![Bill Whittle: Moving Back to America [Week in Review 12/25/2020]](https://billwhittle2.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/maxresdefault-1-1200x675.jpg)
Moving Back to America with Bill Whittle: Week in Review 12/21/20 – 12/25/20
00:01 Hollywood used to be extremely conservative. Here’s why it isn’t anymore.
02:09 “I don’t have any interest…in pretending that the current result is legitimate or honorable. It is simply the final stroke of a four-year establishment media power grab.” — Newt Gingrich
04:39 Internal Chinese document recognizes U.S. military superiority, but pledges to do “anything necessary” to achieve parity or dominance.
07:48 No one wants to destroy society to make it better. This is the curse of Utopia.
09:40 We have freedom because of the fundamental virtue of the American people which rests on Judeo-Christian idea that there’s a God who has laws, and that the spirit to live virtuously is inside of you…not in an external governor.
Thanks to our Members for making this possible.
https://youtu.be/S0OWJ1erfAM
Listen to the Audio Version
13 replies on “Bill Whittle: Moving Back to America [Week in Review 12/25/2020]”
I like what you said, but I have a quibble.
It is not a Christian thing to do, to give rights to all people, whether they are in the majority or not.
The Catholic Church spent centuries creating a two tier system.
It is a Protestant thing (influenced by scholars of Judaism). You could even narrow it to a Great Britain Protestant thing. (the german lutheran was not particularly forgiving of minorities.)
Judaism has a tradition, going back to Moses, that stranger should not be oppressed.
It is based on the traditional Jewish understanding that there is a path to heaven for the non-Jew. It is thru the 7 laws given to the Children of Noah (as opposed to the 613 given to Jews).
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/857823/jewish/Should-I-Convert-to-Judaism.htm
http://beingnoahide.com/
Being as you have the inclination to quibble …
Firstly — In America, no one is “giving rights” to anyone. At least not basic, first tier rights. Neither the Government nor the U.S. Constitution grant any citizens any basic rights at all. If you think that it’s Christians or Jews or anyone else granting or giving rights you’ve missed something very important to the American system.
The U.S. Constitution does not bestow, give, grant or otherwise lay any rights upon the citizenry of the U.S. All the Constitution does is enumerate and guarantee natural, irrevocable, inalienable rights that all human beings are endowed with simply by the fact of their humanity. Rights like these are granted by Almighty God and cannot be sold, bartered, traded or rescinded. These are “natural” human rights, rights granted by Men can be revoked by Men, rights granted by God can only be revoked by God.
The Founding Fathers did not seek to grant anything by way of rights to anyone. Their sole purposes in this matter was simply to acknowledge rights endowed by The Creator upon every human being — Then enumerate a few of those rights so as to protect them from the will of lesser men. Even in going that far there was some trepidation over the possibility that the rights enumerated would be seized upon as the only rights, or that in the very enumeration of them they would be degraded to a state of something granted by Men.
Quibble until your fingers fall off, try to make this something purely secular or academic, or in any other way explain away or apply sophistry to this issue and the fact still remains unequivocal — Those men were acting in accord with their True Christian Faith and were themselves Christians. Full stop.
Secondly, you are confusing Christianity with Denominational identities through various references to “British Christianity” and incorrectly “lutheran” Germans. “Luther” is a proper noun, as is “Lutheran”. Denominational names like Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist are all proper nouns. I’m not being the grammar police here over a typo. It’s offensive to diminish the designation of someone’s faith to a lower case common noun … And you should make an effort to avoid doing that.
Christianity is not an homogeneous mass but there are basic foundational principles applied by Christianity whether a given denomination or sect practices them successfully or not. Episcopalian/Church of England Brits, German and Scandinavian Lutherans, the various Calvinists etc. are all Christians as long as they cleave to the foundational tenets of Biblical Christianity (which I note that many no longer do and thus justify doubt about the soundness of their doctrines or the accuracy of referring to themselves as Christians).
Jesus Christ (or Yeshua Hamashiach if you prefer His correct Hebrew name) said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” … And that pretty well covers this idea of “rights”. That simple concept is a foundational aspect of Natural Law.
There’s a lot more to Natural Law than that single injunction from Jesus but the gist of it is that legally (not morally or spiritually, those are different matters) you’re free to do anything you see fit to do, with the proviso that the freedom of your fist ends at the tip of your neighbor’s nose. Which means you may pursue your life as you choose as long as in doing so you harm no other person. Stealing from them is harming them. Preventing their speech to express their thoughts and positions is harming them. Denying them the right to practice their faith is harming them. Disarming them and leaving them at the mercy of the armed, or predators of two or four legged configuration, is harming them. Invading their privacy to seize their belongings or documents and/or to look for evidence against them without cause is harming them. Etc.
My Dad did a great job of explaining this concept when he was teaching me to drive. He said “Do your best to avoid forcing other drivers to maneuver for or because of you. Live your life that way too.”
