Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
gregory kalian

White Supremacist Protest Violence

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Honestly, I thought this was an Onion piece but it isn't.  This is real.  You almost can't make this stuff up anymore.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

It's abject stupidity. And it's being pointed out...including in the mainstream media.

But I'm more interested in the "former Nazi billionaire" thing you mentioned the other day. Would you mind clarifying who you were referring to, and what's it based on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Craig24 said:

Thinking of the best way to put this: Actual collectives do not exist.  People who believe they do or should DO exist and are called collectivists.   

I hear what you are saying.  One can also believe that they are a giraffe, but believing does not make it so.  Marxism and Nazism were both pseudo-scientific nonsense.  They are floating concepts with no ties to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 10:13 AM, New Buddha said:

Don,

To the extent that they can understand their ideas at all, the Marxist/Anarchist/anti-Capitalist (redshirt) far-Left Antifa equates the Fascist (brownshirt) far-Right White Supremisticts with Capitalism.  To the far-Left, Nazi Germany was the inevitable, logical and historical manifestation of Capitalism (Dialectic Materialism).  It's not just a coincidence that Marx's treatise was titled Das Kapital.

This German dialectic has been playing-out for over 200 years (really even longer, since Martin Luther) and has caused 100's of millions of deaths.  It is nothing more than Marx's Collectivism (Socialism/Communism/Anarchism) vs. Hegel's Statism (Prussian Statism, Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II (World War I) and Nazism).  This is the redshirt vs. brownshirt "dialectic" that 2046 outlined in his well-written post.

The far-Left want' people to believe that there is a difference between Collectivism (Classism) and Statism (Racism) and they want people to equate Capitalism with Fascism - but this a game that Objectivists refuse to be tricked into playing.  Objectists reject this dialectic.  The Globalist Left also want people to equate National Sovereignty with Fascism.

None of the above has anything to do with the Ethical Individualism which shaped the U.S. through the ideas of Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, etc.

None of this seems to address anything that I've been saying. You keep talking about what the left believes, but that's not relevant either. Just because you're against whatever you think the left believes, that doesn't put you on the right side of any given issue.

I don't equate capitalism with fascism, obviously. That's not what's at issue. Neither is individualism. No one in this thread is arguing against individualism, or for collectivism, or that Antifa is a good group of high-minded philosophers. Everyone agrees that Antifa is awful and that their philosophical premises are utterly rotten. But (yet again) in 2017, in America, they are not so awful as the KKK or neo-Nazis. (Just as Hurd believed Republicans to be not so awful as Democrats, at a given point in time.)

Agree or disagree with that as you see fit, but try to understand that such is the actual claim.

11 hours ago, New Buddha said:

But "collectivists" don't exist.  It is a completely fraudulent, floating concept and is not tied to reality in any way shape or form.  Individuals exist - not collectives.  Marx's concept of Class and Hitler's concept of Race were both pseudo-scientific nonsense.  (And Hegel's was complete mystical nonsense).

Your reification of "collectivists" is in direct opposition to Objectivism and is an example of the point I made in the previous post.

Collectivists don't exist? Are you quite sure about that?

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

Utterly ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Collectivists don't exist? Are you quite sure about that?

They exist as "giraffe-ist" or "giraffe-ism" might be said to exist (per my above post).  Or the tooth fairy.

Man, qua Man, is not an individual that only has a reality in a dialectic relation to his Class (and that Class's relation to the material means of production).  Nor is an individual a subordinate entity that only has reality in relation to one's Race and/or State.  Is what I'm saying really that controversial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Everyone agrees that Antifa is awful and that their philosophical premises are utterly rotten.

 

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

More specifically, antifa is anarcho-Communism, isn't it? It lacks the major authoritarianism we'd see from Maoists or Stalinists

By claiming that anarcho-Communism is less "authoritarian" he is claiming - either explicitly or implicitly - that one group is "better" than the other.  Not just more or less destructive, or poses a greater or lesser threat.

My position, like Rand's is that both groups are "authoritarian," have the same philosophical roots and are equally despicable.

Another quote from Eiuol from further up in the thread:

They are not equally reprehensible. Is antifa reprehensible? Yes. Are identitarians like Robert Spencer reprehensible? Yes, and a little worse. Are neo-Nazis reprehensible? Yes, and A LOT MORE than both. There is no moral equivalence of them, as the prior two are decidedly racist. 

Are you suggesting that antifa is equally as bad as the KKK? On moral grounds, racism requires an even more depraved view of man than antifa.

 

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

They exist as "giraffe-ist" or "giraffe-ism" might be said to exist (per my above post).  Or the tooth fairy.

