PDF Summary:You Can Do It!, by Rob Schneider

In You Can Do It!, Rob Schneider argues that our freedom of expression is steadily declining due to government control over public discourse. He contends that authorities distort language, employ damaging labels, and harness media platforms to suppress dissenting views. The book examines how this government censorship extends across various topics like public health, climate change, and social justice movements.

Schneider also explores the expansion of government surveillance powers under the pretext of public safety. Overreaching measures implemented during emergencies like the "War on Terror" and COVID-19 have persisted and diminished civil liberties, according to the author. He cautions that such authoritarian measures, if left unchecked, could fundamentally erode the principles of a democratic society.

(continued)...

Practical Tips

• You can start a personal health journal to document your immunization decisions and their outcomes. By keeping a detailed record, you'll be able to reflect on how your choices align with your values on freedom and autonomy. For example, note down any vaccinations you decide to take or decline, along with your reasons, and any health changes you observe. This can help you make more informed decisions in the future and provide a personal account of exercising your health autonomy.
• Create a decision-making flowchart for health interventions that includes alternative options to vaccination. This could involve researching and listing dietary supplements, lifestyle changes, or natural immunity boosters as potential alternatives, and the criteria for choosing each path.
• Develop a habit of reading and understanding the consent forms and informational pamphlets for medical procedures. By becoming more informed about the interventions you undergo, you can make more empowered decisions. For instance, before a flu shot, read the accompanying literature and ask your healthcare provider questions about the vaccine's efficacy and safety, thus engaging in a more informed consent process.
• Develop a simple browser extension that helps users evaluate the credibility of online health information. The tool could highlight key factors such as the date of publication, the author's credentials, and whether the source is peer-reviewed or not. By using this extension, individuals can become more discerning consumers of health-related content, which can aid in making more informed personal health choices.
• Create a social media campaign that shares personal stories of individuals who have experienced vaccine side effects, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging these risks while also discussing the overall benefits of vaccination. Use hashtags to gain visibility and encourage others to share their experiences, which can humanize the statistics and remind followers that behind every number is a person's story.

The discussion surrounding climate change often stifles opposing viewpoints, with those expressing skepticism being branded as "deniers."

Schneider contends that the discourse surrounding climate change is heavily influenced by a prevailing ideology which suppresses scientific exploration and categorizes alternative perspectives as "denial." He disapproves of the emphasis on CO2 emissions as the sole indicator of climate change, arguing that this concentration overlooks additional contributing elements and restricts the breadth of scientific investigation.

Nikolov's Alternative Climate Theories Ignored by Climate Establishment

Schneider highlights the work of a researcher who proposed alternative explanations for the shifts in our planet's climate, concentrating on factors like the surface's ability to reflect sunlight and the atmospheric pressure instead of the traditional focus on greenhouse gases. He notes that although Nikolov's work has been featured in academic journals, the scientific community specializing in climate studies has largely ignored it, showing a hesitance to consider differing hypotheses.

Schneider contends that a culture favoring agreement often leads to the neglect of alternative perspectives, which indicates a lack of thorough scientific examination. The authority on climate change creates an environment of contention that suppresses free discussion and autonomous research by labeling any dissenting views as skeptical. This, he argues, not only hinders progress in understanding the complexities of climate change but also erodes public trust in scientific institutions.

Practical Tips

• You can increase the reflectivity of your home's surroundings by choosing lighter colors when repainting your house or roof. Lighter colors reflect more sunlight, which can potentially contribute to cooling both your home and the local environment. For example, opting for a white or light gray roof instead of a dark one can reduce the amount of heat absorbed by your home.
• Start a virtual book club focused on overlooked scientific literature. Each month, select a study or paper that hasn't received much attention but has significant implications, like Nikolov's work. Invite participants to read and discuss the material, fostering a community that values and spreads knowledge of such underappreciated research.
• Create a habit of reaching out to at least one person each week who comes from a different background or holds different beliefs and engage in a conversation about a current event or topic of mutual interest. This practice not only expands your social circle but also exposes you to different ways of thinking. When discussing a topic like climate change, for example, you might talk to an environmental activist one week and a business owner in the oil industry the next to understand the spectrum of opinions and concerns.
• Develop a habit of asking "What am I missing?" in everyday decisions. Whether you're planning a trip, making a purchase, or deciding on a movie to watch, take a moment to consider what other factors or options you haven't thought of. Research these alternatives briefly to make a more informed decision. This simple question prompts you to look beyond your initial thoughts and can lead to better decision-making in your personal life.
• Create a personal blog where you analyze and discuss climate change studies with a focus on understanding the methodology. By breaking down research papers and discussing the methods used, you can educate yourself and your readers on how conclusions are drawn and what questions to ask about the data. This practice can help demystify the research process and promote critical thinking about scientific findings.
• Volunteer with a local environmental organization that practices inclusive engagement, ensuring that all community voices are heard regarding climate action. By participating in such groups, you contribute to a culture that values diverse opinions and experiences, which can lead to more comprehensive and effective climate solutions.
• Encourage critical thinking by challenging yourself to read articles from multiple perspectives on the same scientific issue. After reading, write a summary that includes arguments from all sides and your own reasoned conclusion. This habit can help you appreciate the complexity of scientific debates and the value of diverse opinions.

