Dave Rubin Handles Protesters at University of New Hampshire 6

Dave goes back and forth with protesters during his entire speech to students at the University of New Hampshire. Due to security threats the University moved the venue from a 300 seat room to a 7500 seat hockey rink – without informing all of the attendees. This event was hosted by Turning Point USA.

6 comments

  1. It’s hilarious that a moderate liberal, gay Jewish atheist that is married to a guy like Dave Rubin can be considered a white supremacist. If this kind of stuff was limited to silly college kids, I wouldn’t worry about it. But the problem is that this fanatical stuff is finding its way into institutions. Not only universities, but also corporations, the government and the law. It’s worse in Europe than in America because those countries don’t have the First Amendment.

    Incidentally, I don’t know that it’s even appropriate to call this stuff “leftist.” If anything, it’s a kind of social conservatism where the traditional pieties of “Faith, Family, and Flag” have been replaced by “Race, Gender, and Gay.” The more I observe and study this stuff the more I think PC more closely resembles theocracy than Communism. The Paul Gottfried interview I posted earlier gets into that a bit.

  2. COLLECTIVE!
    Where did I hear that before? Oh yeah! ISRAEL and its KIBBUTZ!

    The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
    -Becker

    Much has been written about the rejection of socialism by major powers like China and the former Soviet Union. But nowhere is the failure of socialism clearer than in the radical transformation of the Israeli kibbutz. The kibbutz movement started in the early twentieth century in what was then Palestine by Zionist immigrants from Europe who were idealistic and utopian. Capitalism, industrialization, and the conventional family repelled these immigrants.

    Kibbutzniks, as they were called, replaced these fundamental aspects of modern societies with collective agriculture where all property was owned by the kibbutz, where adults were treated equally regardless of productivity, and they were rotated every few months among the various tasks that had to be performed on a farm, such as milking cows, planting crops, serving meals, and so forth. They considered the close-knit family to be a creation of capitalism, and substituted for that family structure communal dining, a fair amount of promiscuity, and separate communal living for all children, who were allowed only brief visits with their parents each day.

    Several decades ago I spent a few days on such a traditional kibbutz located in the Negev desert, where I was a guest of married couple with two children. The husband was unusual for a kibbutznik because he was a trained nuclear physicist. They had a two room apartment-their two children lived in dormitories with the other children of the kibbutz- I met the children briefly on a couple of their daily visits to their parents. We dined communally on good food, and we watched a movie in the large dining hall afterwards. Although my host had much more advanced training than other residents, that only gave him the right to spend a few months each year working at a nuclear facility that used his skills. The rest of the time he rotated like everyone else among the numerous menial tasks on the kibbutz. He was well paid for his outside professional work, but he had to hand over his pay to the kibbutz, and received the same benefits as everyone else. He was not happy with this arrangement, but since he grew up on this kibbutz he lacked the resources to buy an apartment and car, and make the other outlays required to move off the kibbutz into an urban environment where he could get a well-paying job.

    For at that time, rent controls destroyed the rental market for housing, so young couples lived with their parents until they saved enough, or their parents gave them the money, to buy their own place. However, in this
    case, their parents did not have their own apartments since they too lived on a kibbutz, and they lacked the financial resources to help their children. The kibbutz movement was motivated in part by the Marxian dictum of

    “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs”.

    By abolishing capitalistic organization, the founders expected members to live in contentment and harmony, and to work for the common good. However, from what I was told and could observe during my brief visit, there was not much harmony-jealousies abounded of those who were only a little better off, including my host because he was allowed to spend some time working at his profession off the kibbutz.

    Anger was also felt toward those who were considered slackers since they clearly lived off the labor of others. Since everyone ate, worked, and socialized together, small differences were magnified, and became festering sores.

    Nor were the family arrangements any more satisfactory since parents missed their children, and visa versa. The kibbutz movement was very important in the creation of Israel, and in its early days of independence. Many military leaders came from the Kibbutz, perhaps because they were accustomed to communal living. A disproportionate number of the early political leaders and intellectuals also had a kibbutz background. But as the New York Times recognized in an article this past week, the socialist zeal that propelled the kibbutz movement in its early days has largely now disappeared.

