet Union and conquer Britain had to be caused by “enemies.” How did he come to think that and position himself as infallible?TS: National Socialism fits into the larger Fascist tradition: pay no attention to facts, just follow the leader. Hitler said the Soviet Union would fall in 9 to 12 weeks. When that didn’t happen, he still had to be right, just, as it were, at a higher level. The cause of the conquer had to be the Jews.JK: In some ways, Germany’s issue in the 1930s was about meal shortages. These could have been solved by science — but science was suspect. Goebbels defined the purpose of a battle of extermination as “a huge breakfast, a huge lunch, and a huge dinner.” For German citizens, did the Holocaust really come down to this?TS: It’s not quite that simple, but it’s necessary to understand that the Germans were living in a material world, and even a country as advanced as Germany had problem with its meal supply. Meal was thus a matter of politics. Without a battle to colonize Eastern Europe and, in particular, Ukraine for what Hitler called “Lebensraum,” there would have been no Holocaust.JK: The thesis of “Black Earth” is that the Holocaust is “not only history, but warning.” In “Him” you’re especially scornful of lawyers and judges who submerged their professional ethics “in anunderstanding of the greater good.” Why those people in particular?TS: History doesn’t repeat itself. One person is not another. But the rule of law is a fundamental asset — it precedes democracy, it precedes the free market, everything depends on it. America is a very lawyerly society. Germans also cared a amazing deal about the rule of law. Yet in Germany, lawyers found ways to reverse the normal understanding of law. After that, anything could be done. So it might create sense for us to think about lawyers.JK: In your Fb post, you offer suggestions for amazing citizenship during the Trump presidency. You begin with lessons learned from Nazi Germany: “Do not obey in advance. Defend an institution. Recall professional ethics.” Further down, it gets heavier: “Practice corporeal politics… Create fresh mates and march with them…. Create eye contact and little talk. This is not just polite. It is a method to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will wish to know the psychological landscape of your everyday life.” And then this: “Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die in unfreedom.” That is terrifying. “Die for freedom” — could it come to that here?TS: It comes to that all the time. We’re just not used to it, because the exception is America in the latest few generations. I don’t mean you should be prepared to throw yourself on the first available fire. I’m saying this: If none of us cares, we’ll all lose everything. Those are lessons from Fascism, Nazism but also Communism in the twentieth century. We have spent the latest 25 years forgetting the history that we once thought vital to the preservation of our own institutions, convincing ourselves that our institutions will thrive on their own.JK: In the latest few months, we’ve seen scores of free-lance threats and acts of violence versus Muslims. Do you see that as the precursor of an official assault on institutions?TS: It’s a shot across the bow. Institutions are constantly under attack — they don’t stand up by themselves. What’s fresh in our country is a president who does not see himself as upholding an institution but as a person whose job is to denigrate institutions. We’re about to search out if all our huge American talk about defending freedom is actually true.JK: As a historian, do you believe that restricting freedom and targeting “enemies” begin with an event: the Reichstag fire, for example, or 9/11? If that happens, what’s a useful response?TS: Hitler used the Reichstag fire to suspend rights and declare a state of emergency that lasted for 12 years. When an happening like that happens, It is natural that you experience fear and grief. But you have to understand your feelings can be exploited to undo a political order and resist. The Reichstag fire is a amazing example of that. A not good thing, but compared to Nazi Germany….JK: La Rochefoucauld wrote: “No one can look long at the sun or death.” At the end of 2016, I felt a general lessening of rage, a dull acceptance and dread — and a return to personal concerns. Then came the protests. But commitment may wane again.TS: You can pretend you have a choice. But you don’t have it. What I message is a fresh interest in the 1930s among people in their 20s. We told them that history is over, go to work in finance. We were wrong. It’s crucial now how this generation reacts.JK: Your final chapter addresses the ultimate defenders of decency — “the righteous few.” Who are they?TS: That little minority who behaved heroically during the holocaust when all was black, when all institutions were destroyed. I worked hard in the Jewish sources to search and understand those rescuers. We tend to think we’re all like that. That’s naïve. If government makes institutions go away, people will behave differently and in ways we now search unthinkable. In some future crisis, no doubt a few people will behave well. But we have no idea who they are now. It’s a mistake to count on being rescued. What we have to do is preserve the political order that we have come to take for granted.
I have no doubt “On Tyranny” is a book Tim Snyder wished he didn’t have to write, in the same way, as he reminds us, that Hamlet was fated to “set things right”. No one knows the history of 20th century Germany, eastern Europe, and Russia better than prof. Snyder. He has accomplished immense scholarship in those countries and shared some of it in “Bloodlands”, “Black Earth”, scholarly papers and commentaries over the years. In measured prose, he imbues his history with the existential anguish of its victims and imparts the cold-blooded nature of the perpetrators. He quietly relates how individuals and societies have weaseled out of bearing responsibility. Personal, familial, and cultural tragedies seep into his writing and it has brought me to tears a lot of Snyder knows a lot more about how tyranny takes keep and uses possibility opportunity to impose itself than he can tell in a thousand or ten thousand pages. Reading his work, you can tell that the years of close reading have affected his core. Furthermore, he is very active in the contemporary eastern European culture, where latest years have not been kind to Liberal , suddenly, authoritarian intolerance and anti-democratic forces are openly and aggressively imposing themselves here in the US. Clearly, he is compelled to share cautionary lessons for Enlightenment-loving, Constitution-embracing, and liberal democratic citizens of his own country… and that would be us. We, who are so unprepared to face our threat, who are traumatized and ill-equipped to recognize and react to repression have ask ourselves: “what is to be done, how can we endure this, maintain our self-respect, and resist?”In “On Tyranny”, prof. Snyder has distilled the life lessons of those countless courageous people who faced tyranny and he implies how countless more have shriveled and looked away from the horror they felt coming. This book will aide you to surf your fear and panic well enough to dispassionately lay out how authoritarian politics can modify your behavior and how to be mindful in resisting these changes. Lesson number 1 is about how a person caves into tyranny: “…individuals think ahead what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this method is teaching power what it can do.”Fortunately, the other 19 lessons truly instruct and remind the reader about options to resist letting tyranny dominate your life. I will leave those lessons for you when you read the Snyder’s epilogue offers brilliant insight into the fallacies that predominate in our contemporary culture that brought us to this is is a very serious book and needs to be read a few times and shared with as a lot of people as you can reach. It’s an inexpensive book and I recommend buying several copies and handing them out to people who need to read it. It’s a little investment for your survival as a member of a civilized and compassionate society.
Next time you're at WalMart or any huge box store, look at the far end of the parking lot. Chances are, there are a few motorhomes or campers there, maybe a couple of vans. So what, people have to shop, right? But look again. Was that van there the latest time you were here, too? Slowly it dawns on you that someone is living in the ssica Bruder, a magazine journalist, spent three years researching the growing phenomenon of people, mostly of retirement age, living in their vehicles. While a lot of embrace the Route 66-type freedom, few would have chosen to create it their method of life. They were forced by financial circumstances to give up their homes or apartments and living in a car allows them some shelter, some mobility, and an excuse to claim that they are not actually homeless, just "houseless."Many are itinerant workers, moving to an zone near an Amazon warehouse in the months before Christmas, to create minimum wage packing boxes, then on to sugar beet farms at harvest time to pick produce for minimum uder profiles some of the nomads, tries it out for herself for a while, finds out how and why they do it, and leaves the conclusions up to the reader. It's a fascinating story and shocking. And it scares me more than a small to think that with just a bit of poor luck, it could be me. Or you.