So, I think a lot of people have been curious to see how TPUSA would proceed in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death. Well, TPUSA's biggest annual convention called Amfest actually started a few days ago and I watched the very beginning of it about 30 minutes, which was all I could stomach to be honest with you. Um, it began with a speech by Ben Shapiro and Ben Shapiro's speech at T TPUSA's yearly convention. It was an absolute failure. Truly, it was horrific. And I want to make something very clear. Today's video is not a political analysis. That's not what I'm doing. Similar similarly, Ben's speech did not flop due to any political reasons. It flopped because he relied on coercive control tactics, manipulative maneuvers, and a whole bunch of moral superiority. So today, I'm not going to be analyzing Ben's speech from a political perspective at all. Political topics don't even need to be discussed in today's video. But I'm going to be analyzing it from the point of view of someone who is very familiar and who was raised by a very manipulative, controlling, and personality disordered parent. So I know manipulative tactics, coercive control tactics on a visceral level, on a primal level, very intimately because this is the type of person unfortunately that I was raised by. And Ben Shapiro's speech was a total fail in my opinion because he used intimidation, moral superiority to try to persuade his audience. And I think the audience really felt that. I think that's why it didn't land. And I think he forgot that persuasion does not require you to use intimidation to get your point across. If your message has to rely on fear or moral shaming to land, I actually think it's already failing. So, join me and let's break down how the speech totally failed psychologically and how it relied on manipulation rather than influence and why this topic matters regardless of your politics. So before we even get into the speech, there's an important context that I want to talk about, which is Ben Charlie and why this is weird to begin with. So according to people who were close with Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro was not someone that was nice or kind to Charlie at all. In fact, Ben Shapiro was reportedly jealous of Charlie and treated him poorly. One quote that's been attributed to Charlie about Ben was quote just treat him like noise. End quote. So Charlie also did not respect Ben. And whether or not people agree with Charlie's legacy or his beliefs, I think that context really does matter because it makes Ben Shapiro speaking at a TPUSA event. Um, especially because he was the opening speaker for this event makes it feel very odd, off, feels wrong to me. Let me know if it feels wrong to you, but it feels wrong to me. And I think this also matters because Charlie's leadership style is very or was very very different from Ben Shapiro's. Charlie built TPUSA by engaging with students, inviting them to have debate and conversations and letting people challenge him openly. So having Ben Shapiro open this big event, the organization's biggest event of the year as the first speaker, already signals a shift in the organization from persuasion to control in my opinion. So we're going to watch Ben's speech and break it down. I'm going to start at the three minute mark. And the first control tactic that I'm going to analyze is Ben claiming ownership of the truth. Psychologically, one of the strongest manipulation tactics is claiming exclusive access to truth. If you can do that, the truth very quickly can become weaponized in your favor. Let me give you an example. Here's how it can work. If someone claims that they represent truth or they stand for truth, they're on the side of truth, then disagreeing with them is not just wrong. It now becomes immoral. And that effectively shuts down all critical thinking. It replaces critical thinking with submission. Persuasive leaders say, "Here's my argument. Make up your own mind." Controlling leaders say, "If you disagree, you're dangerous." And as we're about to see in this clip of Ben Shapiro, it's what he does. It's exactly what he does. So, I'm going to make this hopefully full screen. and we're going to watch starting around the 3 minute mark. >> Let me know if you guys can hear. >> Today I want to talk about something even more important. How to discern >> I might have to change the settings. Bear with me. Sorry. >> Those attempting to speak truth from frauds. >> How to discern those attempting to speak truth from frauds and grifters. [cheering] Because something is new. Anformational environment rife with both opportunity and chaos. opportunity because the legacy media gatekeepers are no longer in charge of what we see and what we hear and chaos because an anarchcticformational environment means we actually have to be smart in how we assess the information and arguments that we hear. Why does that matter? Well, because today the conservative movement is in serious danger. It is in d >> I want to say something real quick. He's exploiting people's fear about the conservative movement splitting apart or being discredited or going to zero. Uh so he's setting that stage right there by exploiting people's fear. And keep in mind everybody in this audience including the