Challenging the widely accepted views on climate change and its ethical consequences frequently leads to adverse outcomes for those daring to voice disagreement.

Schneider argues that the problem of climate change has become akin to a zealous mission, characterized by a unique set of beliefs linked to moral righteousness, distinguished by the specific tenets it maintains and the critical examination directed at skeptics. He argues that within this moral framework, challenging the prevailing story is seen not only as a scientific dispute but also as an affront to ethical norms. An environment emerged where differing opinions were suppressed, analytical thinking was not encouraged, and individuals encountered social and professional repercussions for their skepticism.

He contends that the label "climate denier" is deliberately employed to discredit and sow skepticism about those who hold different views, because it evokes associations with the Holocaust. This tactic, Schneider contends, prevents reasoned debate and fuels a culture of fear and intolerance that ultimately undermines the scientific process.

Context

• Individuals who dissent may experience stress or anxiety due to the backlash and pressure to conform to dominant views.
• A zealous mission often involves a passionate commitment to a cause, sometimes leading to the exclusion of alternative perspectives. This can result in a focus on achieving goals at the expense of open dialogue and critical examination.
• Climate change policies often involve ethical decisions about resource allocation and justice, which can make questioning these policies seem like a challenge to ethical priorities.
• Media coverage can influence public perception by highlighting certain viewpoints over others. This can create an environment where alternative perspectives are less visible or are portrayed negatively.
• Environmental advocacy groups often have significant influence and may actively campaign against individuals or organizations that express skepticism, leading to public backlash or boycotts.
• The association with Holocaust denial can be seen as an attempt to delegitimize opposing views by equating them with a widely condemned stance, thus stifling nuanced discussion.
• Media portrayal of climate issues often simplifies complex scientific debates into binary oppositions, which can amplify the use of divisive labels and hinder nuanced understanding.
• Fear of professional or social repercussions can deter scientists from pursuing innovative research paths, potentially slowing down breakthroughs and the development of new technologies or solutions.

Co-option of Social Justice Movements by Institutions

Schneider argues that what were once genuine social justice movements have been taken over by influential organizations like corporations and government institutions, which have turned them from grassroots efforts into mechanisms that enforce rigid beliefs from the top down. This manipulation, he argues, benefits the elite by diverting public attention from fundamental economic and political issues, all the while giving a false impression of advancement.

Entities within the realms of business and politics have redirected the emphasis of initiatives like BLM and LGBTQ+ rights from community-level activism to authoritative imposition.

Schneider observes that movements like Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ+ rights are increasingly coming under the sway of influential institutions, both corporate and governmental, which shifts the focus from authentic community-based activism to the enforcement of rigid ideologies by those in positions of power. He suggests that large corporations and government agencies have embraced these movements in a performative manner, using them as tools to enhance their public image and garner social capital while doing little to address the root causes of inequality.

Elite Weaponizes Woke Ideology to Control and Silence Dissent Under Social Progress Guise

The writer contends that individuals who hold authority have co-opted social justice terminology to stifle dissenting views under the guise of promoting progress. They foster an environment where any objections to their strategies or conduct can be portrayed as prejudiced or backward by using concepts such as variety, fairness, and acceptance.

He cites the Corporate Equality Index as a benchmark that motivates businesses to adopt practices in line with the objectives championed by a leading LGBTQ rights advocacy group, implying that it induces companies to adhere to particular beliefs instead of authentically creating a culture of equity and inclusion. Schneider believes that employing "woke" language ultimately hinders the free flow of thoughts and inhibits frank dialogue.

