2 hours ago, Dustin86 said:
There is a great deal that Objectivists can learn from Alt-Righters and vice versa.
That’s delusional, but say “hi” to your monarch from me.
19 hours ago, Dustin86 said:
I am not a white nationalist but consider myself alt-right because I’ve considered myself so from the time when the term encompassed not just white nationalists but monarchists, those who are anti-democracy, also certain anti-feminists identified as such, etc. The way you are using the term, which is becoming more and more common today (mostly thanks to the media) but is not the original definition, is “alt-right = white nationalist”.
Conundrum for you to ponder: what if your monarch is a woman? Or a Jew? Or, even better, an ethnically Jewish, religiously Muslim, racially black, trans-gender woman? Would you consider her your Queen? It’s not like it couldn’t happen: most monarchies are hereditary, and whoever is first in line gets the throne, no matter their ethnicity, religion, race or sexual orientation.
In fact I predict that, if anything happens to William, and Harry ends up on the throne, that’s about the kind of heir he’ll spawn. He’s a fun dude to say the least. I’ve seen the pictures.
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I don’t even see leftism per se as a threat as much as the deplorable aspects of the alt-right umbrella (i.e. white supremacists, and as far as your perspective Dustin, you should see them as ruining any possible inkling of rationality in alt-right thinking).
There really is no “grand poobah” of the alt-right. There really is nobody who gets to decide who gets to be in it and who doesn’t.
White nationalists do give seem to give off an “ick” factor, but I don’t believe it’s because of this nonexistent “threat” coming from them – it’s because they’re losers, they’re social misfits, they’re a giant punching bag, they provide an “enemy” for people to rally against. They’re basically “Goldstein” from 1984 during the Two-Minutes Hate. Goldstein is somebody who died a long time ago, somebody who no longer has any relevance in anybody’s life, but he is the one that people are presented with to rally in hate against, and to run into the arms of Big Brother (the personification of the Party) because of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvGmOZ5T6\_Y
If you can watch this scene with these people’s behavior again in your mind’s eye, only replacing white nationalists up on that projector screen instead of “Goldstein”, that’s basically what our society is, what it has been at least since the time I’ve been born. And if you want to know why I’ve developed a malevolent view of the universe and a negative view of human nature, it’s because of stuff exactly like that.
Dustin86,
So far, you’ve not presented any reason that anyone at an Objectivist chat site would take you seriously.
6 hours ago, Dustin86 said:
White nationalists do give seem to give off an “ick” factor, but I don’t believe it’s because of this nonexistent “threat” coming from them – it’s because they’re losers, they’re social misfits, they’re a giant punching bag, they provide an “enemy” for people to rally against.
It sort of seems that you’re saying that you sympathize with white-nationalists because they are “victimized” by mainstream popular sentiment. After reading the article about the journalist that was digitally harassed, along with his family, I hardly find such people worthy of anyone’s sympathy. Prior to reading this, I regarded any neo-Nazi-types as the social misfits you’ve described them as – exception being that I don’t see them as victims, rather that they pose a threat as cyber-saboteurs. Aside from being held in low regard by most folks, how do they qualify as victims? And why would you wish to identify in any way with this collective of pariahs? Are you not being victimized enough already? By choosing solidarity with such losers, you voluntarily fall into the same category.
On the other hand, if there is something different in your beliefs from the typical Alt-Right person, I’d like to hear what you have to say. Supporting an ideology that favors ethnic cleansing would make you unpopular with most Americans, (and can you blame them?) The malevolent universe premise you hold does not necessarily make you anyone’s “sworn enemy,” although I speak for no one other than myself.
Anyhow, if you have a specifically different belief, make your most rational explanation on your interpretation of Alt-Right ideology, and while you’re at it, explain why you believe that a rational egoist would benefit from your perspective. This is your chance to be persuasive.
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
You seem to follow Dustin around this forum quite a bit. I’ve noticed.
Would you also like to register as an agent of the Alt-Right? Are you shitposting here?
You sound like you go on /pol/ too much yourself, considering the vocabulary you use. Then you call Epist alt-right. Are you trolling?
13 hours ago, Eiuol said:
MisterSwig, if you think Epist is “shitposting”, look at his earlier post in this thread.
Can you explain what you mean?