speakers listening to are dedicated to the conservative movement. That is a huge fear of theirs. >> Danger not just from a left that all too frequently excuses everything up to and including murder. The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty who offer nothing but bile and despair who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism by championing innovation and grievance. These people are frauds and they are grifters and they do not deserve your time. And they are something worse than that. A danger to the only movement capable of stopping the left from wrecking the country wholesale. Okay, so let's pause there for a second. So when Ben states that these people are frauds and grifters, they do not deserve your time. He's positioning himself as a moral authority on truth. He's claiming the ability to tell you who you should believe, who you should support, who you whose ideas you should subscribe to. And he's putting himself on a moral pedestal. At the same time, he's also exploiting the audience's fear of the Republican party or the conservative movement splintering apart. Like I mentioned, why does this psychological tactic fail? Well, independent thinkers don't want to be told what to think. If you have a stubborn or strong willed child, you probably know this instinctively. Independ independent thinkers disengage when they feel managed. When they feel like someone's trying to control them, they disengage. I think Ben might have overlooked this or he might have not realized that this was a playing a part. And he repeatedly uses moral condemnation and moral labeling instead of an actual argument in this speech at least which creates a hierarchy. If you agree with me, you're principled, you're moral. If you disagree with me, you're corrupt. Uh this doesn't persuade anyone. Not really. At least I don't think it does. It pressures people. It shames people, but it doesn't persuade people. And pressure activates resistance, especially in young people. Which is why as Ben continues his speech, he just continues failing. Now, I'm going to fast forward to 7:52 for the next clip that I want to show you guys. [applause] And the people who refuse to condemn Candace's truly vicious attack. Her speaking here are guilty of cowardice. Yes, cowardice. The fact that they have said nothing while Candace has been vomiting all sorts of hideous and conspiratorial nonsense into the public square for years is just as cowardly. I also want to point out he's not discussing any actual relevant topics to our country or the conservative movement. He's talking about one person, somebody that he fired or his management fired off of the Daily Wire. Whether or not you agree with Candace or not, I mean, if you watch my other videos, you can ascertain my opinion on Candace. I'm back and forth with her. Not really a big fan, but that's what he's using his time to open this huge uh conference. Crazy. Second, because we owe you the truth, we owe you the duty to speak out of principle, not personal feeling. It should not matter whether we despise someone or whether we love someone. The question is what they say and what they do and whether those things are morally decent or not. On a political level, do they foster freedom, justice, and prosperity? On a personal level, do they treat others as they would wish to be treated? Personal feeling is not a substitute for moral judgment. To take again the Candace Owen situation as an example. Friendship with public figures who say or do evil things is not an excuse for silence on the matter. >> Okay, let's pause it there. Let's pause it there because there's quite a few things to break down. I want to repeat the quote that he says uh because it is so crazy to me that he actually thought that he could stand up on a stage and say these things and you know be applauded for it. He says quote the people who refuse to condemn Candace's truly vicious attacks and some of them are speaking here are guilty of cowardice. Yes, cowardice. The fact that they have said nothing while Candace has been vomiting all sorts of hideous and conspiratorial nonsense into the public square for years is just as cowardly now. End quote. Now, there are a few things to discuss here because it contains multiple layered psychological control tactics in just a few sentences. It's kind of remarkable actually. And this is important to break down regardless again of what you believe, what you think about Candace Owens. Ben could be criticizing anyone here. It just happens to be Candace Owens. So to start to say that anyone who doesn't condemn Candace Owens is guilty of cowardice, this is a prime example of what is called moral intimidation and moral labeling. Instead of arguing why silence is wrong, Ben assigns a character flaw to anyone who has not publicly complied with his demand. That's coercive. Why does this matter psychologically? Well, when someone frames disagreement or choosing not to participate in condemnation as cowardice, they remove any other legitimate reasons why people might have restraint. There are plenty of reasons why people might not condemn Candace Owens publicly. Because, for example, uncertainty, grief, private disagreement, maybe they're being silenced strategically. Maybe it's simply not their style. Perhaps