Russel Brand's False Religion

 

https://rumble.com/v1qlgp8-god-war-cancel-culture-and-more-with-russell-brand.html

For a long time, I’d been hoping someone would ask Tulsi Gabbard about her faith. Gabbard is a Hindu; I wonder if the Hindu concept of ahimsa, for example, is behind her strong stance against foreign engagements.

Russel Brand finally asked her. But he got the essential concept of religion wrong. He seems to think, or claims to think, it is about tolerance and forgiveness. On this basis, he blames both right and left for not getting along.

This is a common but sinister claim. Religion is about righteousness and justice. It is a struggle against evil; not an accommodation with it.

Hitler and the Jews did not get along. So you would blame the Jews? Somebody raped and stabbed Kitty Genovese in a Brooklyn stairwell. So you would blame Kitty Genovese for not being able to get along?

To insist that religion is or ought to be about forgiveness is the sure and final refuge of the scoundrel. It is what you fall back on when you are caught red-handed. A recent example: an article in the New Yorker suggesting it is time to “declare an amnesty” on everyone’s mistakes during the pandemic. Convenient for those authorities that now have been shown to be wrong, on masks, on lockdowns, on the origin of the virus, on the side effects of the vaccine, on its efficacy; but they offered no amnesty so recently to those refusing the vaccine, or masks, or lockdowns. Putin now wants peace talks in Ukraine. Sure—now that he stands to otherwise lose the land he’s purloined.

You see how this works.

The proper Christian principle, made clear in the New Testament, is a duty to extend forgiveness and reconciliation if and only after the guilty party has both admitted wrong and done their sincere best at restitution. The aggressors always leave out that part.

If you do not stick to this principle, you are not just aiding and abetting evil; and joining in harming the victim; you are frogmarching the person you forgive into hell.

Tulsi Gabbard Comes Out

 

Tulsi Gabbard has publicly left the Democratic Party. She condemned it, for, among other things, anti-white racism.

I think there is a growing awareness of this; I think also of how a British monarchy expert recently kicked back at Don Lemon calling for British reparations for slavery; and Kanye West and Candice Owens appearing with “White Lives Matter” t-shirts.

A correspondent recently wrote to Xerxes “There is no way that the white Christian race will ever honestly and sincerely be able to apologize (and really mean it) for all it has inflicted on other races -- and continues to do so today. With ‘Killer Kapitalism’ rampaging. the chances of justice and equality are turning into mirages.”

If you replace “white Christian race” with “Jewish race” in the above, you have a perfect statement of Nazi doctrine. Including the hostility to capitalism and blaming it on one race.

We are at the point when it is not possible to be a good. moral person, and be on the political left. The right used to think of the left simply was soft-headed, "low information." That's not believable any longer. You pretty much have to be consciously evil.

Tulsi Gabbard Chimes In

 

Tulsi Gabbard 2024

Why is Tulsi Gabbard still in the Democratic presidential race?

She obviously has no hope of winning the nomination.

It might be, then, to advance her ideas—her pacifist program. But she isn’t able to do much of that, since the party establishment is determined to keep her off the debate stage.

How about this thought? Might she be keeping herself in the public eye in hopes of being nominated for Vice President? Especially in the event of a brokered convention.

Seems to me she’d make a good choice for either Bernie or Biden, were he the nominee.

In either case, she would balance the top of the ticket geographically, West and East, sexually, and in her youthfulness. She checks the intersectional boxes, so important to Democrats, as Biden or Sanders themselves do not: female, Hindu, Polynesian.

For Sanders, she might pull in more moderate voters, while at the same time seeming sympatico. Like Sanders, she is a rebel against the party establishment. She was a major backer of Sanders in 2016.

But she looks like an even better fit for Biden.

Biden might want to pick someone clearly to his left, in order to soothe the Sanders supporters. But Sanders himself is too old, and there is a grudge between Bernie and Warren supporters. AOC is too young to be legal.

Any selection on this basis also risks failing to appease Sanders supporters, who tend to be purists, while alienating the independent vote Biden needs most. The farther left, after all, in the classically cynical political calculation, have nowhere else to go.

