Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Truly, as soon as you say such things as "capable of shame," "remorse," "soul-searching," and so forth, my mind goes to Donald Trump and his sons, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani, Bill O'Reilly, etc., etc.

 

Interestingly enough, Alex Jones tried talking to one of the January Sixth rioters on his show a few weeks ago and found himself unable to deal with the sheer enormity of the crazy that they brought to the discussion. So for the record the Gay Frog Guy is demonstrably several levels of sanity above some of the other people you listed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Hitler wasn't a Satan-worshipping pedophile. Would you have forcefully opposed his election?

Depends what I saw. Initially Hitler looked like a joke, harmless. Like no other German in his right mind would support him.

Once I saw the night of broken glass, where he openly justified killing of some people in his speech, at that point, yes I might become violent against him. The cult of personality would be of great concern at that time. That is what is concerning about Trump too.

In hindsight, I have seen Trump as a populist like Hitler, certainly a demagogue like Hitler, but without the blood lust. We were very lucky that Trump was not blood thirsty but the next guy who thinks he can kill someone and suffer no consequences, may in fact do it. Opposition to Trump is an opposition to that direction in governance, that belief system, including "I can enright myself without any consequence" (one of the ugliest parts of Hilary and Biden for that matter). At least Biden has made a statement that he won't be doing that, of course, we shall see.

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

You look for the quick and superficial route to identify people, there's intrinsicism - revealed knowledge - in that method.

No, I just believe people when they say they believe something. If somebody flies a Confederate flag outside their house, it means they support something about the Confederacy. If somebody has a swastika tattoo, it means they support something about Nazi-ism. If somebody wears a Chicago Bulls jersey, it means they support something about the Chicago Bulls. If brownshirts are knocking at my door, I can sure as hell bet that they are Nazis, not some kind neighbor that wants to borrow some butter. 

 

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

The essay Swig linked by Bernstein is a must-read. I am in total agreement that the left-collectivists are the biggest threat to civilisation, the religious (Christians, anyway) have lost their zealous appetite and numbers for proselytized dominance.

This seems like an attempt to exonerate Christian Nationalism.

https://apnews.com/article/christianity-capitol-riot-6f13ef0030ad7b5a6f37a1e3b7b4c898

The next populist that caters to the religious appetite, will show they are as hungry as ever. The choice is not a "better crazy" over another "crazy". It's just a choice between crazy vs. crazy or alternatively stupid vs. stupid.

To believe something like one irrational side is "far better" than the other is more of a confirmation bias. They are both threatening and the one closest to causing the country to fall apart is the greater threat. Waking up to a civil war is far more of a danger than having a financial crisis like the great depression. (although I would not say "far better")

The proof is in California with its "threatening leftist threat", throwing OUT all those left wing initiatives. The left is not as strong as you imagine ... proof was in the pudding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
43 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Hitler wasn't a Satan-worshipping pedophile. Would you have forcefully opposed his election?

Depends what I saw. Initially Hitler looked like a joke, harmless. Like no other German in his right mind would support him.

Once I saw the night of broken glass, where he openly justified killing of some people in his speech, at that point, yes I might become violent against him.

So that's a big NO to my question. Hitler was elected in 1933. The Kristallnacht was in 1938. My point: you have no clue when to forcefully oppose an elected leader.

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

So that's a big NO to my question. Hitler was elected in 1933. The Kristallnacht was in 1938. My point: you have no clue when to forcefully oppose an elected leader.

Oh, so with your magical insight you have determined that Biden is basically another Hitler. What else do the voices in your head tell you?

Sound like the age old religion of worshiping the arbitrary. In this case the "arbitrary fraud" in the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Oh, so with your magical insight

Any sufficiently advanced insight is indistinguishable from magic.

25 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

you have determined that Biden is basically another Hitler.

No, he's more like Paul von Hindenburg. An old, fragile failure who's unleashing the drooling beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
45 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

you have determined that Biden is basically another Hitler.

No, he's more like Paul von Hindenburg. An old, fragile failure who's unleashing the drooling beast.

The old fragile failure already unleashed the drooling beast on the Capitol. Any advanced insight was devoured by the beast some time ago. Biden is extremely flawed too, I'll grant you that. But to be willing to die for this type of advanced insight is simply delusional. Certainly unfortunate for the people who died at the capitol.