Man, qua Man, is not an individual that only has a reality in a dialectic relation to his Class (and that Class's relation to the material means of production).  Nor is an individual a subordinate entity that only has reality in relation to one's Race and/or State.  Is what I'm saying really that controversial?

The tooth fairy does not exist. People who believe that the tooth fairy exists, exist.

Collectives do not exist. Collectivists exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

By claiming that anarcho-Communism is less "authoritarian" he is claiming - either explicitly or implicitly - that one group is "better" than the other.  Not just more or less destructive, or poses a greater or lesser threat.

I can't speak to Eiuol's idea or use of authoritarianism.

2 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

My position, like Rand's is that both groups are "authoritarian," have the same philosophical roots and are equally despicable.   

The issue of "roots" does not matter to me (in this context). I agree that both communism and fascism are utterly despicable. But it is a separate question as to whether or not groups or individuals -- such as they actually exist today -- are "more or less destructive, or pose a greater or lesser threat." And that's the question that I've been addressing this entire time.

Just as one must be able to weigh between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, at times, or between political candidates who each represent abhorrent ideologies, or Methodists and Jihadists, or Democrats and Republicans, one must be able to weigh the opposing sides as they existed at Charlottesville. You had people adopting the signs and slogans of the Third Reich and Confederacy on the one hand, and people protesting that display on the other. People (if only implicitly) advocating for slavery and genocide on the one hand, and people advocating that we ought "punch a Nazi" on the other. I'm sure that Antifa (and associated) are caught up in a grab bag of other leftist ideas, from socialism to environmentalism to egalitarianism -- all of which deserves condemnation along with their street violence -- but that is still not the same as marching in the name of outright slavery and genocide.

1 minute ago, New Buddha said:

But the pseudo-science behind Marxism and Nazism is nonsense.

Of course it is.

How is that a "but" to what I'd said? Here's what I said:

20 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

The tooth fairy does not exist. People who believe that the tooth fairy exists, exist.

Collectives do not exist. Collectivists exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

I can't speak to Eiuol's idea or use of authoritarianism.

My recent participation in this thread was addressed to Eiuol.

4 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

The issue of "roots" does not matter to me (in this context). I agree that both communism and fascism are utterly despicable. But it is a separate question as to whether or not groups or individuals -- such as they actually exist today -- are "more or less destructive, or pose a greater or lesser threat." And that's the question that I've been addressing this entire time.

I have been addressing the "roots" per Eioul's posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, New Buddha said:

My recent participation in this thread was addressed to Eiuol.

Except, presumably, when you have been quoting my posts and/or addressing them specifically to "Don"? Though I discuss things with you and Grames and EC and 2046, or etc., within the same thread, I do understand that no two of y'all necessarily make the very same argument -- and I try to keep things straight accordingly (as complicated as that can sometimes get). After all, individuals exist, not collectives. ;)

1 minute ago, New Buddha said:

I have been addressing the "roots" per Eioul's posts.

Be that as it may, the issue of "roots" does not matter to me (in this context) and it does not address the arguments that I have made.

And if you continue to disagree with my arguments, that's fine -- this board has never been shy about hosting such disagreement -- but if you find yourself eventually agreeing that, for instance, "collectivists exist," it will do you no harm to say so either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

And if you continue to disagree with my arguments, that's fine -- this board has never been shy about hosting such disagreement -- but if you find yourself eventually agreeing that, for instance, "collectivists exist," it will do you no harm to say so either.

Within the present context of Charlottesville, I believe that Objectivist should equally condemn both sides.  And, furthermore, I believe that Objectivists should explain why it is that both sides share the same philosophical roots - because Objectivists uniquely understand why this is so.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Marxism and Nazism were both pseudo-scientific nonsense.  They are floating concepts with no ties to reality.

And clearly I think collectivism isn't a valid philosophy. I'm surprised that you think I suggested that collectivism is somehow based on anything reasonable. My categories before were to distinguish political philosophies that people hold.

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

By claiming that anarcho-Communism is less "authoritarian" he is claiming - either explicitly or implicitly - that one group is "better" than the other.  Not just more or less destructive, or poses a greater or lesser threat.

Authoritarianism is a style of government. Anarcho-communism is against government, so it can't be authoritarian. Nothing more than that. Given that philosophies are chosen, I can say that authoritarianism being more destructive means that it is less "moral" - it harms me as an individual more. A marauding gang that organizes along Communist and anti-capitalist principles is bad, but if that gang is a government with an entire army and police force, you are even less able to protect yourself.  

Antifa and white nationalists are those marauding gangs. Antifa won't grow. It's ineffective. White nationalism aims for itself to be active in government and has potential to become worse than antifa.

We agree on the roots of collectivism, but same roots don't mean same moral blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, New Buddha said:

Within the present context of Charlottesville, I believe that Objectivist should equally condemn both sides.  And, furthermore, I believe that Objectivists should explain why it is that both sides share the same philosophical roots.

