Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
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
-
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
-
@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