I’ve read Epistemologue’s first post twice now. What I see is someone with detailed knowledge of both the Alt-Right and Objectivism, someone who then argues that Objectivists need to continue interacting with Alt-Righters, because we need to explain how Objectivism can help them.
Folks, what we need to do is understand something about the hardcore Alt-Right mindset. They believe in the power of memes. Like genes in the physical realm, they think memes survive and replicate through person-to-person contact in the mental realm. Their primary goal, therefore, is to acquire and maintain intellectual contact with others and find ways to attach their memes to our most deeply held beliefs and cultural units. That is how they will infect us and turn us ideologically.
Now, I still don’t know much about this memetic warfare stuff. Apparently the idea of memes was originated by Richard Dawkins in the '70s. And our intellectuals (civilian and military) have been trying to figure out how to “weaponized” memes for nearly two decades. It sure as hell looks like the Alt-Right has figured it out. They’ve got meme factories and distribution centers all over the Internet now, ranging from hardcore white nationalist chat caverns, to Republican pro-Trump Facebook profiles, who do nothing but collect and redistribute memes.
I think Objectivists will be able to resist the meme-slingers, because we are not a hollow, reactionary ideology. Our ideas are strong and grounded in reality. We can see through the bullshit coming our way, especially when we realize that at the heart of that bullshit is a racist mob.
I don’t know if Epistemologue is Alt-Right. That’s why I asked. I hope he’ll answer. I’m perfectly willing to take him at his word for now.
12 minutes ago, NeuEv said:
You sound like you go on /pol/ too much yourself, considering the vocabulary you use. Then you call Epist alt-right. Are you trolling?
Did anyone here know that Dustin was Alt-Right before I returned to this forum? I’m trying to expose the Alt-Right. And to do that I have to understand them and figure out their vocabulary, ideology, and tactics. One tactic is to incite confusion and mistrust among the opposing group, thereby breaking down its confidence in being able to know friend from foe.
And since I exposed Dustin, the Alt-Right must change tactics. Now they will try to stir up confusion and in-fighting among real Objectivists, in an attempt to discredit me, who has an 800-post record of not being a troll. And when I decide that I’ve had enough of this crap, they will go after the next problematic Objectivist in line. And so on.
It’s memetic Internet warfare, people. Defend your forum.
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:
Did anyone here know that Dustin was Alt-Right before I returned to this forum?
It was clear as day, he stated his views. Virtually any post he makes gets rebuked. He hasn’t been inciting mistrust, or used any of those psychological warfare tactics, so there’s nothing to defend from. It’s not a bannable offense to just disagree. If you want to expose people, this forum isn’t the place for paranoia.
Dawkins idea of a meme is different by the way, Pepe the frog is a meme more like “marketing tool”. You basically described the internet. The more militant alt-right is just using it for ideological ends.
1 Like
6 hours ago, Repairman said:
Dustin86,
So far, you’ve not presented any reason that anyone at an Objectivist chat site would take you seriously.
It sort of seems that you’re saying that you sympathize with white-nationalists because they are “victimized” by mainstream popular sentiment. After reading the article about the journalist that was digitally harassed, along with his family, I hardly find such people worthy of anyone’s sympathy. Prior to reading this, I regarded any neo-Nazi-types as the social misfits you’ve described them as – exception being that I don’t see them as victims, rather that they pose a threat as cyber-saboteurs. Aside from being held in low regard by most folks, how do they qualify as victims? And why would you wish to identify in any way with this collective of pariahs? Are you not being victimized enough already? By choosing solidarity with such losers, you voluntarily fall into the same category.
On the other hand, if there is something different in your beliefs from the typical Alt-Right person, I’d like to hear what you have to say. Supporting an ideology that favors ethnic cleansing would make you unpopular with most Americans, (and can you blame them?) The malevolent universe premise you hold does not necessarily make you anyone’s “sworn enemy,” although I speak for no one other than myself.
Anyhow, if you have a specifically different belief, make your most rational explanation on your interpretation of Alt-Right ideology, and while you’re at it, explain why you believe that a rational egoist would benefit from your perspective. This is your chance to be persuasive.