He does not urgently need to shore up the black vote—he has been their favourite during the primaries. So there is no pressing need to pick a black running mate.

Tulsi has perhaps the best available crossover potential; oddly in both directions. A lot of independents and even Republicans like her anti-war stance. At the same time, a lot of Bernie supporters like her—see, for example, Jimmy Dore. Putting her on the ticket could also shield Biden from the charge of being a candidate entirely bought and paid for by the establishment. If, that is, he really isn’t.

Gabbard has also shown the one most valuable trait in a VP candidate: she is an extremely effective attack dog. This is the traditional VP candidate role, making the pointed attacks, so that the presidential candidate can look presidential, above the fray. Gabbard ended Kamala Harris’s candidacy in one of the most effective presidential debate exchanges of all time.

Given Biden’s age and health, Gabbard would stand a good chance of taking over during his term, or at least being given much more responsibility than a VP usually has. And she would be the natural successor in four years. Biden is sure not to be a two-term president.

If he fails, as VP pick, she still becomes the frontrunner to be nominated next time out.

I think she might stay in for that.

The Trouble with Truth

The mainstream media seems not to like Bernie Sanders. He essentially was called a liar in last night’s debate—by the moderators.

He was treated unfairly in 2015 as well, by the Democratic National Committee. Then, it made sense purely on the premise that the DNC was owned by the Clintons, that they maintained great influence in the party.

This time, we need a deeper explanation. It’s not just the Clintons.

It is not that Sanders is feared ideologically and in terms of electability, for being too far to the left. For they have given the same sort of blatantly biased treatment to Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, with somewhat different platforms. Either would probably better appeal to independents that the candidates the MSM and DNC support.

The clue is in what they just publicly accused Sanders of: lying.

They accuse Gabbard of something similar: of not really speaking for herself, but of mouthing lines fed to her by the Kremlin. Of insincerity.

This is more conspicuous because the big draw for Bernie’s supporters is that he seems so sincere. He has been consistent in what he says, pretty much throughout his career. This is rare in a politician.

This is also what he shares with the two other pariah Democratic candidates: Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang also seem sincere, consistent, and to be expressing their own real views. Gabbard seems to stand on principle. She blew the whistle, for example, on the unfair treatment of Sanders last time, even though they do not closely align ideologically.

It is this very honesty that the party poobahs and the media elite fear and hate.

It is, in fact, also what they hate so much in Trump. They endlessly accuse him of lying, just as they now do Sanders. They accused him of being a Russian puppet, as they now do Gabbard. Same phenomenon. But in fact, Trump has been conspicuous in keeping his campaign promises. And, more generally, for not bending to polls or political correctness, but saying what he genuinely thinks. For speaking the truth as he sees it.

Why do these groups, the media and the Democratic operatives, so fear sincerity? Why do they actually prefer phonies as candidates?

They might and do say, of such candidates, that they are “loose cannon.” Who knows then what they might say or do on a given issue? Seems risky.

But this again is actually the inverse of the truth. Because they do not blow in the wind, because they operate on principles, we really know better how these four will react to any given new event.

The real problem is the one outlined in the Gospel of John. Those who do evil in darkness come to fear the light for its own sake, and will oppose anyone who speaks the truth.

This is why they crucified Christ.

The DNC and the legacy media—our social elites in general--are in a very dark place.

Regime-Change Wars

A 19th Century British political cartoon.

I like the sincerity of Tulsi Gabbard. I believe she would be the strongest candidate for the Democrats against Donald Trump. And I think she is being treated dishonestly by a corrupt Democratic Party establishment and media. 

But what about the merits of her central issue, ending American involvement in “regime-change wars”?

She has a point in international law, or what international law said until Kosovo. Until then, intervening in another country’s internal politics, no matter what, was considered unprovoked aggression.

But then there was the Rwandan holocaust, and opinion shifted to holding France morally responsible for not intervening.

I at first resisted this new principle, that there was an obligation upon other nations to intervene in defense of human rights. I was, on reflection, wrong.

This, after all, is the same moral principle as our obligation to intervene if we see someone being raped or stabbed or beaten up. “None so guilty as the innocent bystander.”