Other Perspectives

• The assertion that social justice language is weaponized could overlook the efforts of activists and organizations that have worked to bring these terms into the mainstream to effect positive change.
• The concept of "woke ideology" is not monolithic, and there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions within movements for social justice; dissent within these movements is often robust and encouraged as a means of refining goals and methods.
• Businesses might use the Corporate Equality Index as a framework to guide their diversity and inclusion efforts, which could result in genuine improvements in the workplace environment for all employees.
• Encouraging the use of respectful and sensitive language does not necessarily equate to silencing dissent; it can instead foster an environment where all voices, including dissenting ones, can be heard and engaged with constructively.

Incorporating ESG metrics to reshape social justice diminishes individual expression and encourages conformity.

Schneider criticized the growing embrace of Environmental, Social, and Governance metrics, considering it a method by which corporate and financial entities co-opt the cause of social justice. He argues that ESG has transitioned from a well-intentioned framework for promoting sustainability and ethical business practices into a mechanism for enforcing conformity to a specific ideology. By identifying the businesses that receive priority status and the opportunity to obtain financing based on their unique criteria, proponents are effectively guiding the distribution of resources and silencing firms that stray from their recommended course.

He pointed to Tesla being omitted from a prominent sustainability index as proof that metrics for environmental, social, and governance can be used to sanction companies deviating from commonly accepted progressive beliefs. He contends that employing ESG principles often stifles alternative viewpoints and limits the free flow of ideas in the corporate world.

Context

• Tesla's exclusion from certain sustainability indices, despite its focus on electric vehicles, highlights potential inconsistencies in how ESG metrics are applied, raising questions about the criteria used and their alignment with actual environmental impact.
• Critics argue that ESG metrics have evolved from their original intent, suggesting they now serve as tools for enforcing a uniform set of values or beliefs, potentially marginalizing diverse perspectives.
• Firms that align with ESG criteria might receive better access to capital, favorable loan terms, or investment opportunities, as financial institutions and investors prioritize ESG-compliant businesses.
• The term "progressive beliefs" in the context of ESG often refers to a set of values that prioritize not only environmental sustainability but also social equity and ethical governance, which can sometimes conflict with traditional business practices.
• This evaluates how a company manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. It includes issues like labor practices, human rights, and community engagement.

Identity Politics Distracts From Systemic Economic and Political Issues, Enabling Powerful Interests to Maintain Power

Schneider argues that focusing on identity politics shifts our focus away from vital economic and political issues, allowing those in power to continue dominating the populace. By concentrating on aspects such as ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, those in positions of power divert attention from entrenched disparities and their personal complicity in perpetuating such problems. Schneider contends that by focusing on divisive cultural issues, this distraction impedes meaningful societal change, rather than uniting around shared economic concerns.

Categorizing those who disagree on matters of race and gender as "bigots" or "fascists" tends to exclude certain perspectives.

The author criticizes the quickness to label those who hold differing views on race and gender issues as "bigots" or "fascists." He contends that such labels serve to stifle opposing viewpoints and obstruct the free exchange of ideas on intricate societal matters. Schneider believes that this approach chills the environment for candid exchanges and hinders genuine dialogue and the quest for understanding.

He suggests that by emphasizing identity politics, this method benefits the elite as it diverts attention away from entrenched disparities that might challenge their position and privileges. By portraying any opposition to their plans as rooted in prejudice or hate, they successfully command the discourse and stifle significant opposition to the established order.

Other Perspectives

• Labeling individuals as "bigots" or "fascists" can sometimes be a necessary act of moral clarity when the views expressed are genuinely rooted in hate or discrimination.
• The application of such labels might not always stifle debate but could instead encourage a more rigorous examination of the ideas being presented, prompting individuals to provide stronger evidence and reasoning for their views.
• The use of strong labels may actually reflect a society's commitment to protecting marginalized groups and could be seen as a form of setting boundaries for what is considered acceptable discourse.
• Addressing issues of race and gender directly can lead to more targeted policies and initiatives that specifically aim to reduce disparities, rather than diverting attention from them.
• The use of identity politics can be a strategy to mobilize and empower disenfranchised groups, which can lead to a more equitable distribution of power and resources.
• Opposition to certain plans may stem from a variety of ideological standpoints, including liberalism, conservatism, or socialism, which are not inherently rooted in prejudice or hate.
• Portraying opposition as hate could be a response to the perceived severity of the opposition's stance, rather than a deliberate strategy to control discourse.
• The established order may sometimes be upheld by a consensus that certain views are beyond the pale, which is a normal part of how societies establish norms and values.

