Comments by "Tim Bucks" (@TimBitts649) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
2300
-
1100
-
566
-
533
-
450
-
361
-
321
-
312
-
301
-
300
-
287
-
209
-
138
-
133
-
131
-
131
-
98
-
93
-
86
-
77
-
73
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
58
-
53
-
50
-
47
-
42
-
So...if Trump's also old, why do I support him? Real story: Met a guy long ago, moved to my neighborhood, Victor was in his 70s. Fit looking guy. But raising a big family, Victor never any time for sports. After a lifetime of no sports, he's retired...in his 70s.
Victor took up running past 70, within 2 months runs a local 26 mile Marathon, in decent time. I tried training for a Marathon at age 30, it was brutal. For Victor, it was easy.
Age is just a number. Most men Biden or Trump's age, should not be President. Biden should not be President. But JFK is in super shape, could easily handle it. Trump? Bit of an anomaly. 1 in 10,000. Trump's gonna live till his 90s. For his age, he has incredible energy, just like Victor.
Lesson: you can generalize by age, but judge every person as an individual.
40
-
39
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Using an Evolutionary Lens, to understand what is happening to black men and crime:
In evolution the male role is the protector/provider in humans. There is a biological deal between the genders: He wants sex from the female, he wants companionship and children. On her half of the equation, she wants sex, she gets to pick who she has sex with, who she has children with, she wants resources and much of her choice in men, come's down to their utility, as resource providers.
That's the basic biological compact between men and women.
...then we gave women the vote
What women voting leads to, is women voting for resources, via the government, as a Surrogate Husband. The Progressives and Democrats took to this, like ducks to water. Republicans do this too, just not as much. Both reduce the necessity for women, to have a man around. The Democrats make this central to their politics. When that leads to is the replacement of mostly black men as providers of resources, for their women. Suddenly he is worth nothing to her. He is worthless. That's what happened to black men. They were replaced by the government. I don't blame black women for supporting this. Like white women, they are wired to acquire resources from men.
When we men let women vote, their feminine resource acquisition instinct kicks in, they are wired that way, they vote in resources. Then the black men were degraded, made valueless by their own women. This leads to community failure, family failure, sons failing.
What happened in the black community is not a as much a racial thing, as it is a gender thing, best understood in terms of female nature, male nature and evolution. Then we can peel back the layers to see why it failed miserably: It went against evolutionary norms. It broke the basic biological compact between men and women.
Black Lives Matter is a feminist organization. Their principles are based on feminism. Feminism destroyed the black community. In the '60s feminists changed the financial rules. Black women got more money, if the father of the children was not in the home. Women had no reason to keep men around. Female headed households went from 20% of black households in the 1960s, to 80% of black households.
Black children...or white children, especially boys, don't do well without dad around.
Dr. Warren Farrell wrote "The Boy Crisis", he has the stats: Nearly 100% of men in prison, both black or white men, come from fatherless homes. Black Lives Matter is a feminist organization. It believes in kicking black men out of the home. The result is, black communities were slowly destroyed by white progressives and communists and feminists.
Feminism is an offshoot of communism. No wonder it turned out so bad for black Americans. Feminism is based on degrading men, taking away their power. This destroys the evolutionary usefulness of black men, and their sense of responsibility. They will destroy the white community just like they destroyed the black community.
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Konstantin Kisin nailed it. Triggernometry. "The Cobra Effect. Why Good Intentions Don't Solve Problems." Just like the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson figured out same thing, different angle: JP said compassion doesn't scale well. Ben said he's a communist, locally. Explanation:
Ben like me, doesn't like to use gov't money for social problems. Problematic. But the thing is, communism is about compassion. That's why it appeals to so many women especially, they are higher in some forms of compassion, they are also dependent on men. So it makes sense in a family setting for males to share resources with females, who have offspring, need help. So Ben is "communist" locally like me: happy to share resources with family, particularly wife. Sensible, compassionate, based on family, based on reciprocity.
But Dr. Peterson noticed something about this compassion, which is at the heart of leftism: it doesn't scale well. That's an odd, counter-intuitive thing to notice, but quite true. It means, that's the problem with communism: it has good intentions, it is based on sharing and compassion, but when the government redistributes your money for you, this is highly highly problematic, often simply screws up society. It interferes with normal pattern of inter-dependence of men and women in a committed marriage, with family. It replaces the man in the home with the gov't, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, for decades. This misguided compassion of the political left actively destroys the natural family, by replacing men in the home with the Substitute Husband: Government. The reason people don't usually notice is that this leftist impulse seems good at first, because it's based on compassion. All normal humans want compassion, particularly helping women with children is natural and good. So at first glance, leftism & it's emphasis on compassion hit the right notes in the song. But on closer examination, as Dr. Peterson pointed out, this just doesn't scale well. But as Ben Shapiro points out, it actually scales just fine, with proper rules, within a committed marriage and family, where the role of the dad is respected.
And that's the problem with Kamala Harris & DEI: it uses government to actively discriminate against men, discriminate in favor of women. This idea has been tested. It mostly failed. Thomas Sowell talks a lot about why the left's "compassion" failed black America. This worked for a long time in black America. But the problematic thing: In the 1960s black Americans had a higher rate of family formation, than white Americans. Then the government stepped in, forgot the wisdom of Ronald Reagan: "The most terrifying sentence in the English language is, I'm from the government, I'm here to help."
President Johnson in the 1960s wanted the black American vote for Democrats. Black Americans historically were always Republican voters, since the time of Lincoln. In the 1960s the American black vote flipped to Democrat, because they bribed black voters with gov't money: "The Great Society" forerunner to DEI. The problem with this compassion is it focussed on helping single women....regardless of their marital status....just like DEI. This incentivized black women to stay single, make poor choices, not get married, not keep dad around. The results of that social experiment were disastrous. Compassion doesn't scale well.
And now Kamala Harris wants to use DEI to do to White Americans, what Johnson did to Black Americans. No thanks. Curious thing from Wall Street Journal recently: For the first time since the 1960s, young black men are starting to vote Republican, just like young white men are starting to vote Republican...while young white women & young black women are voting Democrat. What's going on? I think you can figure it out....
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22