Is America's Backbone Spineless? | Discussing Conservatism with Rebecca V
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Rebecca V is a mother of five, editor at @WrongSpeakPublishing , and something of a spicy tweet poster. We discuss the need for America's backbone: hard working middle class family men and women, to grow a spine and speak up.
/ rebeccaavelo
www.wrongspeak...
Support this channel:
www.paypal.me/...
cash.app/$benj...
www.buymeacoff...
Find all interviews on spotify: spoti.fi/3px5WnK
/ benjaminboyce
Join me on alternative video sites:
odysee.com/@Be...
www.bitchute.c...
rumble.com/use...
And on Twitter @BenjaminABoyce
Great talk, Benjamin. Rebecca mentioned service - it makes me thing of the programming we receive in school regarding slavery. I think they teach us that it was a worse thing than it actually was. It's arguably the best thing to happen to those bloodlines - they're American now. I came out of school not wanting to serve ANYthing. Women today see marriage and motherhood as a form of slavery. We went wrong there... that guilt thing pops up everywhere.
"Duty" has become a bad word for some odd reason.
She has the correct instincts, but the "we need to go back" rhetoric is not an answer, it's a wish. America failed. You don't go back, you go through
So what replaces America?
@januarysson5633 who knows? Probably something more 3rd world with ethnically inclined communities. The western European-heritage man's modern society can't defend itself. Intellectually, spiritually, not even physically.
It's over. But that's the way of things. Roman's didn't think the empire would disappear, but given enough time, everything does.
Thank you for this conversation!
Great interview. I agree with her perspective, as I have lots in common - except I’m Canadian and have even more work to do in waking up my normie friends and neighbours
Speak for yourself. Diversity is not a strength, neither is tolerance.
Let's not be pedantic now. You tolerate many things. 🐿
I am going to be 😁 very pedantic: not even from a genetic (I am a biologist) mathematical approach is "diversity" "good" per se, 😶 it is something that is being imposed assimilated to the racist-compulsion that coffee☕ is better 🙄😮 ? than 🥛milk. Diversity breaks social cohesion when the diverse person also hates you. 👀🪨🐊
Diversity may not be a strength but it doesn’t have to be a weakness if different groups can learn to respect each other’s differences.
Is this diversity "mandatory"?
@@OpenHLZFocus Fair enough. However, lets say, you're a master of your domain and the environment changes. If you can't adapt, be open to new ideas that allow you to navigate the obstacles, your community may be in peril. The inability to accept new ideas "can" be a death sentence. 🐿
Thought I have seen Ms. Rebecca on The Reason that is Boyce, sometime prior, but I was incorrect. One other time I thought I was wrong, but turns out, I was only mistaken.
We need to refrain from calling the totalitarian left, liberal.
To be reflexively liberal is not exercising liberalism. Liberalism (and conservativism for that matter) requires a deliberate thought process.
Anything less is simply behaving tribal.
Conservatives must be reminded their liberal values. While Liberals be must reminded conserving institutions, customs and courtesies, does not make you a bigot.
Behaving liberal is just as hard, if not harder than behaving Christian.🐿
As James Lindsay keeps saying, a liberal political framework is not enough to build a culture around.
@@januarysson5633 I'm fond of Lindsey. I'd have to meditate on that some. I'd further define a liberal to be an individual that perceives hierarchies and borders exist and can be identified. Liberalism cannot be maintain without confinement in borders. 🐿
@@Knuck_Knucks I define liberalism as a three legged stool. The legs are:
1) Belief in rights of life, liberty, and property that pre-exist government;
2) No taxation without representation;
3) Equality of all before the law.
I agree that liberalism has to be practiced within defined borders.
Fer sure, I didn't see this comment until after I wrote a similar comment.
@@januarysson5633 I'd subscribe to that. I'll propose a fourth leg. Promote Honestly and Pursue Truth. Four legged stools are more stable. : ) 🐿
'was it 2050 that half of women will be single and childless'
2030
They can blame themselves.
Interesting. Thanks. 🐿
Dogs are gifts! They teach us patience with unconditional love. And so awesome for a young family 💝
I noticed in 2012 well before 2014
Hello, intellectual here, I can always be found watching Benjamin Boyce's channel.
Wow I was an only child, not sure if four siblings would have made me more, or less sane lol.
You can't have a spineless backbone. A backbone is a spine. Asking if a backbone is spineless is like asking if your car is an automobile.