So it follows that America, because it has the capability, has the moral obligation to intervene against any regime that is flagrantly violating the human rights of either its own or some other people. It is not okay to gas Jews. It is not okay to stand aside and let it happen. Sorry, Tulsi.

I believe Gabbard sincerely sees it differently, for the simple reason that she is a Hindu.

Hinduism or Buddhism can endlessly tolerate injustice without a moral obligation to intervene because of the doctrine of karma. If someone is being raped or stabbed or otherwise viciously mistreated, if some group is being systematically wiped doubt, it is no doubt just reward for some terrible thing they have done in a past life. No injustice is possible; no cause for us to get involved.

I leave the reader to decide how they feel about this stance; but from it follows the conclusion, for example, that having a criminal justice system is illegitimate.

Gabbard and her supporters would no doubt go on to argue that recent “regime change” wars have not just been costly, but have not worked. They will cite Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have actually had several recent case studies, since this new doctrine has become accepted: Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

In the first case, the Western allies stayed on to establish stability, and, after some years, Kosovo has emerged as a functioning multi-party democracy. In Kosovo, it seems that the “regime change” war did work. One might also mention the postwar experience with Germany, Japan, or Italy, although WWII was not just a “regime change” war.

In the second case, Iraq, some stability did seem to have been achieved, after some years of struggle, then lost by what looks like a premature US departure. After some limited re-engagement, Iraq looks more stable. In Afghanistan, relatively low-level conflict continues. In these two cases, long-term results cannot really be determined.

Appalled by the cost of these two interventions, however, when things then turned nasty internally in Libya, the West tried a different tack: go in, take out the regime, and leave. This is, to be honest, what I too thought would be the better policy. You can lead a nation to democracy, but you cannot force them to be democrats. It’s a contradiction in terms.

But this approach seems to have turned out worse: Libya remains in chaos, and human rights abuses remain common.

Disappointed again, when Syria then went south, the West reverted to the old, pre-Rwanda approach: do nothing.

And this has worked out worst of all: an ongoing holocaust of historic proportions, a refugee crisis flooding the borders of Europe, and the intervention of other foreign powers less friendly to human rights: Russia, Iran. As none have the strength to force a resolution, conflict looks to continue indefinitely.

So we’ve tried all the possible approaches, and in terms of defending human rights, the option of intervention, however costly, is visibly the best.

Americans, of course, are historically tempted to ignore the rest of the world’s problems, protected they are by oceans vast and deep. That may or may not be wise—but it is not the moral way.

Those alert to history may realize that Britain, in the nineteenth century, faced the same choice. Protecting the human rights of foreigners was actually the sentiment upon which was built much of the British Empire. Britain spent a lot of "blood and treasure," as the modern clichéd usage goes, ending the slave trade, thuggery, piracy, suttee, the caste system, banditry, endless local conflicts, and the like.

Honesty compels us to admit that, no so uncommonly, colonialism is actually a good idea.

Does the Left Hand Know What the Left Hand Is Doing?

Main man of the Yang Gang.

I was unable to find a live feed last night for the US Democratic Presidential debate. I am only able to review someone else’s selections of highlights today.

Tulsi Gabbard seemed to be appealing for Republican support. She expressly disavowed talk of impeachment and Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” remark. She spoke of her personal friendship with Trey Gowdy.

This strikes me as good strategy. The rest of the field has been leaning left; she has less competition for Democratic moderates. Biden was doing well on this basis, but Biden is probably flaming out, with the Ukrainian/Chinese scandal. In addition, the Republican race is sewn up. No interest in their primaries. In such a case, Republicans may tend to cross over and vote in the Democratic primaries. So a Republican outreach may help her get the nomination.

And should she get the nomination, it will certainly help her in a general election.

Andrew Yang was the other candidate who seemed to have something to say. The rest were, for me, painful to listen to: it was all boilerplate, sloganeering, lacking any spark of insight. Yang said different things. With his talk of jobs lost to automation and his GAI, he is making a pitch to the working class guys in the rust belt.

And he gives the impression of understanding the new technology, and having some valuable insight. He inspires confidence.