If you treat both sides equally, when the two sides are in fact unequal, then you have not acted with justice. Whatever you believe about their respective "philosophical roots," the Unite the Right folks at Charlottesville were not morally equivalent to the people protesting against them. Nazis and people who believe we ought to punch Nazis are not the same.

What "Objectivists should do" (and last I remember, you did not consider yourself an Objectivist; has that changed?) is first, foremost and always: look at the reality of the situation and respond accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Authoritarianism is a style of government. Anarcho-communism is against government, so it can't be authoritarian.

I'm not so sure about this distinction. One can differentiate between authoritarianism in centralized government and non-governmental forms.

One can also differentiate between support for centralized violence in the form of "people's committees" and "workers councils" as versus single-party states.

However, if using violence to suppress dissenting views is one core aspect of authoritarianism, then it makes a strong case for those anarchists that do not support robust free speech to be roundly condemned as authoritarians. I do believe it falls upon us to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Yaron Brooks take on Charlottesville.  There is a link to a 4 min. recording.

http://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/yaron-brook-charlottesville-violence-shows-battle-between-alt-right-and-alt-left/

Two violent, extreme ideologies are clashing in our minds, on our university campuses and even on our streets. Both the alt-right and the Antifa movement want a form of fascism in a collectivist society, Yaron Brook explained on this week’s episode of “The Yaron Brook Show.”

“Both, I think, represent a real threat to the country,” he said.

On Saturday, white nationalists marched in Charlottesville and clashed with counter-protesters. A man is in prison after allegedly plowing his car into a group of people protesting white supremacy; one woman died, while 19 other people were injured. The madness started Friday night when white supremacists protested the city’s decision to take down a Confederate-era statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Yaron analyzed the media reaction to Charlottesville and similar events, noting that liberal media tend to ignore violence fueled by progressive ideas. He also looked at examples of liberals who are unafraid to point out the dangers of the growing Antifa movement.

“It’s good to see people on the left condemning this,” he said. “I wish it was more.”

See more from Yaron on TheBlaze Contributorschannel and listen to “The Yaron Brook Show” live every Sunday from 2-4 p.m. ET, only on TheBlaze Radio Network.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 2046 said:

One can also differentiate between support for centralized violence in the form of "people's committees" and "workers councils" as versus single-party states.

I see what you mean. The word authoritarian might not be so clear when we distinguish between types of violent political philosophies. Violent as in that's the means to enact political change as primary. Antifa and Neo-nazis have this in common. Then that splits into centralized violence as opposed to non-centralized. "Authoritarian" is a non-essential point if all we mean is the centralized government throwing individual rights away. Centralization is a big distinction though since it affects how someone would implement force.

I think that emphasizes even more what I'm saying about antifa vs. Neo-nazis. Centralizing that violence is a lot worse than anarchist gangs, and a deeper level of disrespect for individuals.

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do think you have a point there. The Nazi creed of violence is a much more important long range threat, I think. It is full of mystical blatherings that subsume the nation into the God-state.

The left wing street agitators are authoritarian, and maybe I overestimated the degree to which many of them would be open to individualism or principled in some way. However, they are full of opportunists and hipsters. They are a short range threat because they are shutting down speech on campus and because the cultural left currently controls academia, the media, and government, but they ultimately rely on nihilism. What happens when that melts away?

Anyone who hasn't read the Ominous Parralells or the DIM Hypothesis I would highly recommend that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2046 said:

and because the cultural left currently controls academia, the media, and government, but they ultimately rely on nihilism. What happens when that melts away?

You had me until you wrote this.

The "cultural left" isn't a thing. If you mean "cultural Marxism", that isn't a thing. There is no monolithic left, or right for that matter. It is true that academia is biased towards liberalism and left-leaning beliefs. But there is no control of academia or much agreement past just being anti-Republican or that Trump is a bad president. There is no control of the media, because there is such huge variety of left people and a whole lot of right people as well. No is manipulated into their news except by their own laziness at being critical thinkers. There is no special control of government, other than by and large being an expansion of neocon policies - Obama and Bush weren't hugely different. You are trying to demonstrate that antifa is a threat based on the false idea that there is a cultural left controlling all of our lives.

Leftists disagree. Chomsky isn't a fan of antifa, and he's the prime example of a leftist academic. I've seen hardline Communists hate on the very liberals that are in media. We know that historically, Communists go after each other - Stalin had Lenin killed.

I'm fine arguing if antifa is more a threat than I thought it was, but the "cultural left" myth is not a basis for any argument. You already insinuated that Soros is an ex-Nazi, we don't need more myths going around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm fine arguing if antifa is more a threat than I thought it was, but the "cultural left" myth is not a basis for any argument.

