Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

New Buddha

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


New Buddha last won the day on April 12

New Buddha had the most liked content!


About New Buddha

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5919 profile views
  1. Plasmatic didn't say they were, "less bad." He said: I don't see how you can twist this to mean that he said one is "less bad" than the other.
  2. Eiuol, If by, "they don't even try to unify" you mean that they don't have a political party, select candidates and run in general elections, then you are exactly right. THEY ARE ANARCHISTS for goodness sake. To them every government is Fascist. Both Hitler's Germany and the United States. And everyone who participates in, or supports, government are Fascists as well - and this includes Objectivists.
  3. So too the is Constitutional Republican form of the U.S. Government. Antifa does not draw a distinction between the two.
  4. 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 marche
  5. 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.
  6. My recent participation in this thread was addressed to Eiuol. I have been addressing the "roots" per Eioul's posts.
  7. But the pseudo-science behind Marxism and Nazism is nonsense.
  8. 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? Ye
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. Good Lord. Rand's entire fricking philosophy is dedicated to demonstrating that Collectivism - in any form - IS A FRAUDULENT CONCEPT. Objectivism is a philosophy of Man - Man, the Individual.
  12. 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.
  13. I have, to the best of my ability, been using terms as Rand (and, honestly, most other philosophers and historians) use them. The above paragraph is to a large extent your own creation, with categories and definitions all your own. I'm not sure why that is necessary. I'm not a stickler for agreeing with everything Rand say by any means. But when I deviate, I try and be clear when doing so to help bypass any confusion.
  14. Statism is Racism. When Rand mentions Racism and Statism in Europe, she is talking about the endless wars between Bosnians, Serbians, Bohemians, Czechs, Slovakians, Hungarians, Germans, Prussians, French, English, Poles, etc. You're stepping all over yourself with the two above posts. Jefferson opposed Federalism because he was concerned that it would lead to authoritarianism. And I'm not sure how what you say in this entire series of posts squares with the staunch anti-anarcho capitalism position you've taken on other posts.
  • Create New...