Symbolic Victories in Minority Media and Corporate Roles Obscure Elite Wealth and Power Concentration

Schneider contends that the increased representation of minorities in the media and commercial industries is a misleading tactic designed to shift focus away from the ongoing disparities in society. He argues that although these emblematic victories are important, they often lead to a misleading perception of progress while the wealthy continue to accumulate wealth and increase their control. He emphasizes his point by using Asian Americans as an example, who lead in earnings among ethnic groups, showing that focusing only on identity politics does not adequately address deep-rooted economic disparities.

He contends that the focus on symbolic representation distracts from the core economic and political issues that perpetuate inequality. The elite manage to maintain their control while giving the illusion that significant change is happening by focusing on surface-level diversity. Schneider contends that these barriers impede the true advancement of justice and impartiality for each person within the community.

Other Perspectives

• While not a solution to wealth and power concentration, minority representation can lead to greater cultural understanding and acceptance, which are important aspects of social progress.
• Symbolic representation can be part of a multi-faceted approach to addressing inequality, where both representation and economic policies are pursued simultaneously.
• The argument assumes a zero-sum game where attention to one area precludes attention to another, which may not be the case; resources and efforts can be allocated to both symbolic representation and substantive economic and political reforms.
• Elite individuals may not be uniformly motivated to maintain control; some may genuinely believe in the value of diversity and work towards more substantial changes within their spheres of influence.
• The success of Asian Americans in earnings could be used to challenge stereotypes and promote more nuanced discussions about the economic realities of different minority groups, rather than being seen as a reason to dismiss identity politics.

The government's capacity for surveillance and control has grown in order to enhance safety and benefit the common good.

Schneider argues that by using the pretext of protecting security and public health during incidents like the conflict against terrorism and the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has taken advantage of the situation to expand its power and restrict freedoms. He contends that these emergencies have been leveraged to increase invasive monitoring, reduce individual freedoms, and empower governmental agencies with exceptional authority to oversee the daily lives of citizens. The expansion of power, he cautions, endangers the liberties of individuals and the foundational tenets of a democratic society.

"War on Terror" Post-9/11 Expanded Surveillance and Eroded Civil Liberties, Normalizing Mass Data Collection and Warrantless Searches

Schneider contends that the campaign against terrorism, initiated after the events of September 11, acted as a trigger for the significant increase in government monitoring and the diminishing of individual freedoms. He contends that the fear arising from the attack served as a justification for the introduction of the Patriot Act, which granted government agencies significant power to collect information on citizens, conduct searches, and detain individuals, bypassing the usual legal protections. The author contends that this significant change set a dangerous standard for future invasive measures under the guise of protecting security, as it made widespread surveillance seem more acceptable and was initiated by governmental authorities.

The data gathering methods employed by the United States' intelligence community, justified by national security concerns, encroach upon the constitutional protections enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

Rob Schneider vocally criticizes the NSA for collecting vast amounts of data on American citizens without the necessary permissions, arguing that this is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He references a previous NSA contractor who disclosed confidential papers, revealing the extensive surveillance operations of the agency, which illustrates the potential for government overreach beyond its constitutional limits, ostensibly to protect the nation's safety.

The author argues that the NSA's justifications for its actions—namely, the need to prevent terrorism—are insufficient to justify the wholesale invasion of citizens' privacy. He contends that pervasive surveillance hampers open self-expression and undermines the core principles of a democracy that highly prizes personal freedoms.

Practical Tips

• Start using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to encrypt your internet connection and mask your IP address. This makes it more difficult for any entity to track your online activities or determine your location, adding an extra layer of privacy to your internet usage.
• Advocate for privacy by supporting organizations that work to protect digital rights. Find and donate to non-profits that are dedicated to fighting for citizens' privacy rights against unwarranted surveillance. Your contribution, even if small, can help fund legal battles, awareness campaigns, and the development of privacy-protecting technologies.
• You can protect your online privacy by using a variety of different web browsers for different activities. This can help compartmentalize your online behavior, making it more difficult for any single entity to compile a comprehensive profile of your interests and activities. For example, use one browser for social media, another for work-related research, and a third for personal browsing.

The health crisis was leveraged by governmental bodies to extend their control, purportedly in the interest of safeguarding public health.