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

This seems like an attempt to exonerate Christian Nationalism.

https://apnews.com/article/christianity-capitol-riot-6f13ef0030ad7b5a6f37a1e3b7b4c898

The next populist that caters to the religious appetite, will show they are as hungry as ever. The choice is not a "better crazy" over another "crazy". It's just a choice between crazy vs. crazy or alternatively stupid vs. stupid.

To believe something like one irrational side is "far better" than the other is more of a confirmation bias. They are both threatening and the one closest to causing the country to fall apart is the greater threat. Waking up to a civil war is far more of a danger than having a financial crisis like the great depression. (although I would not say "far better")

 

 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

 

The question is which religious group interferes the least in others' freedom? Christianity or Woke-ianity?

You haven't seen yet the worst excesses of what the Left-Wokes can get up to, though the signs are there, while the Conservatives are pretty much a known quantity. As for Christian Nationalism, that was not advanced much if at all in the Trump years. (Right, plenty of hand-wringing by Yaron Brook about economic nationalism and open borders).

There is *leftist populism* too, you know. One could see it in Greece, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Have you read Bernstein? He takes on Right Nationalism and left Socialism very well.

Still comes to the same conclusion: the collectivists are worst. Those are the choices anywhere in the world, which is better? Not, which is ideal? The objective good: for whom and for what purpose?

btw, the fine aspect of this article is the number of Christian groups who heavily criticize other Christian groups, the "Nationalists". That shows that American independence and freedom of dissent that you will *never* hear or be permitted from the Left.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

A benevolent distinction could point to nationalism as expressed in collective participation in organizing and maintaining a civil society based on the recognition and protection of individual rights , as opposed to an organizational scheme based on the abrogation of rights imposed by force.

I see the populist push for an American Nationalsim as recognizing the current collective desire to seek the former as opposed to and as reaction to a perceived instantiation of the latter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

A benevolent distinction could point to nationalism as expressed in collective participation in organizing and maintaining a civil society based on the recognition and protection of individual rights , as opposed to an organizational scheme based on the abrogation of rights imposed by force.

That would be a definition of a functional "nation".

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 6:58 PM, whYNOT said:

If that's a contradiction in terms - violating the very principles of the country they profess to love - then WHY presume they love their country? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Why must we assume they were patriots when their actions conflict with that? Some and only some of all the rioters who entered were just plain angry and vicious, but patriots no. By definition. As you in fact indicate.

Well, yes.  And strictly speaking I don't think an abusive father could be described as "loving", either (no matter how delusional); if your views on the nature of a particular value are so distorted that you honestly can't tell what moves you towards it from what moves you away from it then you don't understand (and consequently can't really claim to "love") it at all.

On 1/28/2021 at 8:48 PM, whYNOT said:

Well excuse me. Where or when did any or all of the violent perpetrators say "they love X"? How do you know this? (i.e. That they claim to love their country and one takes them at their word). Because they were there? Because they were, purportedly, Trump supporters protesting on his behalf? I don't think one can make quick assumptions about who anyone is with, or the place they are. Especially of what they say they are and in this case NOT say what they are.

They weren't exactly shy about their own beliefs.  Their "love" for Trump and for America was written all over their signs and shouted (I believe literally) from the rooftops.  The fact that they play as fast and loose with the English language as the New Left of the 60's does not make it impossible to ever discover what actually is inside of their skulls; it only adds a few extra layers of difficulty to it.

16 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Can you clarify what you mean by the "foundation"? Sorry if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.

Your point would be valid if what the mob attacked were actually the foundation of our civilization and they were actually trying to preserve it. That would be absurdly nihilistic. But is that the case in reality?

Sure; that's not a problem.

 

Our civilization rests on certain basic principles and ideas far more than on any particular organization.  When some museum prints a pamphlet decrying "responsibility, self-determination and a good work ethic" as white supremacy, that is an attack on the universal values of Western Civilization.  The non-initiation of force principle is the foundation, not just of Western civilization, but of any civilization whatsoever.  When everyone feels free to address their personal grievances with a gun then there is no more civilization (not even a tyrannical one); then there's a very brief bloodbath on the way back to universal subsistence farming.

No, there wasn't much physical damage done - concretely.  Neither did the BLM riots have much of an effect on the American government, itself.  Yet both have left the abstract framework which makes our government possible in tatters.

