Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
As many are pointing out, below, we're not really "conservative" so much as we're libertarians or classical liberals. Technically, "conservative" in the political sense is that you defend the established order and tradition. That's not what we are. We're not reactionary, either, because we're not interested in "going back to an idealized past."
"Left versus right" is misleading as hell. It's a totally false dichotomy. It's more of a state-versus-individual dichotomy, and striking the proper balance between the two. We need SOME government, but we clearly have far too MUCH government, right now, and far too little diversity of thought permitted in the public square, in order to preserve an establishment that's just as out-of-touch, NOW, as the regressive right of the 1960s, and even more censorious and intolerant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think I part ways with some of Peter's points around the 34:00 mark. I think he should give thought to DE-CENTRALIZING the educational project. One of the reasons this CRT is so all-pervasive is because our education institutions are centrally funded and centrally administered. One bad eye can infect the entire nation. Obama could push what amounted to CRT mandates through executive order (decree), by threatening all federal support to institutions that do not toe the line.
While we do the bulk of our education funding, locally and by state, the federal contribution is big enough to be irresistibly persuasive in the few instances in which school administrators and school boards might be inclined to resist what they already half believe, in the first place.
The power and perks attendant to embracing this bankrupt ideology are 100% persuasive to risk-averse leftists who are already inclined to go along with the ideology because they're almost all socialist or socialist-adjacent. This is "soft control." They can't directly punish an institution for resisting their mandates, but they CAN deny student financial aid to those institutions. Most schools depend on federal financial aid to keep the lights on. It's very difficult to break free, when your institution dies if the feds cut it off.
Here's another irony in this ideological war we're in. We wouldn't even know we were in a fight if it weren't for the use of coercive tactics to push the ideology so hard. When the end justifies the means, the means can often defeat the ends. The Nazis HAD to invade their neighbors, steal their gold reserves, and export their inflation to the conquered lands with worthless printed money that they forced conquered peoples to accept as payment for what they took. Their socialist spending had buried them in debt, and World War II kept the bankers at bay, for a time. They were on a trajectory to economic collapse that was postponed only by pillaging their neighbors.
That paragraph didn't go so well. My point was supposed to be that it's the coercive nature of the imposition of this ideology, top-down, that exposes it for what it is. If they'd been satisfied with "creeping socialism" for another decade or so, there would be no turning back. But they're so close to their ultimate goals that they've over-reached, in my humble opinion. They've peeled off the mask prematurely.
One GOOD thing about COVID-19 is the ZOOM learning exposed the empty-headed ideologues at the tip of the indoctrination spear. A student debating their teacher on tenets of CRT looks like the adult and the teacher looks like the petulant, bullying child in the dialogue. First off, the teachers have no business pushing a faith-based ideology. But more importantly, they're actually pretty bad at pushing it, effectively. Their fall-back position is appeal to authority. Students see right through that, and while we see the successfully-indoctrinated students marching and agitating, a growing majority of students reject the teachings, in much the same way students rejected the establishment's phony arguments for the Vietnam War.
The reason we HAVE those institutions was because it was the best and only knowledge production-and-dissemination mechanism available at the time. Now we have the Internet. You don't NEED big, brick-and-mortar institutions for 90% of what is taught in our colleges and universities. You only need the big institutions for things like super-colliders and other science-related apparatus. Electron microscopes, NMR and IR spectroscopy, ... Stuff like that takes some brick-and-mortar infrastructure. But little else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaliforniatoWestAfrica Without my father in the picture, I would've run roughshod over my mother by or before age 12. Dad was far from perfect, but he didn't tolerate any BS.
I remember how some of my peers would be out causing trouble or partying all hours on school nights, for instance. That was something that simply couldn't happen in our household without dire consequences.
Some rare women can do it all, at great cost to themselves, trying to do more than any one person should have to do. But the women who end up single, with children, usually aren't those kinds of women.
Bless you for overcoming your disadvantages. You can look at crime stats in a couple of different ways. While the vast majority of career criminals and/or people who spend their lives in poverty come from single-mother households, the flip side is that the vast majority raised by single mothers do, in fact, overcome it.
It's the same for being raised by abusive fathers. You're more likely to be an abuser if you were raised by an abuser, but MOST abused children do NOT repeat the mistakes of their fathers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1