He's literally appealing to Middle Eastern Iron Age mythology about the special people returning to the promised land. Literally around half of Israel are descendants of Europeans, another 15-18% or so are Muslim/Christian Arabs and the rest are descendants of Middle Eastern promised people. This appeal to mythology is deranged.
@@bruteboy123see my correction to my original comment. I couldn't do what Ben does. I lack the temperament to restrain myself from not violating Blocks "non- aggression principle"
@@mattgilbert7347that is very true but works both ways - meaning, against the 1 state solution . Your ethnicity, or even indigenaity , does not give you the right to subjugate or cleanse another group. Saying “ this isn’t what we proposed”, will be of no merit when the gorey and exactly predictable results of a muslim majority meets a large jewish minority in a single state, presumably that the rest of the ummah has access to, unfold. So the 1 state idea is equally unhinged unless it is supposed to be 100 years from now after arabs aren’t majority muslim or mainstream islam has changed ideologically. If Ben would just keep it zipped about the 1 binational secular state fantasy - that no Palestinians want anyway, i would agree with all his points.
@@tidakada7357 Not everyone is as bloodthirsty and genocidal as the Israelis. If Israelis don't like living in a non-apartheid state, they can piss off back to Europe.
Has no clue about the distinction between private property and personal property: check Has a completely distorted picture of 1948: check Bases judgements on rights and self-determination on "who was there first", a non-argument unrecognised in any legal framework: check Conflates combatants with civilians and doesn't realise he's also making a case for indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians for the way they have been voting since 1948: check Has no understanding of resistance to occupation: check This person is basically a calm version of Rabbi Schmuley. Who even invites someone like this for a debate?
He's more polite and less unhinged than Shmuley, plus there's an obvious contradiction in his worldview (unlike Shmuley, who's totally consistent) so for those two reasons alone he's worth engaging with.
@@wrathofachilles I think the entire video was a case in point that he's not worth engaging with. Someone who can't acknowledge the above _and_ is making a huge exception from his stated worldview just so he can argue an absurd basis for apartheid and ethnic cleansing should be the definition of a kind of an individual no air time should be wasted on.
When you know the truth and you hear this sick man dribble on lie after lie while dismissing so much death just because... Jesus he finally stopped talking. I feel sick after listening.
"Anarcho"-Capitalism is perfectly compatible with fascist measures like genocide. The only contradiction there is between genocide and fantasy representations of that oxymoronic ideology by the mental 12-year-olds following it.
I have so much respect for Ben. I just couldn't do it - put up with this utterly genocidal nonsense for nearly 2 hours. He's so respectful and every word out of Walter's mouth is just lies. His argument is literally that ethnic cleansing is OK if you drop leaflets. He keeps brining up the leaflets. I just couldn't do it, no way.
Already now over one hundred years ago Franz Oppenheimer wrote Der Staat , a 1908 book refuting just about everything Hegel ever said about the state being man's most glorious achievement. For Oppenheimer the state is the devil incarnate, a view he developed from the work of the great Jewish intellectual Ludwig Gumplowicz. As near as I can tell for Gumplowicz the state is a formation which makes possible the subjugation of one group by another - is the rai·son d'ê·tre of the state. Oppenheimer refines Gumplowicz intuition picking out without seeming to define what we now term 'crony capitalism'. Oppenheimer goes so far as to say crony capitalism is made possible by the state. Where in its earlier form the state simply allowed one group (race in Gumlowicz terminology by which he means ethnicities rather than race in the biological sense) to subjugate another, under crony capitalism the state allows the corporate managerial class to subjugate the worker and consumer. Thus for Oppenheimer dismantling the state cures a multitude of ills - chief among them the restoration of the consumer as the rightful sovereign, as the only agent exercising power within a free market free society. For his part Murray Rothbard's work puts gloss on Oppenheimer - Rothbard spending a lifetime proselytizing against the state. Block was a Rothbard disciple but as is made abundantly clear in the debate has gone off the reservation, has renounced Rothbard's anti state manifesto to embrace instead a brutal, ruthless statism.
Block agrees with Hitler, who, in his private notes at the time in September 1919 when he was about to enter into politics, he referred to the Bible as being "Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind". So, like Hitler did, Block finds genocide to be ethically, morally, acceptable. After all, Genesis 15:18-21 and Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and Deuteronomy 7:16 and Deuteronomy 20:16-18 quote 'God' as giving all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers to the Jews and as then ordering them to exterminate all of the people who lived there and to occupy it as THEIR land and nation. Block accepts all of this, like Hitler did, as being history, NOT myth. How can ANYBODY think that they can learn ANYTHING from such an evil and unintelligent person as that -- a 'justifier' of genocides on the basis of mere MYTHS?
41:30 by this point it is clear that this old man is too feeble minded to address critique. He seems to not understand terms like 'conflation' or even notice terms like 'effectively'. Does this guy have any real reach? I wonder if there was any value to this debate. I guess, hopefully, it helps to discredit Mr Block's voice on this matter.
Block's opening statement is unhinged.
Correction: pretty much everything he says here is unhinged.
He's literally appealing to Middle Eastern Iron Age mythology about the special people returning to the promised land. Literally around half of Israel are descendants of Europeans, another 15-18% or so are Muslim/Christian Arabs and the rest are descendants of Middle Eastern promised people. This appeal to mythology is deranged.
@@bruteboy123see my correction to my original comment.
