12 hours ago, necrovore said:
p.s. some more evidence just showed up.
Turns out the 2 guys identified in this link are genuine Trump supporters.
The guy with the beard, is actually a known Nazi who has swastikas tattooed all over his chest. https://phillyantifa.org/page/2/ search Jason Tankersley.
The other guy, the actor, he is a known QAnon guy. Https://heavy.com/news/jake-angeli-q-shaman/
This has always been an outstanding journal with top photography, but I saw years ago that even Nat Geo has turned ideological Left (with many other media). [https://email.nationalgeographic.com/T/v600000176ded298ccab61056e966a31b0/ab70fd2dba9a45e80000021ef3a0bcc5/ab70fd2d-ba9a-45e8-a0c1-0acdcb756525?\_\_dU\_\_=v0G4RBKTXg2GtTHJDsy7ii3waBSrIwMXGZJ7x\_OARFKFQAIe3mwx22JG\_r9Sy1LWLGyMVrrFIdudbYjwKGAKz6iTAgyV5XAM3SbSN-FzJU9XXpFWtSFRxbGw4nHcgLdnvWYAVcbDlQyQtE1-NmUBscmA==&\_\_F\_\_=v0fUYvjHMDjRPMSh3tviDHXIoXcPxvDgUUCCPvXMWoX\_0JoZLAZABQF30xF0sKPois3VqfW5bf1WlfvPhqF6LHwAevOY3NThdBlqlaaKLIOVuyXc21bZBrcroh9VHCCERxazsGV7ZHQVC5FJ7HbX88bBNnWxXawAGrdP8GWxUdXoJ6Fmqm-O9d4bk8AMsohK19FCO5qpxQnpe\_IiQcjB\_cgOk6T8wnDqnDKP3fYmCdLnOJUVZvOC3c1WuQUNdNr7GLNbB7e3lSteDpdDViM43c8GvWiucp3tH7KDz7vZsJffTlcjy8R3qI4c3glI5l2KVokY1RfpxqqnI\_mhQEJrXzVDbJ5MoC-S8Wac7C7l1fJ1SPdzEQplqVIzkffJC\_N7eozeJHa0vOQPQExttKeoAbSBlWPElMUIOvc55oxGKhFK4uBS5LWWYTo9xf1d5\_CFJd2eslHMszT6dFaQ4FcDQxHujONbqmCmXvzdGGMPuRpJaCmzmSsLM9HlR-iKNF6DLrPMIQqTzq1PP\_srdNCfcQmHAW1GcbHXuSWTs5ZiaIJ41GoUsgMFgDGiy68C41ho2ZH3P-d5mF3kc=](https://email.nationalgeographic.com/T/v600000176ded298ccab61056e966a31b0/ab70fd2dba9a45e80000021ef3a0bcc5/ab70fd2d-ba9a-45e8-a0c1-0acdcb756525? dU =v0G4RBKTXg2GtTHJDsy7ii3waBSrIwMXGZJ7x_OARFKFQAIe3mwx22JG_r9Sy1LWLGyMVrrFIdudbYjwKGAKz6iTAgyV5XAM3SbSN-FzJU9XXpFWtSFRxbGw4nHcgLdnvWYAVcbDlQyQtE1-NmUBscmA==& F =v0fUYvjHMDjRPMSh3tviDHXIoXcPxvDgUUCCPvXMWoX_0JoZLAZABQF30xF0sKPois3VqfW5bf1WlfvPhqF6LHwAevOY3NThdBlqlaaKLIOVuyXc21bZBrcroh9VHCCERxazsGV7ZHQVC5FJ7HbX88bBNnWxXawAGrdP8GWxUdXoJ6Fmqm-O9d4bk8AMsohK19FCO5qpxQnpe_IiQcjB_cgOk6T8wnDqnDKP3fYmCdLnOJUVZvOC3c1WuQUNdNr7GLNbB7e3lSteDpdDViM43c8GvWiucp3tH7KDz7vZsJffTlcjy8R3qI4c3glI5l2KVokY1RfpxqqnI_mhQEJrXzVDbJ5MoC-S8Wac7C7l1fJ1SPdzEQplqVIzkffJC_N7eozeJHa0vOQPQExttKeoAbSBlWPElMUIOvc55oxGKhFK4uBS5LWWYTo9xf1d5_CFJd2eslHMszT6dFaQ4FcDQxHujONbqmCmXvzdGGMPuRpJaCmzmSsLM9HlR-iKNF6DLrPMIQqTzq1PP_srdNCfcQmHAW1GcbHXuSWTs5ZiaIJ41GoUsgMFgDGiy68C41ho2ZH3P-d5mF3kc=)
I listened to part of Trump’s speech, as much as I could stomach.
