Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So come, make Israel by force, expel the people who lived there, and brutalize them for decades is responsible?
WW II was supposed to teach us that the end doesn't justify the means. Then we turned right around at the end of the war and committed a genocide in Palestine for "good reasons."
We're not the good guys in this. Israel's not the good guys. What they do is understandable, given the circumstances in which they've found themselves since 1948. But it's not righteous. The end does NOT justify the means.
Imagine if they tried kicking everybody out of New York City, to give it back to the Iroquois. It would be at war with the people around New York City from Day 1. Maybe the U.S. Government backs the idea of giving NYC back. Then the people who were displaced would be enemies of the state if they lashed out in reaction to being summarily kicked off the land they paid for.
You guys have a HUGE blind spot with respect to the State of Israel. It's a construct, an artifact of British Colonialism which was grafted onto the USA seamlessly after the war. We're a little less obvious about it (or we were), but it's the same old "Great Game" played for the narrow purposes of a handful of powerful people, in opposition to what's best for the people around the world.
You're cherry-picking history, Robert. I'm no historian, but I know enough to know how Europeans, especially the British, re-drew the map of the Middle East at their whim, depending on what their interests were. Got a leader who's not playing ball? Start an insurrection. Create chaos. Bring down the government. Re-draw the map, so the oil keeps flowing, with puppets in power or just a ruined nation that cannot defend itself from the predations of Euro/American commercial syndicates.
You're usually not Neocon, but on Israel, you're blinded by your cultural baggage and don't see things objectively, in my opinion.
I signed on to Daily Wire when Jordan Peterson joined the group, but I'm going to cancel. The top guy, Shapiro, and most of the people under him, are neocon. I don't think Peterson is, but he changed when he went to Daily Wire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hollywood hasn't really changed. It's always pushed the agendas of the donor class and the government. What has changed is that the messaging from the establishment is so alien to what people know and believe that it's created huge backlash.
This doesn't explain everything that's going on, but the liberal messaging that's dominated since the 1960s, with your John Wayne and Clint Eastwood outliers, resonated pretty well, and could even be argued to be helping move the culture in better, more open-minded directions.
Anybody born before 1970 knows how homophobic society used to be. I think the Tom Hanks movie "Philadelphia," (I think), where Hanks played a gay man who was sick with AIDS, marked a real turning point for society. Jesus teaches care for the sick and unconditional love. Christians are also instructed that departure from hetero norms is a sin. But when they put a face and a back-story to a good man to an AIDS victim, the unconditional love, which is the Highest Level Teaching of Christianity, trumped the homophobia.
That was a turning point in our history, where AIDS had real potential to generate huge backlash against gay people. Instead, the media complex hit us with "Philadelphia," and a lot of Christians couldn't bring themselves to hate Tom Hanks. Major culture shift towards tolerance and acceptance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You appartly weren't listening very closely to Jordan Peterson. He's not against helping the poor. He's just against federal anti-poverty programs imposed nation-wide in one-size-fits-all fashion by a HUGE, out-of-touch and arrogant bureaucracy. Charity starts at home and filters out from there. If you want a kinder nation, you act locally and pray that the feds never get involved, because they will pervert it or they will be perverted by the most powerful special interests.
It's not about not being compassionate towards the weak and underprivileged. It's about saying "No" to huge, centralized institutions "corporatizing" the act of human generosity.
If all the liberals who VOTE for big spending would just open up their wallets and help as many people as they CAN, and be SATISFIED with that, and maybe influence others to be similarly kind and generous, the world would be a much better place. Instead, they vote to MAKE everyone pay for whatever charity some stuffed-shirts in Washington, in collaboration with the Bill Gateses of the world decide should take over.
Even that wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that those institutions encroach more and more into everyone's lives and make less and less sensible decisions, with the only end-game in sight being the kind of authoritarianism that even assholes like Bill Maher can see. He's an asshole because he doesn't see his own hand in the creation of these authoritarian structures, ripe for the takeover by a very small number of people, affecting policies across the nation and across the world.