Personally, my fear of Antifa is less for what little that group can actually accomplish (a few broken windows, a few street skirmishes) and more for the confusion (genuine or cynical) they sow in threads like these. Most of all for the pretext they might give to a man like Trump, who has no particular love for civil liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

 Most of all for the pretext they might give to a man like Trump, who has no particular love for civil liberty.

A pretext to do what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Nicky said:

A pretext to do what?

Specifically, I don't know. Increased surveillance/wiretapping, infringing on the rights to assembly or free speech or the press, an increasingly militarized police force, ramping up deportation efforts, or etc. I don't think Trump is a principled man, except that I believe that he wants power for himself. Historically, power hungry people have sometimes used civil disorder (and/or external conflict) as a pretext for curtailing liberty -- and that's fully what I expect from the current administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You had me until you wrote this.

The "cultural left" isn't a thing. If you mean "cultural Marxism", that isn't a thing. There is no monolithic left, or right for that matter. It is true that academia is biased towards liberalism and left-leaning beliefs. But there is no control of academia or much agreement past just being anti-Republican or that Trump is a bad president. There is no control of the media, because there is such huge variety of left people and a whole lot of right people as well. No is manipulated into their news except by their own laziness at being critical thinkers. There is no special control of government, other than by and large being an expansion of neocon policies - Obama and Bush weren't hugely different. You are trying to demonstrate that antifa is a threat based on the false idea that there is a cultural left controlling all of our lives.

Leftists disagree. Chomsky isn't a fan of antifa, and he's the prime example of a leftist academic. I've seen hardline Communists hate on the very liberals that are in media. We know that historically, Communists go after each other - Stalin had Lenin killed.

I'm fine arguing if antifa is more a threat than I thought it was, but the "cultural left" myth is not a basis for any argument. You already insinuated that Soros is an ex-Nazi, we don't need more myths going around.

Of course it is basis for argument. The whole argument of the DIM Hypothesis is based on the idea that different philosophical belief systems shaping definite cultural patterns, which then lead to certain political arrangements. A nihilistic disintegration model will likely set the stage for a misintegrarion type model, then likely manifesting itself in the form of theocratic fascism, according to Peikoffs argument. One could substitute nationalist for theocratic. That is merely my point.

There are some flaws of course with this theory, but I find it uncontroversial that those institutions in society are mainly dominated by groups of people with typically "left" cultural beliefs. It need not be monolithic, although I'm unclear as to what that may mean. Cultural Marxism is an actual belief system with actual theorists, whose work can be critiqued separately. 

As far as Soros, I think I said Nazi party member, this is incorrect, I should've said collaborationist. Isn't it of interest if Antifa is accepting funding from Soros? Isn't it of interest, in terms of journalism community, if a media organization is funded by one source, then does a sympathetic report on a subject which is also funded by the same parent source? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2046 said:

Of course it is basis for argument. The whole argument of the DIM Hypothesis is based on the idea that different philosophical belief systems shaping definite cultural patterns, which then lead to certain political arrangements. A nihilistic disintegration model will likely set the stage for a misintegrarion type model, then likely manifesting itself in the form of theocratic fascism, according to Peikoffs argument. One could substitute nationalist for theocratic. That is merely my point.

There are some flaws of course with this theory, but I find it uncontroversial that those institutions in society are mainly dominated by groups of people with typically "left" cultural beliefs. It need not be monolithic, although I'm unclear as to what that may mean. Cultural Marxism is an actual belief system with actual theorists, whose work can be critiqued separately. 

As far as Soros, I think I said Nazi party member, this is incorrect, I should've said collaborationist. Isn't it of interest if Antifa is accepting funding from Soros? Isn't it of interest, in terms of journalism community, if a media organization is funded by one source, then does a sympathetic report on a subject which is also funded by the same parent source? 

It is a conspiracy without leader or direction, and the random little thugs of the moment; a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting other corners. (composite quote from Atlas Shrugged)

The DIM Hypothesis doesn't articulate it as well, but it does indicate the pattern observed in the history of philosophy oscillating back and forth between subjectivism and skepticism.

As to the corners being cut, and the emotional draw acting as a magnet of evasiveness, another warning flag is waved in Atlas Shrugged's Aristocracy of Pull where "the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket . . . ."

Or consider also Ellsworth Toohey; while funded by multiple sources, he served as a catalyst to multiple organizations that he had spearheaded (funded/organized).

The "sewer of the centuries" isn't always as clearly demarcated by 9 feet of raw sewage found in a repair zone developed as a result of a failure of a government project coming to fruition years after the fact. (latest update on a local situation.)

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×