▪️Almost everyone (including many libertarians) approaches the Israeli/Palestinian conflict wrong. They view it as a disagreement over tribal, collective “rights” to the land. The Jews have historical claim, Palestinian land was stolen, blah blah. There is no such thing as collective, tribal rights to land, that thinking is what has led to most wars throughout history. There’s only a right to the land particular individuals own, or have cultivated.
▪️Very few Palestinians living today have any legitimate property rights claim to land in Israel. More importantly, that’s not what they’re fighting for. #FreePalestine is not a movement to protect the individual rights of Palestinians (or anyone), it’s a movement to install a dictatorship, a theocracy that controls “Palestinian land.” Not only is there no right for such a dictatorship to exist, any movement which seeks to implement one is not in any way associated with freedom.
▪️Every single time Palestinians have been given autonomy and the ability to self rule they have chosen dictatorships and authoritarianism. There are no rights of any kind in Gaza. No freedom of speech, religion, or property rights. If they controlled more land, it would mean more oppression, not only for Israelis but for Palestinians.
▪️Israel, meanwhile, is a crappy government like the US is a crappy government. It does all sorts of awful things, but it protects basic freedoms. You can be gay in Israel, be a Muslim, be an entrepreneur, be critical of the govt, etc. You can pursue your dreams for the most part. In fact, Arabs living in Israel are far freer (and better off) than those in Gaza or most anywhere else in the Middle East.
▪️No state who violates any of the rights of its citizens deserves to exist, but in reality this only applies if the alternative is more freedom. Freedom movements are only moral or justified if they call for and actually bring more freedom to an area. The Palestinian cause does not, it only brings tribal rule with a genocidal desire to erase Israel.
▪️It doesn’t matter what the historical claims of the Jewish or Palestinian people are (although the Jews have a better claim even there imo). It matters what government is better at protecting its citizens’ rights. In that regard, it’s not even close in who to support. It’s night and day morally. It takes brainwashing or a college degree to rationalize supporting “Palestinian freedom” in the current context.
As with the leftist freak out over “banned books” this is not banning books, it’s still easy to get Harry Potter and bookstores should be able to limit whatever books they want for whatever reason. But not only does it show a double standard, the rationale is far less justifiable than removing certain content from school libraries. At least there the justification was the content of certain books are inappropriate for children, clearly not every book should be available in a school library. Here, there’s no argument about the content they just don’t like the author’s politics!
Because news came out about his letter to the FBI, revealing he was a nutcase. The letter was rambling and incoherent, claiming he was trained by the US military off the books, and that Walz had instructed him to kill Amy Klobuchar so he could run for Senate. None of it made any sense (Walz is not running for Senate) and none of the assassinations made any sense, even in a diabolical way.
Nearly all of his hit list was Democrats (including Walz) and abortion clinics, but he was supposedly working for Walz?! Plus, one of the guys he killed wasn’t even on his list, and others were no longer in office or deceased. None of it makes sense from any coherent angle.
Basically, it appears the guy was mentally ill and neither the left or right can use the incident to push their agendas anymore, so the story was dropped.
This is so dumb. First, this means LA began as Spanish land founded to support Spanish missions (i.e. colonialism). Which contradicts their entire premise. But the reality is that Los Angeles is a quintessential American city.
▪️When the US acquired California in the 1840s, LA was a small town of less than 2,000 people. It was basically nothing. It became large only after the gold rush and the railroads completed in the 1870-80s, which brought thousands of new settlers and a booming commercial center.
▪️But LA had a major issue limiting its growth, no water. It wasn’t until Mulholland found a water source and built an aqueduct down from Northern California that LA had the infrastructure to grow into a major city.
▪️Then, a combination of oil, real estate and the film industry caused it to boom in the early 1900s. Post WWII, industries like aerospace continued its spectacular growth. Calling this “Mexican land” is a brain dead take. Neither the Mexicans, Spanish nor ...