they are not focused on Candace Owens. But Ben states that people are guilty of cowardice if they fail to do X, Y, or Z. And that is not persuasion. That's forced alignment. That's a classical control move. And furthermore, Ben is also using public shaming here as a tool for compliance. I haven't heard anyone talk about this, but let me explain. Ben is inserting a small but very important phrase in his statement that I just repeated. He says, "The people who refuse to condemn Candace's truly vicious acts, and some of them are speaking here are guilty of cowardice." The phrase I'm referring to is the some of them are speaking here part. Ben does not name names, perhaps intentionally, I'm not sure, but by referencing the other speakers who are in the room listening at this event, he certainly tries to intimidate them and publicly shame them, his peers, people who you would think they have a mutual respect for each other. You would think that they're coming to this event together to try to unite the conservative movement. You would think, but no, he's creating a sense of you know who you are. You know I'm talking about you and everybody else is watching. Now public shaming is a psychological tool that often works because it plays on people's natural fears of exclusion. I mean, we're animals when it comes down to it and we want to belong. We need to belong socially in order to survive. And for the speakers at this event, belonging is important not only for their careers, for their reputations, but also for their ability to provide financially for themselves and their kids, their families. These are very real fears that he's exploiting. And not only does public shaming activate the fear of social exclusion, reputational damage, but and this is an important point I want to drive home, it also exploits the fear of becoming the next target. Becoming the next target. And this really does relate to my life. I'll give you a personal example. So I don't usually cover political or social issues on my channel. I'm just now starting to. I usually talk about something that is a form of child psychological abuse that I went through for 20 years known as parental alienation. So this often happens in a custody battle or a divorce where one parent manipulates their child to reject their other loving parent. Now my mom did this when I was 9 years old. She made me believe horrible things about my dad. false allegations, horror stories that he doesn't love me, that he's narcissistic, that he doesn't have a soul, all these terrible things that caused me to reject my dad, to hate him, to fear him for 20 years. And I typically make videos directly about that. I'm starting to widen my outlook on on things and share other opinions that I have that I can relate back to this. So um in my family for example I was the scapegoat child as well and when you have a scapegoated child I'm relating it back to the Ben Shapiro thing now the child who's scapegoed serves as an example to the other children in the family of what can happen if you don't fall in line. So all four of my younger siblings, they have the example of me, you know, being outcasted from the family, being um t badmouth to everyone at every social event or being looked down upon is lesser than that can happen to you if you don't fall in line. That can happen to you if you mess up. That can happen to you. That's the threat of social exclus exclusion and becoming the next target. This is I'm pointing this out because not only does this public shaming and the fear of social exclusion, exploiting those fears, not only does this play out on the public stage for for instance in this uh conservative group and Ben Shapiro's speech, it also plays out in our families. And those bonds are the most uh intimate, those are the most foundational bonds that we have in life. And so when you have somebody who uses these course of control tactics, it's not limited to the public arena. This is often in your family of origin as well. And if you suspect that you've been through anything like this, I would encourage you to watch some of my other videos because I talk about that a lot. Now, back to the Ben Shapiro speech. This control tactic, the public shaming, also it just fails. It just fails. He's a failure. It fails because while moral intimidation and public shaming might produce silence, it never produces trust. Never. And this language communicates to everybody in the audience and to his peers who are also speaking at this convention. Your role is not to think. It's not it's not to actually think. It's to comply. And the moment the people feel that pressure, their trust collapses. Let's keep going. I'm going to fast forward now to 10:51 and we're going to talk about empathy hijacking, which is something that um actually Charlie Kirk was very against and spoke out against. So, we're going to go to 1051. >> There is only one moral side Kirk's side. I got another one moral side. That is a moral and logical absurdity. There is only one moral side here. Erica Kirk's side. [screaming] [cheering] You know, the side of the widow with two children whose husband was shot live on camera in front of all of us. >> Okay, I can pause it there. I can go ahead and pause it. I mean, he's just it's so blatant to me his manipulation. It