He threw loyal supporters under the bus.
It was all right to say that storming the Capitol was the wrong thing to do but then he should have said that he understood their feelings and motivation. And he should have described, at length, the role of Antifa.
Not only did Trump concede, worse, his use of the past tense sounds like he has given up trying to get election fraud acknowledged in the courts.
He has dropped all election challenges in Georgia according to this article.
Wrong in the tactical sense, not the moral. They should have known it would play bad visually and that Antifa would make it look even worse.
I have enough superstition about me not to want to declare that we’ve survived this, just yet. But despite everything, it looks better to me today than it did yesterday, and it’s the first time in a while I’ve been able to say that. That said, we are far, far from anything approaching good, and we could lurch towards the worse at any moment. Or towards the worst.
Trump is an authoritarian and a statist. He has been searching for a way to overturn the election for months, and the only way we have yet preserved our system is because other people (to varying degrees) have frustrated him in his efforts. The fascistic assault on the Capitol was a logical and predictable result of everything Trump has said and done, for years. He made it possible, incited it, encouraged it (and, I am certain, applauded it in private) – but he did not do this alone. The people who have supported Trump share in that guilt in varying measures. They support, wittingly or otherwise, what he represents, which includes a hostility towards democracy and the liberal virtues which make it possible. They have blood on their hands. And they have deeply wounded our country which, with all of its flaws (and they are many), remains the best extant guardian of individual liberty. Their support for Trump is thus in itself an assault against liberty. Objectivists who support Trump have profoundly lost their way, and work in direct opposition to their stated interests.
It troubles me greatly – as it should trouble everyone else here – to witness the degree and depth of conspiracy theory-type thinking which has infected this site (and the country). Objectivism proclaims support for Reason and Reality and is supported by them. To sunder this primary relationship in either direction is to leave Objectivism entirely untethered, to turn it into a mockery. Trump has displayed a consistent and utter disdain for truth, and he has embraced and promulgated a litany of lies in support of his power-lust. Lying has flourished around him accordingly, and I do not fault individuals who have been deceived, per se. But it is time, and past time, and far past time to wake up to the reality of the situation. Rand once remarked (in my memory of it, at least; I am open to correction) that once it was perhaps respectable or understandable to have an honest interest in socialism, but that following the horrors of the 20th century, the evidence was too overwhelming. The evidence is in on Trump. He is a would-be dictator. And those who continue to support him should find the courage to admit who and what he is, and by extension, who and what they are, too.
7 hours ago, Yes said:
Agreed- America deserves better than to be a nation defined by anarchy and violence.
Actual train of thought:
Premise 1: Anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes rulers and States.
Premise 2: Those who stormed the Capitol did so with the explicit goal of keeping Donald Trump as the ruling head of state.
Conclusion: Those who stormed the Capitol are defined by anarchy.
DonAthos,
“Trump is an authoritarian and a statist.”
Even if partly true Trump still looks great compared with Biden/Kamala.
“He has been searching for a way to overturn the election for months …”
Overturn? Trump and many others claim that Biden/Kamala’s victory was due to massive election fraud. There are many links to articles about this at the end of Theft of the U.S. Presidency. The most articulate are Bill Whittle, Scott Adams, and Paul Craig Roberts.
37 minutes ago, Dupin said:
Trump and many others claim that Biden/Kamala’s victory was due to massive election fraud.