Schneider posits that the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for governments to expand their authority, under the pretext of safeguarding the health of the populace. He argues that the enforcement of lockdowns, compulsory face coverings, and requirements for vaccination evidence was frequently enacted without adequate scientific justification, signifying an excessive exercise of power by officials.

He underscores the way in which leaders employed psychological strategies during the health emergency, using fear to compel compliance with often random measures by exerting pressure from the community. Schneider argues that allowing governments to have unrestrained power under the guise of protecting citizens highlights the dangers of this excess during a health crisis.

Other Perspectives

• The implementation of these measures often followed the advice of public health experts and scientific data available at the time, aiming to minimize the spread of the virus and protect healthcare systems from being overwhelmed.
• Vaccination requirements were implemented in the context of a broad scientific consensus on the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, which underwent rigorous testing in clinical trials.
• The measures taken were subject to public debate, legislative oversight, and judicial review in many democratic countries, which provided checks on the potential for arbitrary enforcement.
• Public health measures, even when they expand government authority, are often enacted with the intention of protecting the greatest number of people, and can be seen as an exercise of the government's duty to protect its citizens.

The use of emergency situations as a pretext to curtail liberties blends the spheres of public health and national security.

Schneider contends that during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, the distinction between public health and national security blurs, creating a dangerous scenario where governments might exploit fear to justify the establishment of authoritarian measures. He warns that framing public health issues as national security threats allows governments to bypass traditional safeguards and implement policies that would otherwise be considered an infringement on individual rights.

Categorizing those who criticize government measures as "Domestic Terrorists" or individuals opposed to vaccination undermines the legitimacy of differing opinions.

Schneider critiques the practice of branding individuals who question government actions during crises, such as the pandemic, as "domestic terrorists" or as those who resist immunization efforts. He argues that these labels serve to stifle dissent and push to the fringes individuals who question the official position of the government. Authorities circumvent legitimate debate and suppress alternative viewpoints by linking critics to perilous ideologies.

He highlights the scenario in which parents, after questioning the decisions made by the school board, ended up under investigation by the FBI and Department of Justice, illustrating this approach. The officials alleviated the worries of these parents and discouraged their participation in overseeing education by labeling them as domestic extremists.

Other Perspectives

• Labeling individuals as "domestic terrorists" may be based on specific behaviors or threats that align with legal definitions, rather than simply questioning government actions.
• In some cases, these labels might be applied following thorough investigations and based on evidence that certain activities are aimed at undermining public order or inciting violence, rather than peaceful criticism.
• The use of the term "perilous ideologies" could be a reflection of the genuine concern that some criticisms are not merely alternative viewpoints but are rooted in misinformation or extremist beliefs that could harm public welfare.
• The FBI and DOJ have mandates to ensure the safety of all citizens, and if certain actions by individuals raise red flags within the scope of federal law, they have a duty to investigate.
• Investigations should be based on evidence of wrongdoing or credible threats, not merely on the expression of dissenting views regarding education or other policy matters.

Emergency Powers Expand State Authority Permanently

Schneider warns that allowing governments to wield emergency powers during crises often leads to the expansion of these powers rather than their relinquishment once the crisis has passed. He proposes that when governments gain new powers, there tends to be a steady and relentless growth in state monitoring, which gradually infringes upon individual liberties.

He contends that the COVID-19 pandemic underscored this trend, with governments around the world enacting unprecedented restrictions on personal travel, the functioning of commerce, and the manner in which people socialize. He contends that numerous limitations, which were initially presented as short-term measures, were prolonged well past their original rationale and solidified into the fabric of society, showcasing how emergency powers can permanently diminish basic liberties.

Context

• Bureaucracies tend to resist relinquishing power once it is acquired, as institutions may develop dependencies on the expanded capabilities and resources.
• The expansion of state monitoring can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, as individuals may feel less free to express dissenting opinions or participate in protests.
• During emergencies, the public may be more willing to accept increased state monitoring for the sake of safety, which can lead to a normalization of surveillance practices.
• The restrictions on social interactions led to changes in how people connect, with a rise in virtual communication platforms. This shift has had lasting effects on work culture, education, and social relationships.
• Different countries approached the extension of measures in varied ways, reflecting differences in political systems, public health infrastructure, and cultural attitudes towards government authority.
• Once emergency powers are in place, it can be challenging to roll them back due to bureaucratic inertia and the vested interests of those who benefit from the expanded authority.