Yang and Gabbard are, I think, in terms of sheer electability, the Democrats’ best options. Gabbard at the debate endorsed Yang’s main plank, the Guaranteed Annual Income. It’s a dream, but together, they’d make a good team. Yang for economic policy, Gabbard for foreign policy.

But something even more interesting. Yang made a strong case that jobs are rapidly disappearing: everyone is seeing their local main street shutting down, and all the automated kiosks now at Target and Macdonald’s. It must be said that the employment figures do not bear this out. Instead, US or Canadian employment is at historic highs. Yet these are jobs being visibly lost—let alone what must be happening in factories. Truck driving is the most common job in Canada, or America, and it looks as though it might be replaced within a few years by self-driving vehicles.

It might be an example of what Marshall McLuhan inaptly once called “the dinosaur effect.” Things in society and technology often seem to be at their highest point of ascendancy just before they collapse. It might be true of the job market. A strong demand for labour may itself hasten the arrival of the machines.

Nobody else on that stage challenged Yang on his claims. They all saw this as a big issue. And I have seen the same said elsewhere—recently, some economist advised that 40% of all American jobs would be gone within a dozen years. Nor is Yang the only guy in Silicon Valley warning of this; and those guys in Silicon Valley have a good track record for seeing what is beyond the horizon.

Now let’s shift focus to the current Canadian campaign, and our most recent leaders’ debate. There, someone made the familiar boilerplate point—can’t recall who, this time—that Canada needed its historically high level of immigration, because we need more workers to sustain our social programs. And everyone present agreed. Not even Maxime Bernier challenges this. He wants fewer immigrants overall, but he wants to select for needed job skills. . He would only cut down on other categories of immigration.

These two universally held truths are plainly incompatible.

If the American Democrats are right, we are setting ourselves up for a pending social catastrophe.

And how is it that nobody is talking about this discrepancy?

On Real Leadership

I did not support Trump among his Republican challengers back in 2015-16. Had I been the Republican Party, I would have gone with Jeb Bush. The conventional choice. I privately endorsed Trump in the general, but through gritted teeth. Ironically, I feared that if Hillary were elected, we would all have to go through the turmoil of an impeachment investigation. Over her emails. Which also suggested, it seemed to me, background collusion with either Russia or China. Mere incompetence did not seem a sufficient explanation.

By now, like many others, I am inclined to think that Trump has been an unusually good president. Not just because of a prosperous economy. He knows how to make deals. And that turns out to be an extremely valuable asset in a president.

I did not support Ronald Reagan, either, back in his primary runs. In 1976, sticking with an incumbent president, Gerald Ford, seemed obviously the right path for the Republicans. Even though I would have voted, instead, for almost any Democrat. In the 1980 Republican primaries, I thought they should have gone with George (HW) Bush. In the general, I would have preferred Reagan to Carter, but again, by default.

It shows how wrong I can be.

But not just me. Reagan came to power only due to exceptional circumstances. Trump’s rise was also exceptional: he won the general by a hair, and defying all predictions. So was Lincoln’s—the presidency was his first significant public office. So was Churchill’s, pulled in from the wilderness in a general emergency. Even after he saved the world in the Second World War, people were reluctant to vote for him.

Why are we all like this? Why do we actually resist voting for the best leaders?

I am drawn to this reflection by the odd refusal by the Dems to give Tulsi Gabbard their attention and support. It seems bizarre and almost suicidal to go instead for obvious old hacks like Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.

It is, surely, a love of the familiar. The same instinct that brings us xenophobia. People move along in their accustomed mental ruts, and there is an instinctive fear of anything outside them: fear of the unknown.

The problem is that Gabbard, like Reagan or Churchill, does not simply parrot the expected line on the issues. Yet this is a necessary trait in a leader: that they think for themselves, and have core principles.

You see the same thing in the arts—perhaps in all human endeavor. People resist anything that is genuinely fresh and new. They do not want their accustomed ways disturbed. They want décor.

And I, it seems, on the evidence of Trump or Reagan, am as bad on this as everyone.