We need to be more DECENTRALIZED so that the corruption and incompetence only reach so far and last so long before they're stopped. But at the national level, where they even control the money supply, they can make promises they can't really keep and muddle on for GENERATIONS. You try that shit at the state or local level and you run out of money in a couple years and people throw out the idiots and can recover in a couple years. When it goes on for decades, the hole is just too deep. The feds argue not over whether we should go DEEPER into debt, but by how much more. Every year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing about "leftism" and "liberalism," to me:
The left believes in redistribution at its core. And this puts the left on an illiberal philosophical path, because the only way to redistribute is to water down what individual rights ARE.
We forget, every time that government does ANYthing FOR us, that we're opening ourselves up to JUST the kind of illiberal liberalism that you guys so clearly see, but which Brendan (and every liberal I know) fails to see is the LOGICAL consequence of their belief that government is good for anything but defending our soil and defending our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, which do NOT include a full belly or roof over our heads or medical care out of somebody else's pocket.
And I don't wanna get too mystical on y'all, but there's a yin and yang thing going on, here, where the more successful the left is in making everyone economically secure, the more resentment builds up on the part of those putting in more than they get out. And it's dangerous to just lump everybody (all those Atlases shrugging out there) as right-wing idiots, but the (so-called) left INVITES Hitler to rule, by ginning-up the (so-called) right to DO something about all the parasites living off their hard work (in their view).
Government is like Sauron's Ring of Power. Oh, the GOOD you can do by use of compulsion, but it destroys both compeller and compelled, in the long run, every... bleedin'... time.
I could go on (obviously) just drivelizing, but if you want a compassionate society, YOU be compassionate. Redistribution by force DESTROYS liberal values on the street. "That's what we pay taxes for. It's our gov't's fault that guy's livin' in a cardboard box."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Depends on what you mean by "Christianity." Are you talking the subversive followers of Jesus fed to the lions at the Coliseum, or the government-integrated Roman Catholic Church (or Lutherans or Church-of-Englanders)?
By the time Rome got ahold of Christianity, it was pretty much not Christian, any more, imho. Still, a sincere Christian, coming up in almost ANY sect, with a good heart and a good mind, is going to be very OK with Enlightenment ideals.
Of course, that kind of Christian ends up rejecting much of what any organized Christian church is pushing, settling towards a semi-agnostic view that Jesus was a great dude and the lesson is Reason + Love = Heaven on Earth.
1
-
1
-
A group of individuals could decide to live as an Intentional Family, and, in effect, live communally. You see it all the time in families of all types, here and there. So he's quite correct.
Thing about the guy who didn't want to give up his property is he wouldn't be a member of that family. As long as it's not imposed from above, it's not counter to NAP.
The irony, to me, is that those who want to live that way and see the whole world join hands and live that way, are going about it in exactly the wrong way. To get where they want, they need to SHRINK government, and the planet-killing excesses too MUCH participation by government invariably lead to.
1
-
Yup. And I'm all in favor of "Intentional Family" and all that jazz, if that's what if people of like minds want to do. A good family IS Marxist. And if you COULD extend that notion from coast to coast, we'd be a perfect Marxist utopia.
Trouble is, the only libertarian way to do that would be from the ground up. The minute it's handed down from on high, it's at the point of a gun, and the NAP is violated, which few, if any, of the liberals I know, can wrap their minds around.
I'm 90% Libertarian, with a tithe for national defense. I used to go 15%, figuring the King's at least handy for building roads, but I'm 5% more purist, nowadays, looking at our history and how we'd've been WAY more respectful of the natives if we'd been libertarian about roads. If the locals wanna pool their money for a better road, let 'em. If a guy wants to build a toll road and he can make it happen thru free exchanges with others, let 'em. Otherwise, let nature take its course.
1
-
1
-
1