Allegations are not proof.
merjet,
Duh! But what is the relevance of your remark? Have you read any of my references regarding the evidence? How much proof do you need? I’m not here to read them for you. You don’t even need my references, you can use the Internet as well as I can.
Don’t be like Yaron Brook and Gregory Salmieri.
2 hours ago, Dupin said:
DonAthos,
“Trump is an authoritarian and a statist.”
Even if partly true Trump still looks great compared with Biden/Kamala.
Here is the crux of the matter, I think. “Looks great” compared to them in every respect except for superficial niceties and glib presentation. One needs to see also what was implicit in Trump’s actions to know him. And one doesn’t and cannot throw a switch and hey presto: (forced) laissez-faire capitalism. As Objectivists can give the impression he should. His supporters would hardly countenance that - and the opposition, never. Much action would need be taken by a leader through the present methods and channels of statism to start to reduce statism. Counter-intuitive as it seems, that’s the only path possible. And so to slowly accustom the citizens to less statism.
I think much was necessarily reactionary in his output by what he faced: Malicious against the malevolent. A (erstwhile) “dictator” against dictators. A bully against the worst political/ideological bullies I’ve ever seen outside the African continent. An American against anti-Americanists. The deceit and lies of the media put his lies in the shade.
Freedom and independence of Americans was his explicit goal, I was never in doubt. His foreign initiatives bear this out, as did the economy taking off, but I have heard nothing complimenting those achievements except from conservative commentators. Where are you, ARI?
His support is largely that way already. But MOST Americans had had to rise to the personal challenge of greater liberty and the self-responsibility it requires. They have not. Another ideology predominates and that is beyond the powers of any President. Where does the moral onus lie - but on the citizens, not any leader to enforce.
In later years he will be seen as an America-and- freedom loving President, for now the memories are too raw.
And compared with what’s to come…I shudder. Without the restraints of senate and the Executive, these new people are going to run havoc. They clearly have, like children, zero self-restraint whatsoever, and it seems most unlikely they respect the idea of America and its Constitution. Already before the inauguration, there’s arrogant talk I hear of ending the filibuster; DC a new state; admitting increasing migrants; etc. That bodes badly for afterwards.
How possibly will the Socialist Democrats ever be voted out?
We are facing a one-party rule here, folks. The norms of politics have fallen away in the US.
And Harris the perfect candidate for future dictator.
Yup - “by comparison”, Trump’s an angel.
1 hour ago, Dupin said:
merjet,
Duh! But what is the relevance of your remark? Have you read any of my references regarding the evidence? How much proof do you need? I’m not here to read them for you. You don’t even need my references, you can use the Internet as well as I can.
Don’t be like Yaron Brook and Gregory Salmieri.
Dupin,
Heh. Duh! What is the relevance of your article?
Of course, a statement might be true, or partly true and partly false, or totally false. The same applies to a set of statements. However, when you start with what is largely false and construe it as largely or wholly true, that’s called voluntary derailment. When you assume that the hearsay of Donald Trump, whose standards for truthfulness are far below average, are true, then your speech acts become irrelevant.
58 minutes ago, merjet said:
When you assume that the hearsay of Donald Trump, whose standards for truthfulness are far below average, are true, then your speech acts become irrelevant.
That’s an ad hominem.
12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
The right way is to use the free speech that already exists. Otherwise, you’ll end up pushing for fascism … fascism over socialism.
So the alternatives are either use free speech or push for fascism? Got it.
How has that philosophy been working for you? Free speech ain’t free. You need to fight to keep it. And “electing” Biden and Harris, and defending that “election,” is certainly not fighting to keep it. Elections are worthless when they’re used to usher in a new era of rights violators. At what point are you going to say enough is enough?
10 hours ago, Dupin said:
Wrong in the tactical sense, not the moral.
What are the right tactics? How could they have avoided the so-called bad optics?
Stale by now, one’d think. Anything or anyone slightly right-wards (or ‘centrist’) of leftism is Fascism or Fascist.
How socialists have used this ploy to great effect! For only about a century.