But then too, there is a reason for this. At least sometime this gut conservatism is wise; that is probably why we have it. It is a good survival mechanism to mistrust the unfamiliar.

Hitler, too, was a leader who came out of nowhere and who seemed to be saying something both new and principled. Or Mao. If some large, impressive, and previously unknown creature emerges from the nearby forest, it is wise to be cautious.

If we could figure out how to make the distinction, between the principled genius and the dangerous demagogue, it would be the key to a great improvement in the human condition.

I think there is a distinction. Leaders like Hitler or Mao looked as though they were acting on principle, but actually had no principles. They were driven only by power. They chose their new principles only strategically to appeal in a time of turmoil. William Manchester, who followed his rise closely, noticed that Hitler said something completely different to each audience--whatever he expected they most wanted to hear. This is why Nazi ideology has always been hard to pinpoint. Mao, similarly, was in no way consistent in terms of which faction he supported within the CCP.

So the best test is a moral test: if a candidate has visibly done something that seems to go against their own career interest, on what seems a matter of principle, they are probably the real deal.

Churchill is an obvious example of this, in his principled opposition to dealing with Hitler and the Nazis, in his warnings of impending war. I think Tulsi Gabbard is also in this category: she hurt her career as a rising Democrat star last cycle by dissenting from the efforts of the DNC to fix the primaries for Clinton. Trump perhaps qualifies with his attacks on the press and political correctness. They have turned out well for him, but is he so savvy as to have foreseen this, or was he just determined to do it anyway?

On this same test, I think Maxime Bernier is the real deal in the current Canadian election. He did not seem to be thinking strategically in coming out against supply management. It is supposed to be an unpopular stand in Quebec. He definitely seemed to buck his own best interests in terms of seeking power by splitting from the Conservatives a year ago. In the normal run of politics, we would have expected Scheer to lose the next election, resign, and then Bernier would be the front-runner to replace him. He gave that up, apparently on principle.

I wonder if they could still coax him back, if Scheer comes up short.

On this same test, the Liberals, if they lose their majority or worse, ought to turn to Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott as new leader.

The Green Wave

Take the odds.

Paul Manly has won Nanaimo-Ladysmith, a former NDP stronghold, for the Greens. And soon after the Greens rose from nothing to official opposition in PEI.

I think this bears out my thesis that what Canadian voters crave now, more than this or that ideology or policy, is authenticity. I suspect that the voters never cared that much about ideology, or about specific policies; that was more the motivation of the activists.

But the politicos still do not get it. Everyone is saying that Manly’s win now shows how concerned Canadians really are about the environment.

Er, no.

Most voters probably always cared more about honesty. The difference is, with social media, it has become much harder to lie without being exposed.

Trudeau and the Liberals, traditionally straddling the centre and tacking and trimming in response to every poll, are probably doomed by this.

But the NDP are perhaps even more spectacularly blowing it. They were the obvious more honest alternative for dissident Liberals. But they have been, under Mulcair and Singh, trying to grab the centre. Exactly the wrong move. This leaves the Greens to take up the spoils left lying in the field. Elizabeth May may be certifiably nuts with her conspiracy theories, but at least she is honestly nuts. And so the Dippers came third in what had been a safe NDP riding.

There is another reason why the politicians should give up their cynical games and try being principled. Following the opinion polls works less well than it once did, because polling itself has become less reliable. People are no longer answering the poll questions.

Based on this metric, the quest for sincerity of any sort, we can probably expect a surge in the Green vote next federal election in Canada. Sincerity is what they have to sell.

In the US, the rise, then fall, of Beto O’Rourke was based, I think, on this craving for authenticity. And now the rise and fall of Pete Buttigieg. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have already failed this test, without even first rising. They did not have the advantage of oreiginally being unknown. Biden is not going to last by this standard; he only sounds superficially like a guy who speaks his mind. He speaks without thinking; this is not quite the same thing. The long tail will bludgeon him. Sanders is probably now most likely to win the nomination; but the dark horse I think most able to rise and stick, on these sincerity sweeps, is Tulsi Gabbard.

Precisely because she does not toe the party line. The very reason the party activists hate her.