Thirdly, Christianity is Judaism plus, it is an evolution and an offshoot of Judaism according to its own Theosophy. Jewish people generally do not see this as so but any Christian who actually knows the tenets, history and theology of his Faith is aware of this. Jesus is a Jew, He didn’t stop being a Jew just because some of the Jews rejected Him. He is a Jewish Rabbi, He didn’t stop being a Rabbi just because some Romans were manipulated into hanging Him on a cross. Jesus often referred to the Prophets, Moses, and all the historical figures of the Torah. Jesus kept The Law and rightfully pointed out where Men had corrupted or bastardized it for their own selfish ends. Jesus is as Jewish a Jew as a Jew can be. In fact, probably more-so than modern Jews because Jesus walked the land per-diaspora, his lineage is known and unlike many modern Jews his Jewish blood was not mingled with other people’s in other lands. Which is something few Jews today can claim with accuracy.
(Note: I do not subscribe to the ridiculous idea that modern Jews are not descendants of the original Hebrew People. Modern Jews are not “Kazakh’s” or Slavic, they are descendants of Hebrews and many, many solid DNA studies have proven this irrefutably. When addressing this topic of the blood of a people, especially this particular people, it’s important to be as clear and concise as possible. There’s a lot of hogwash out there and there are a lot of people who would misinterpret what I’m saying here.)
In fact, today there is a significant subset of the Jewish population of Israel and the larger world that practices traditional Judaism while acknowledging Yeshua Hamashiach as the True Messiah. These people are known as Messianic Jews and are the intersection of Hebrew Jewish and Non-Hebraic Christianity.
You might be a Jew and I might be a Christian, or vice versa, but there should be no doubt among us that when referring to “Judaeo-Christian” there is far more in common between the Judaeo and the Christian than there is uncommon or adversarial. Jews are the natural allies of Christians if they’re allowed to be, and the reverse is true also. Neither side has a monopoly on bigotry but that’s a fault not a feature.
If this is a problem for you I suggest you spend some time reviewing the works of Dennis Prager, who is Jewish and quite an authority on this sort of thing.
Fundamental rights predate the existence of any government. They are not granted by the Constitution, they are guaranteed by it, with the government precluded by force of law from acting to take them away.
That’s my simple, two sentence statement that sums it all up neatly. Volumes can be written discussing the philosophy behind it. But it all boils down to the idea that we have certain, unalienable rights, and no government we consent to can take them away from us.
Nothing at all can take them away. Rights can’t be taken away, only violated. You always have your rights, no matter what. You may be prevented from exercising them but you can’t lose them.
The difference between having Natural Rights and being able to exercise them is frequently important.
Not frequently, always. Tyranny is human history’s default; enjoying the civility and liberty to enjoy our rights is the aberration.
It’s all-important. That’s why I mentioned being prevented from exercising them.
No disrespect for failure to spell Lutheran with a capital L, just being lazy.
You are correct that judging a system from the way it was corrupted by men, as opposed to the optimal way G-d gave it, is unfair.
The point I should have made was that people did not realize we had rights independent of the government or tribe until certain people started writing about that concept. Ancient Greek city states or Hebrew kingdoms did not have such a concept, even if it is reasonable to argue that the people alive 2100 or 3000 years ago had Natural Rights (as commonly defined by most of the people contributing here)
There does seem to be something unique to the British isles, and the fact that there was no seeming need for a government run standing army (like more land accessible countries), that lead to government systems that relied on Free Citizens more and more and made it easier to recognize the concept of Natural Rights.
I suppose that the germ of the idea of Natural Rights that can be seen in Greek philosophers of Athens is an outgrowth of their economy relying more on trade that the subjugation of their neighbors.
I happen to subscribe to the concept that without both the Thoughts of Athens and Jerusalem ,the concept of Natural Rights would still be hidden from view.
A pithy and appropriate summation. I would like to see you on some of the major networks, not as a regular pundit hired by them but rather as a person whose voice needs to reach a larger audience. My perspective is that what you are trying to accomplish needs that platform to build your audience the way Limbaugh and Levin, Hannity, and others have done. Your particular voice, your views, your vision, must remain Whittle, but the connections you can have through some of the cable news networks will build a consensus necessary for accomplishing your vision.
As someone who shares many of your views, especially as regards China and also who has great concern over the integrity of our election process, you may wish to spend additional time on explaining to those of us ignorant of the implications of statements in the Declaration and Constitution, the former setting forth the philosophy of our country and the latter the execution. I also add another “natural right” within all human beings, the spirit of rebellion, without which none of the natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of a meaningful life has permanent meaning. Only if we recognize, accept, and even use when appropriate, the spirit of rebellion against those who subvert those natural rights is anything accomplished.
Isn’t your “spirit of rebellion” the same as, or a form of, defending your rights? I wouldn’t call it a right in and of itself, but it is related to the right of self-defense.
Yes, and to a degree we are arguing semantics. My point, perhaps not expressed well, is that the fundamental issue of natural rights, as understood by the Framers, is these are innate and can’t be given. I feel the spirit of rebellion is innate and cannot be granted. It also is deeper than the right to self defense which is a legal construction unless you consider it innate as well, which means you and are simply are choosing different words to mean the same thing. I argue that rebellion is broader because rebellion does not stem only from the defense of self when threatened with personal physical harm but from any threat to the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of a meaningful life. Rebellion may take many forms, not simply violence. For example, a child rebels against one’s parents to establish their natural rights as an adult.
Yep, you’re exactly right. It’s a matter of saying the same thing in different ways.
For example, I see “any threat to the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of a meaningful life” as a threat to me personally, requiring (self-)defense, because my life is immeasurably enhanced by the things threatened.
We are agreed. Thanks for the comments.