I couldn't do what Ben does. I lack the temperament to restrain myself from not violating Blocks "non- aggression principle"
@@bruteboy123 and, to Ben's first remarks in his opening, a person's ethnicity should not determine their right not to be genocided
@@mattgilbert7347that is very true but works both ways - meaning, against the 1 state solution . Your ethnicity, or even indigenaity , does not give you the right to subjugate or cleanse another group. Saying “ this isn’t what we proposed”, will be of no merit when the gorey and exactly predictable results of a muslim majority meets a large jewish minority in a single state, presumably that the rest of the ummah has access to, unfold. So the 1 state idea is equally unhinged unless it is supposed to be 100 years from now after arabs aren’t majority muslim or mainstream islam has changed ideologically. If Ben would just keep it zipped about the 1 binational secular state fantasy - that no Palestinians want anyway, i would agree with all his points.
@@tidakada7357 Not everyone is as bloodthirsty and genocidal as the Israelis. If Israelis don't like living in a non-apartheid state, they can piss off back to Europe.
Wow that opening argument was the crispest example of the totally undisturbed Israeli propaganda meta I’ve heard in half a year
I listened until i became sickened. Walter belings in a cage. Good night
Has no clue about the distinction between private property and personal property: check
Has a completely distorted picture of 1948: check
Bases judgements on rights and self-determination on "who was there first", a non-argument unrecognised in any legal framework: check
Conflates combatants with civilians and doesn't realise he's also making a case for indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians for the way they have been voting since 1948: check
Has no understanding of resistance to occupation: check
This person is basically a calm version of Rabbi Schmuley. Who even invites someone like this for a debate?
He's more polite and less unhinged than Shmuley, plus there's an obvious contradiction in his worldview (unlike Shmuley, who's totally consistent) so for those two reasons alone he's worth engaging with.
@@wrathofachilles I think the entire video was a case in point that he's not worth engaging with. Someone who can't acknowledge the above _and_ is making a huge exception from his stated worldview just so he can argue an absurd basis for apartheid and ethnic cleansing should be the definition of a kind of an individual no air time should be wasted on.
He called the naqba a vacation.
Luckily for humanity Walter won’t be around much longer
Was it self-defense when the IOF bulldozed several square miles worth of crops and refused to address it when asked by Human Rights Watch?
When you know the truth and you hear this sick man dribble on lie after lie while dismissing so much death just because... Jesus he finally stopped talking. I feel sick after listening.
Gives himself away after five seconds: "im an anarcho-capitalist"
Ridiculous
Blocks argument is the antithesis of anarcho capitalism.
The “yeah but there’s Arab doctors” reprise at 1:01ish was epic. I’ve heard so many people operating on this level speaking like this my whole life.
"On principle, I'm an anarcho-capitalist--except when I'm not because I want to endorse 9en0c1de."
"Anarcho"-Capitalism is perfectly compatible with fascist measures like genocide. The only contradiction there is between genocide and fantasy representations of that oxymoronic ideology by the mental 12-year-olds following it.
The man sounds exactly like Winnie the Pooh
I have so much respect for Ben. I just couldn't do it - put up with this utterly genocidal nonsense for nearly 2 hours. He's so respectful and every word out of Walter's mouth is just lies. His argument is literally that ethnic cleansing is OK if you drop leaflets. He keeps brining up the leaflets. I just couldn't do it, no way.
37:35 yes! Dismiss that stupid bunny&pig schtick
Ben crushed this dope.😢
50:30 gone over the deep end
The IDF literally used Gazan civilians as human shields.
Already now over one hundred years ago Franz Oppenheimer wrote Der Staat , a 1908 book refuting just about everything Hegel ever said about the state being man's most glorious achievement. For Oppenheimer the state is the devil incarnate, a view he developed from the work of the great Jewish intellectual Ludwig Gumplowicz. As near as I can tell for Gumplowicz the state is a formation which makes possible the subjugation of one group by another - is the rai·son d'ê·tre of the state. Oppenheimer refines Gumplowicz intuition picking out without seeming to define what we now term 'crony capitalism'. Oppenheimer goes so far as to say crony capitalism is made possible by the state. Where in its earlier form the state simply allowed one group (race in Gumlowicz terminology by which he means ethnicities rather than race in the biological sense) to subjugate another, under crony capitalism the state allows the corporate managerial class to subjugate the worker and consumer. Thus for Oppenheimer dismantling the state cures a multitude of ills - chief among them the restoration of the consumer as the rightful sovereign, as the only agent exercising power within a free market free society. For his part Murray Rothbard's work puts gloss on Oppenheimer - Rothbard spending a lifetime proselytizing against the state. Block was a Rothbard disciple but as is made abundantly clear in the debate has gone off the reservation, has renounced Rothbard's anti state manifesto to embrace instead a brutal, ruthless statism.
Block agrees with Hitler, who, in his private notes at the time in September 1919 when he was about to enter into politics, he referred to the Bible as being "Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind". So, like Hitler did, Block finds genocide to be ethically, morally, acceptable. After all, Genesis 15:18-21 and Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and Deuteronomy 7:16 and Deuteronomy 20:16-18 quote 'God' as giving all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers to the Jews and as then ordering them to exterminate all of the people who lived there and to occupy it as THEIR land and nation. Block accepts all of this, like Hitler did, as being history, NOT myth. How can ANYBODY think that they can learn ANYTHING from such an evil and unintelligent person as that -- a 'justifier' of genocides on the basis of mere MYTHS?
Walter is kind of dense. Waste of Ben's time 😢
Two states? It seems grandiose to have two Palestines, but who am i?
41:30 by this point it is clear that this old man is too feeble minded to address critique. He seems to not understand terms like 'conflation' or even notice terms like 'effectively'. Does this guy have any real reach? I wonder if there was any value to this debate. I guess, hopefully, it helps to discredit Mr Block's voice on this matter.