you really could break it down sentence by sentence. This video could be 3 hours long, but I'm breaking out what I thought were the most important moments. This is one of the clearest examples of emotional coercion in the entire speech, I think. And the intention behind this tactic is to make critiquing TPUSA feel morally forbidden. What Ben Shapiro is doing here is he is relying on something called moral absolutism, which is the belief that there are are objective moral standards that never change with situation or opinion. And he's using this moral absolutism to try to end any discussion, any questions about TPUSA. He states, quote, there is only one moral side here. End quote. And by declaring that there is only one moral side, Ben is trying to remove all nuance in the conversation, any other moral considerations that might exist, and the possibility of any good faith disagreement or good faith concerns with the organization. Then Ben is trying to conflate empathy with agreement. And this is the part that really irks me. Here's the structure of what he's trying to do. Erica Kirk. She's the widow with the children who experienced violence. And yes, I think everybody who knows about this situation feels bad, feels um compassion for Erica Kirk. I mean, I can't even imagine going through this. And I certainly feel compassion for her. What he's doing though is he's hijacking people's empathy for Erica Kirk in this situation. He's saying Erica Kirk, she's a widow with children who experience violence. Therefore, agreement with Ben's framing of supporting her is moral. And on the flip side, if you disagree with Ben's framework and and you question Erica Kirk, a widow with children who experienced violence, which is what he literally said is that's a cruel cruelty. That's a cruel act. That's immoral. So, the official term, psychological term for this is empathy hijacking. And it's something again that Charlie Lee Kirk was in fact very against and poke and spoke against publicly which is ironic to me. Empathy hijacking is when empathy which should be freely given is turned into a mechanism for forced compliance. And it goes like this. If you're an empathetic person, you must agree with my position. Again, in this instance, it is if you're an empathetic person, you must not ask questions about a grieving widow with two children. And I think that people naturally did not ask questions for the first couple weeks after his death because of the empathy they felt and the compassion they felt for Erica Kirk. This matters because you can still care deeply about a victim and their family while also questioning claims about timelines or accusations related to the organization they run. There is room for nuance. I think that's the point that Ben Shapiro is really forgetting. It's not black or white. And finally, that brings me to the fourth manipulative tactic that Ben uses. grief as a moral shield. We'll give you a minute. So, it's pretty clear that by invoking the name and the one true side of Erica Kirk or one moral side rather that Ben is trying to use grief and everyone's collective grief to protect himself and to protect Erica from any questioning to protect this organization TPSA from any further questioning about what actually happened to Charlie Kirk. Ben uses the widow with two children line like armor that will shield him against anybody's arguments, anybody's dissent. It makes any critiques now feel like an attack on a victim and any questions now feel like an act of cruelty. The psychological effect is that the audience is not being intellectually challenged or asked to critically think, which by the way was the cornerstone of Charlie Kirk's legacy. The audience is being pressured to submit emotionally. And Ben is trying to use emotion to replace reasoning, which by the way is when truth seeking stops. And for independent thinkers, this feels really uncomfortable. I'm an independent thinker. I would consider myself an independent thinker. And this entire speech was just totally uh laughable to me. I I couldn't stand it. And that's because independent thinkers can hold two things in their head at one time, believe it or not. Compassion and discernment in this case. And I think it's critical to mention here why all these control tactics contradict Ben's own claims about the truth that you heard earlier in this episode. Earlier in his speech, Ben himself insists that truth requires evidence. Truth requires clarity and truth requires responsibility. But here, Ben is arguing that he wants emotion to replace evidence. And he wants us to put our empathy over everything else, including questioning and argument. The fact is, you cannot claim to be on the side of truth while seeking to shut down all questions. Truth withstands questioning because truth is just the truth. Control is what forbids it. And the final part that I'm going to go into today is the worst part. I mean, when I saw this part, it's the Q&A section. When I saw the Q&A segment with Ben Shapiro in this speech, I thought, "Oh, he's done for." Like, he's he's fried. He's toasted. He's done. So, it's about the USS Liberty. It's the most important part of the entire segment in my opinion. and we're going to break down the Q&A portion, which is when a student comes up and