Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Asmongold TV "
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just remember that it was the dregs of society that Lenin sent out to the countryside to "nationalize" everything. Ask the Kulaks of Ukraine how that worked out for them! Oh Wait! They were wiped out by all the "sharing" that was done. If they weren't murdered by thugs, they were executed for going out to their fields after the harvest to try to glean enough spillage/wastage to keep from starving.
People who can not function in society harbor deep resentment towards society, and it's EASY to talk them into turning to violence to obtain retribution for how badly they were treated by society. It's also easy to convince them that they are somehow owed something by people who DO prosper.
This is where charity comes in. When government takes over the charity function as it has throughout the West, it stops being a humanist thing and becomes a bureaucratic thing, and the bureaucracy has its own drives, its own interests, and is more interested in perpetuating itself, than it is interested in actually helping people. If the bureaucracy actually solves the problems it was created to eliminate, it will, itself, be eliminated. And let's not forget how much money there is in just being the middle man between the taxpayers and the needy.
There isn't any 100% cure for this condition. No matter how you structure society, there will be people with mental/emotional/spiritual or physical disabilities that cause them to fail. You can't let them die, but you can't just prop them up in their state of dysfunction, or they'll "raise" a next generation that's just as messed-up as they are. I'm veering dangerously close to eugenics, here, but that's what happens when you make human compassion a function of the government. Budgets eventually have to be balanced. This means bureaucrats end up rationing the good will of all the taxpayers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hon-Taku I think maybe you're confusing Arwen of Rivendell (elf) with Eowyn of Rohan. There is much "win" in both names.
And Eowyn was pretty faithfully portrayed. She was a shield-maiden. Women didn't go out on recon missions like the men did, because their job was to defend their homes. Speaking of which, I know the orcs are supposed to be bad and they should be able to overrun a village rather easily, but I expected the villagers to put up more fight. I have no idea how that would have moved their completion date back, how much it would cost, or if it would even make the final cut in an already-bloated run time for American theaters.
They might have cast a bigger woman or more obviously athletic woman. She might've been more believable trying to pass as a man that way, but as I recall, the riders immediately around her knew what was up and they respected her decision.
I personally would probably watch an "Adventures of Arwen," especially if Liv Tyler's still got it, which I think she does. I think she was centuries-old by the time she met Aragorn. Google says she was 2700 years old and Aragorn was 20 the first time they met. Imagine how skilled of a fighter she could be by that age! I think Rings of Power tried to build that into Galadriel, but they made her a Mary Sue. It's not she's the only "millennial" who ever picked up a sword.
1
-
1
-
1