    A trend that began more than 40 years ago accelerated in the 1980’s as kibbutzim lost many young members, and they failed to attract enough new members. Many of them were forced into bankruptcy, and the future of this movement was exceedingly dim if they continued with their old ways. The vast majority of the kibbutz that remained survived because they changed their ways. They expanded into industry and even real estate, they allowed a substantial degree of private ownership and private enterprise on the kibbutz, pay is no longer equal and is now significantly related to productivity, and parents and children live and eat together privately in their own homes. These changes may have prevented the Kibbutz movement from disappearing along with the many past Utopian experiments, but they did not prevent the kibbutz from becoming of little importance in the Israeli economy as Israel shifted toward privately owned high tech industry, and also toward privately owned farms, including cooperatives, for its much less important agricultural output. The transformation of the kibbutz movement from avowedly socialist to mainly capitalist shows clearly in microcosm what happened in socialist countries.

    Although even in their most extreme moments these countries were never as radical as the kibbutzim since children continued to live and eat with parents, socialist countries too tried to divorce individual productivity from individual rewards. They also believed that self-interest was a relic of capitalism, and that they could change human behavior to produce “a new socialist man” by abolishing private property and reorganizing society.

    Instead of the small scale of a kibbutz, countries like China and the Soviet Union tried to created socialism on an enormous scale. Moreover, and this is crucial, while members of any kibbutz voluntarily joined and could leave at will, Russians and Chinese had no choice about whether they wanted to work on collective farms or in government run enterprises, and they could leave only with extreme difficulty and at personal risk. Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons.

    They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self-interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one’s family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of most persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.

  3. MUHAMMAD SAID WOMEN WERE INFERIOR!

    This moronic female cretin in the audience proved Muhammad correct!

  4. MOST WOMEN DON’T DO LOGIC!

    It’s rare to be able to debate logically with women!

    WOMEN UNMASKED:
    THE MOST CUNNING SLAVE TRADERS IN HISTORY

    THE MANIPULATED MAN by Esther Vilnar

    Source:
    Gender Studies.

    http://www.pinterandmartin.com

    UK9.99
    US $15:95

    The exploitation of the American male by the American female would be a purely American affair were it not a model for women all over the world. Unfortunately, the economic hegemony of the U.S.A. influences not just the politics, science, research, and culture of all other capitalist countries but, to a great extent, the social behavior of their populations.

    Through the mass media, which have been relentlessly perfected, this influence spreads to all areas of life more and more rapidly. The old maxim about American consciousness becoming the consciousness of the world after a five year lag no longer holds true. Modern techniques of communication have flooded over the boundaries separating place and time.

    As soon as the American female compares her situation with that of American blacks, women in England, France, and Scandinavia scream, “We are the Niggers of the Nation.”

    There is no country in which men are worse off than they are in the United States. They are worse off by comparison with their female partners – and this is what we are discussing here: the differing living conditions of man and woman within one and the same social class of a given country, within one and the same family.

    America’s high standard of living, combined with its permanent threat of unemployment, is enough to make any man’s life miserable. In no country with a comparable standard of living are jobs so tenuous; in no other country with a comparable rate of unemployment are the demands made by the standard of living as high. The difference between a “success” and a “failure” is nowhere so clearly defined as in the U.S.A. Added to these external difficulties is the fact that no other man is so thoroughly manipulated as the American male. The adult American male is manipulated so expertly that there appears to be nothing he would not willingly endure.

    And, indeed, he is exploited without scruple. In no other country do mothers so pitilessly train the male infant to perform. No other society exists where the male sexual drive is exploited for money so unscrupulously. Nobody except the American woman so shamelessly professes a creed of profit under the guise of love.

    This does not mean that American women are cruel. Women are never cruel to their men; men are usually not important enough to be tortured. Only in movies do women ruin their men intentionally. This simply means that American women, more than other women, fail to consider men as fellow human beings. Perhaps the many dangers of pioneering days caused American men to be evaluated by their usefulness to women. After all, that period in history is not that far gone.

    And American men prefer to see themselves in this role: a man’s salary is the yardstick of his worth. America is the only place where a badly paid professor is a bad professor, and an unsuccessful writer a bad writer. For the Latin American male, masculinity is still associated with sexual potency.

    For the American male, however, the association is directly with money. American literature, from Edward Albee to Jacqueline Susann, revolves around this question: whether or not a male is a man if he cannot provide appropriately for the woman in his life. Of course he is not.

    The American man knows: happiness comes only through women, and women are expensive. He is ready to pay that price.

    As a young adult he pays in advance, as a grownup he pays in installments, and as a corpse he is cashed in for a fortune.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s