 

For the first few years I spent on this forum I was an anarchist.  I despised our government's current form and figured that Ayn Rand must've been exaggerating about how bad life is without any government at all.  What eventually changed my mind was the time I spent homeless in the Twin Cities, where might was generally seen as making right and I couldn't count on the police to protect my self or what little property I still had.

Let me tell you one short story.  There was one night I spent sleeping in the light rail system; riding back and forth between Saint Paul and Minneapolis until it would be time to wake up and go to work.  I had done this so often (and had so often had my meager belongings disappear in my sleep) that I had actually learned to sleep very lightly.  Around 3 or 4 AM an elderly black man who couldn't walk without a cane sat down beside me and gently brushed against my hand, at which point I leapt to my feet, screamed "don't you touch my f---ing phone" as loudly as I could and punched him in the head, in broad view of dozens of horrified passengers.  After several minutes I calmed down enough to understand what had actually happened, apologized profusely (and cried) and nearly demanded that he take a few of my cigarettes.

The thing about it is that none of that response was at all planned or voluntary.  I had spent so long having to deal with thieves (and worse) on my own that that response had actually become a habit; it took about a year for me to un-learn that sort of response to any sudden awakening.

That is what life without the non-initiation of force is like.  And that is the principle those rioters made a mockery of on the Sixth.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

There's plain delight I've seen close up in a person losing his individuality to the righteous anger of the mob surrounding him, the unified physical force and self-validation it lends one, and afterwards what is observable, the shame by many reasserting itself. Did I help do this? We went too far. (For most of people in the summer riots also).

Good!  May they lose plenty of sleep over it!

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

No, there wasn't much physical damage done - concretely.  Neither did the BLM riots have much of an effect on the American government, itself.  Yet both have left the abstract framework which makes our government possible in tatters.

Exactly. The fundamental issue is if violent lawlessness is normalized, we all suffer for it. Each side saying well when we do it, it's justified, and the other guy deserved it, is a symptom of emotionalism and immaturity which in itself is WRONG and detrimental.

The concrete body count (even though higher in the Capitol) is not the issue, the possibilities are what's concerning. If the crazies had hanged Pence or Beat the crap out of AOC or worse, or if the military had decided to take sides, we would be a right wing Venezuela. (can't blame it on the left or the right, we'd simply be in deep shit)

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I had spent so long having to deal with thieves (and worse) on my own that that response had actually become a habit; it took about a year for me to un-learn that sort of response to any sudden awakening.

Hopefully the nightmare is over. I'm certainly glad you are are back and in one piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The non-initiation of force principle is the foundation, not just of Western civilization, but of any civilization whatsoever.

Are you saying this principle was discovered and implemented by the founders of each and every civilization that ever existed, stretching back before recorded history? It's not even grasped by every civilization that exists today. Indeed many implement the reverse idea, they initiate force to suppress dissent and maintain an obedient society. I think you're imagining some ideal civilization and using that as the basis for real civilizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

That is what life without the non-initiation of force is like.

Nah. That's what life with automatized reactions is like. Life without the non-initiation of force principle would have been you smashing that old man without apology or remorse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

For the first few years I spent on this forum I was an anarchist.  I despised our government's current form and figured that Ayn Rand must've been exaggerating about how bad life is without any government at all.  What eventually changed my mind was the time I spent homeless in the Twin Cities, where might was generally seen as making right and I couldn't count on the police to protect my self or what little property I still had.

That's awful what happened, but I'm not understanding how it changed your mind about government. You couldn't count on the police to protect you, so you thought life would be better with police--or worse without them? Without them you could carry a gun or knife and kill anyone who bothered you, problem solved. You could do that now with sufficient cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Then when does the shooting stop in "real civilizations"?

This edited passage from The Roots of War comes to mind:

"So long as . . . some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged “good” can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation . . ."

When government officials sanction (by not stepping up to the plate) what groups like Antifa and BLM orchestrated, it is not much of a stretch to suggest a proxy extension that some (Antifa and BLM) have the right to use force in order to convey their pseudo freedom of speech.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Then when does the shooting stop in "real civilizations"?

The shooting never stops, dude. Take a look around. That's why we have a right to carry (or more precisely a right to self-defense).

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes, look around. Did you wake up to gun shots last night? Just look around!!!

I just googled "shooting in los angeles" and this popped up for news. Happened yesterday only a few miles from me. There are dozens of violent crimes every day in Los Angeles. Last year we had nearly one homicide per day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...