_PRIMVS_
grumble... grumble... grumble... 😾
She’s right. People live the 50’s but vote the 60’s, a tradition since the 60’s. And uppity-f^#ity is hilarious 😂
'it doesnt have to be religion'
it basicly does. you need to identify an enemy, an evil, and then cultivate an ideal self to hold in contrast.
the problem with attacking libertarians, is that they are more competent. wanting liberty over all is a potential reasonable responce to a tyranical other.
this isnt me protecting libertarians, they are idealistic lolcows. but they are more worthy of respect than conservatives. conservatives pontificate without those pontifications having any value or meaning. you want an american identity, who cares? the only people who care are overly attached. they will be unwilling to sacrifice their sacred cows when the time comes, and it has.
if you want to make a separate society and culture, that is possible, but what is it centralized around?
you could centralize cristianity, but that is part of the cancer. christianity, marxism, and feminism are the same paradigm of grievance mongering.also it wont give the powers necessary. can you marshal an army for christ? then how will you maintin a monopoly of force without a force capable of it? winning a war is sophistry, you need an emposing police pressence.
you could make a nondenominational spiritual right, that would bring in the christians, astrologists, pagans, and scientists into a big tent. but the right to research would have to be granted to scientists.
you could side with an caps, but you would only have influence to the degree you can control demand and supply and profits.
but the point is that to expand the tent you need to profane your ideal government. you both need brass tacks of police, and you need to keep enough people to care by compromising.
'libertarianism says you dont have to have anything shared'
libertarianism is about values, it prioritises liberty above all. most libertarians are minarchists, which is what you are trying to advocate from one side of your mouth.
👍
Not sure if Gen X will ever be able to entirely take the reigns, unfortunately, because this seems to be a problem with smaller generations.
I'm pretty sure race is too real to just overlook. It's so real it comes blasting thru in every interaction one has with another - it's the first thing you notice about someone, other than how attractive they are. And those "elite huite old men"? Yea, they're not huite.
Here's a problem I think is pervasive in the discourse right now. When your average person says "Liberal," and we have this widespread anachronism of the "Progressive" Liberal, (it was a New Deal thing, and got resurrected as a neologism,) what we're rly talking abt is "Marxist". That's what we mean, and I think it's what ppl should be saying. This becomes important, because the whole language game is a big part of how Marxists operate (as we know).
We should delineate the "Classical Marxist" left (a specific category) with whom the rest of us tend to emphatically disagree, from the "Classical Liberal" center/center-right, as well as the Conservative right.
Also, we should further differentiate the particularly bad "Neomarxist" left, as well as "Neoliberal" centrists, and the "Neoconservative" right. The latter categories, as ppl already associate with the terms, involve a combination of ignorance, bad actors, and cronyism.
I've been a pretty big fan of Ian McGilchrist, who just had a great episode with Peterson.
Something close to this, I think has been pretty well established. But I'll specifically suggest:
Classical Marxist (left) = "left brain" ... Classical Liberal (center/center-right) + Conservative (right) = "right brain"
In addition (half of these are well established, half less so) proposed, primary traits, mapped along spectrum:
left, "neurotic" ... center, "disagreeable" ... center-right, "agreeable" ... right, "conscientious"
Edit: here's the simple dichotomy imo; *Marxists vs. Moderates*
2nd Edit: many ppl might know a phenomenon in the psychological literature, called "splitting," I'd say that's fundamentally what the left is always doing. I'm not saying we don't all frame the dialectic sometimes, nor that we shouldn't do so. However, if "neuroticism" is one's primary trait, then one might typically have difficulty with productively engaging in discourse, without sufficiently managing to avoid the pitfalls of black & white thinking.
Dam, I'm just now listening to James Lindsay's latest analysis, of Soros's bad dialectical way of thinking, and its specific dangers, plus the subtype of Marxism it resembles, seems serendipitous in my world because I wrote OP yesterday.
Hah, it was pretty much the fusion of goths and cholos, that created my fav, "alternative" pop-cultural aesthetic and ethos, that originated a few decades ago.
Great Girl Ms. Rebecca. !!😉👍and surprising freshness!!
Great point to say that those who saw the wokes grow up were 🤤 lazy: Leave them to these weirdos, how "cute" they are and they're not going anywhere... 😶
Beautiful tree 🌳🌰🌳and ancient mosses...whoever ☁️☁️☁️was a cat! 🐈⬛😼
🍞
🎪🎪