asks a historically a historical accountability question and Ben's response, it just reveals everything, you guys. Everything. So, let's watch this. And I'm going to play the full segment because it's important for me for you guys to see this full segment. It starts at 22 22 25. It's Let me get into it. It's It's really cringy. It's just awful. Okay. >> Being here, Ben, you cited during your speech truth as the most important tenant of American conservatism. Why therefore did you call irrelevant the Israeli attack in 1967 on the USS Liberty which left dozens of American servicemen dead and hundreds wounded. So what I actually said is that if we're looking at modern Israeli American relations, looking at an attack that happened mistakenly by multiple Navy reports, multiple Israeli reports, and all available evidence, and using that attack in order to undermine today's relations between Israel and America, that's irrelevant. As irrelevant as it would be to site a piece of evidence from World War II or from 1776 to define America's relations with, for example, Great Britain or Germany today. That does not mean that the attack wasn't horrible for the Americans involved, that it wasn't bloody and terrible. The Israeli government paid reparations to the people who were killed. If you look at the actual military record of what happened on the USS Liberty, it was clearly a mistaken and tragic attack. The people who frequently cite the USS Liberty, however, are not talking about the specifics of the USS Liberty. I suspect that the vast majority of people who bring this up are doing so in order to suggest that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship because Israel deliberately wants to harm America. It is connected generally with a larger point. I wonder if that's your point. If the truth matters, then the Israeli government must be held accountable for that attack. The American flag was flying on that ship. You do not mistake an American ship for a foreign one when our flag is flying. So, we can spend the rest of the time talking about the specifics of the US Liberty attack or you can actually go look at the naval investigations that were done. Multiple naval investigations that were done. The reality is that people were flying Mirage planes for the Israeli military at the time. The USS Liberty was sailing in an area where it had essentially gone off-rid. The Israeli military mistook it for an Egyptian ship. They thought it was shelling Alish, which happened not to be true. In the initial attack, the American flag was knocked down and then the attack went on for about 90 minutes. And then as soon, you can hear this by the way, on the tapes of the Israeli pilots talking to each other. As soon as they realize that it's an American ship, they call off the attack. They speed a ship to try and help the USS Liberty. There have been multiple unfortunate friendly fire incidents between allied forces, including, for example, in the Gulf War where US forces were responsible for killing about nine British troops during the Gulf War. It's an unfortunate reality of war. But you're not answering my question which is what is your broader agenda in asking the question because I suspect that your question is not limited to your specific over an incident that happened in 1967. >> I think we should question any foreign country's relationship with our government. >> That's totally fine. But I'm just wondering why >> serve American interests. >> Again, that I'm I'm perfectly fine with questioning any country's relationship with the United States, but again, I'm wondering what your motivation is in bringing up a six decade old attack as though it is the number one issue in assessing the relationship between Israel and the United States today. Well, many problems persist to this day. But it's interesting that you say six decade old incident when there are many people in this audience who are alive for that attack as if this is something that's irrelevant that doesn't >> No, it's just not particularly relevant to assessing the relationship between the United States and Israel today in the same way that in 1967 there are a wide variety of countries with which the United States had different relations. Okay, it's it's clear you're not going to actually answer the question, so I'm happy to move to this one. >> Okay, sorry, but I had to play that full segment because wow, he at the end he effectively gets him gets the guy to just leave so he doesn't have to keep talking to him. Um, and I wanted to show that segment too because Ben's response pattern is very clear there. He questions the students motivation for asking his own question. So, he's reframing the student's question as suspicious and then he's redirecting to the students intention behind the question instead of just answering the damn question with substance. And when I first watched this clip, like I said, I was shocked. Honestly, I was I was pretty shocked, especially because of the event that this is happening at. Charlie Kirk's organization. Now, I didn't agree with everything Charlie Kirk agre uh believed and said, but I agree with his beliefs about free speech. And I couldn't believe that Ben Shapiro actually asked a student why he was asking his question. And I want to be clear