11 hours ago, DonAthos said:
Objectivists who support Trump have profoundly lost their way, and work in direct opposition to their stated interests.
It troubles me greatly – as it should trouble everyone else here – to witness the degree and depth of conspiracy theory-type thinking which has infected this site (and the country). … Objectivism proclaims support for Reason and Reality and is supported by them. To sunder this primary relationship in either direction is to leave Objectivism entirely untethered, to turn it into a mockery.
Huh? An Objectivist who doesn’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, that’s me. Sure there are others. But if you take your eye off the evident fact (Reality) that people in power co-operate, collude and discuss their concerted moves ahead, you may fall prey to naiviete.
It might be nice to believe that everyone (in the media, politics and business, say) only acts of his own accord, independently, but if there’s one thing in short supply it is that type of integrity and independence. I have seen first hand an editor and also politicians discussing with others how to promote a particular angle to the public. And businessmen do it all the time with their competitors on prices etc. .Are these conspiratorial acts?
And losing one’s “way”, can be as easily done losing sight of the prime identities and evaluations - e.g. what is of major importance to a country, focusing on the inessentials instead. I have never looked for a “perfect” leader, would rather not have a leader, moral or otherwise. (Apart from in the most strongly delimited fashion, a la Rand). But I will try to recognise is he/she “good” in this or that given context?
“For whom and for what purpose?” - defines the objective good, you know. That eliminates the need to find intrinsicist “perfection” in our imperfect politicians.
3 hours ago, necrovore said:
That’s an ad hominem.
That would be if he said “you’re an idiot, so we shouldn’t listen to you”.
What he said was basically “your standards of truth are so low that your statements lack any meaning that we can actually think about”. Just like I was saying about you in the previous post. You didn’t really say anything.
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:
Elections are worthless when they’re used to usher in a new era of rights violators. At what point are you going to say enough is enough?
I mean, I think what you’re really arguing is that the Objectivist view on politics is wrong. The view that a Republic based on individual rights is the best kind and requires defending the rights of all individuals, and banning the initiation of force by anyone. Here, you want to say that individuals must meet some standard before the government should to defend their rights. You are advocating for something that resembles a fascist country. It would resemble Argentina or Chile decades ago. This is the vibe I’m getting from you.
If you just mean to say that saying “freedom of speech!” Isn’t enough, sure, I agree. But I certainly don’t think this event is the right action in any way whatsoever. There needs to be some kind of broad philosophical response first. Writing, essays, things like that.
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:
So the alternatives are either use free speech or push for fascism? Got it.
False.
As long as one has free speech, there is no justification to use violence. Once violence is the norm, fascism becomes the norm, be it by the left or the right.
48 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
This is the vibe I’m getting from you.
You should get your vibe sensors checked. They’re failing you.
48 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
But I certainly don’t think this event is the right action in any way whatsoever. There needs to be some kind of broad philosophical response first. Writing, essays, things like that.
There’s that fluffy idealism again. The broad, philosophical response started over 200 years ago. The only issue now is the proper tactical response to the current tactical problem.
It’s easy to shout from the sidelines, “You’re not doing it right!” But if they turn to you and ask how they should be doing it, will you respond like 2046 and tell them to get lost? If so, then you’re not in this fight and you’re not helping either side.
41 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
The broad, philosophical response started over 200 years ago.
No, you always need to begin with philosophy when you deal with a particular issue. Would you have told Thomas Paine that the philosophical response started over 1700 years ago in ancient Rome, that he should stop spending his time writing essays? It’s not a good idea to say “philosophers did it a while ago, all we have to do is act”. Forget the word broad, I should say specifically laying out a philosophically accurate criticism of specific events, and developing a plan of action. This is in contrast to action that requires violating the law, violating the Constitution, without any stated philosophical beliefs.
Not only are these people not doing it right, they are making it worse. I wouldn’t say that they are misguided but their intention is in the right place. They are not taking us closer to a more liberty-loving society.
I don’t feel especially motivated to find a better plan beyond explaining my principles, because I truly don’t feel threatened by socialism.