that this maneuver is done for a reason. This is a control tactic. It's pretty clear to me that Ben was seeking to shame the student for even asking his question in the first place. And it's sending a message to the audience, too, which is important to realize that certain questions make you a suspect. Certain questions cannot be asked. It's also revealing that this is happening during a student Q&A where the power imbalance already exists. So, not only is Ben turning the questioner into the one on trial here, but he's questioning the student's intentions, he's implying that the student is asking a question in bad faith. Charlie Kirk would never do that. By introducing suspicion with no evidence, by the way, there's no evidence that this student is asking his question in bad faith. Ben is effectively undermining the student's credibility rather than simply answering the question, which again contradicts Ben's own statements that truth must be based on fact rather than emotion. Ben introduces suspicious suspicion of this student and his question based on what? not evidence, merely a feeling. Maybe Ben didn't want to answer the question. But perhaps the most damaging part of Ben's response here to this student, I think, is the effect that it might have on other students. The audience is learning that if you ask the wrong question, if you ask a question that the speaker with a microphone on the stage, the power imbalance I'm talking about doesn't like, you will be psychoanalyzed publicly. that completely halts participation. Does that encourage other students to come ask a question in the microphone? Honestly, would you want to ask Ben Shapiro a question after watching your friend there be put on trial? I definitely would not. And what gets me is this. Charlie Kirk, he debated in hostile rooms. He took aggressive questions. He allowed for discomfort. He allowed for opposing ideas. He never moralized grief or pressured people into obedience. He never shut down conversation because he didn't want to have talk about that topic or it made him uncomfortable. Charlie never said, "If you question this, you're immoral." Ben does. And that contrast, I think, is why this moment lands so poorly, even for people who are inclined to agree with him. And this we got to remember is the person who is opening the the biggest conference for Charlie Kirk's organization in 2025. And I'm sure his speech had to be approved by the CEO, by the committee, whatever it is, by the people in charge. I'm sure these speeches had to be approved. So, um, TPUSA seems like you're pretty toasted. Pretty toasted. Ben Shapiro definitely I don't respect him anymore or if I ever did I didn't really respect him to begin with definitely don't respect him now. Um so if you take nothing else from this video uh I hope you can realize that this speech was not about truth as Ben claims at the beginning that it is all about truth. It was about control I think and that's why the speech totally failed. It's not because people are too emotional, not because people can't handle the truth. People can't handle facts, but because people can feel when they're being manipulated. People can feel when they're being pressured and when they're being managed. People don't like that. I don't know anyone who likes that. And here's the part that really matters. I've been hinting at that this the whole video, but I just want to, you know, hammer it home. This approach by Ben Shapiro is a stark contrast to what Charlie Kirk stood for. Charlie didn't grow TPUSA by disciplining students, pressuring students, manipulating stu students. He grew his organization by trusting them, by debating them, by believing in them, and thinking that they can learn how to think critically. He let uncomfortable questions breathe. And he didn't ask why someone was asking a certain question. He never used emotions to manipulate. He answered questions. And I don't believe that the difference between Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk comes down to style or personality. I think this is all about control. Charlie believed that young people could think for themselves and that they needed to think for themselves. This speech assumes that students need to be handled and they that they cannot be trusted. So if your mission is to create independent thinkers, you cannot use these tactics that are designed to suppress independence. People don't remember speeches that try to dominate them. They remember the people they're in and speeches that respect them, that inspire them. And that's why this matters. And to just conclude the entire video, I think this speech by Ben Shapiro is a great example of why the conservative movement is totally failing. And just to let you guys know, I consider myself independent. So I'm not a liberal person coming at this. I'm not critiquing this from a li liberal point of view. Um, but this right here is why the conservative movement is falling apart, which is ironic because Ben is supposedly so concerned about the splintering of the conservative movement. And yet, in my opinion, he is a huge reason for it. So, I hope you guys have found this video um helpful or insightful in some way. Um, and I will talk to you next time. Bye.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.