You misunderstand me - completely. I think that white nationalists are a negative for the alt-right. A big negative. I do not sympathize with them. However, they have no real power, and I cannot help notice the “socially useful role” that they provide in the Establishment narraitive and I cannot help but look down on people’s “hatey-monkey” behavior at the “Two Minutes Hate” that is being erected by the Establishment on account of a group that has had no power since the 1950s.
The short answer to your questions is I was alt-right first. I was there from the very beginning. If white nationalists started using the term “Objectivist” would you be impelled by “decency” and “a moral duty to disassociate yourself from ethnic cleansers” to stop using the term “Objectivist”? Answer the question.
Dustin86,
4 hours ago, Dustin86 said:
The short answer to your questions is I was alt-right first. I was there from the very beginning. If white nationalists started using the term “Objectivist” would you be impelled by “decency” and “a moral duty to disassociate yourself from ethnic cleansers” to stop using the term “Objectivist”? Answer the question.
The term, “Objectivist,” has been in use for more than fifty years, long enough to identify an Objectivist with the writings of Ayn Rand. I suppose it’s entirely possible that a loose organization of misanthropes could lay claim to Objectivist or any other title, but for now, that’s not something I’m worried about. If it ever came to that, I would, for social purposes, identify as a rationalist, egoist, or assume some other identity appropriate to my intellectual persuasion. On the other hand, white racist organizations have been changing their label whenever it seems suitable, and it appears they’re doing it again.
So, if I proceed on the assumption that your Alt-Right identity is in the past, why do you make this statement:
On 10/23/2016 at 7:19 PM, Dustin86 said:
There is a great deal that Objectivists can learn from Alt-Righters and vice versa.
If I could learn a great deal from Alt-Righters, what might that be? Did you learn any thing from the Alt-Right movement that benefited you? Please, answer this question :
On 10/23/2016 at 6:44 PM, Dustin86 said:
It wasn’t like that. I’ve been part of the Alt-Right since the very beginning.
We were all declared “beyond the pale” by the “mainstream”. We all kind of “found each other”. It’s not like we all hoarded around white nationalists. They found us.
Our strength is in our togetherness and interconnectedness, not in our supposed “internet-savviness”. The Establishment’s weakness is in its atomized individualism.
This suggests that you are in fact in league with Alt-Right-what-ever-it-is, and I’ve asked you several times to clarify the differing view you hold from others who identify as such, and you continue to evade. You favor a monarchy. OK. You believe in a malevolent universe. OK. Still, you find “strength in togetherness” or some sort of unity with this motley collective. So, for the umpteenth time, what makes you different from a neo-Nazi/white nationalist/Alt-Right/whatever?
Repairman: I don’t answer questions written in bold-point to the tune of “So, for the umpteenth time, what makes you different from a neo-Nazi”. That’s beneath my, and anyone else’s dignity.
You know, I’m starting to resent these attempts to twist my words, to “monsterize” me, for lack of a better term. This isn’t the first time you’ve done this by far. You seem to have had a personal vendetta against me for quite some time, as in this entire year and maybe before. Most people here have been very civil, and I’ve learned a good deal from this forum. Only one other person has sought out a personal vendetta against me, and I ended up blocking that person. That would be the easiest way right now to ensure I’m no longer asked bold-pointed questions implying I’m a neo-Nazi.
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:
He hasn’t been inciting mistrust, or used any of those psychological warfare tactics, so there’s nothing to defend from.
I beg to differ. On the thread about what would constitute a moral justification for overthrowing the government, Dustin made this argument:
If according to Objectivism, a government “initiating force” provides a moral justification for violent overthrow of that government, and every government in the world or that ever was initiates force to collect taxes and against those who evade taxes, then there would seem to be a moral justification according to Objectivist morality for the violent overthrow of every government in the world.
And you agreed with him. Yes, you agreed that Objectivism would support overthrowing every government in the world, simply because they collect taxes by force.
But that is not what any real Objectivist believes. It’s not what Rand believed. She argued that: “The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny.” (The New Left, p. 96) And the biggest threat of absolute tyranny right now is coming from Dustin’s monarchist Alt-Right buddies.
You should better defend your mind from such people.
11 hours ago, Dustin86 said:
Repairman: I don’t answer questions written in bold-point to the tune of “So, for the umpteenth time, what makes you different from a neo-Nazi”. That’s beneath my, and anyone else’s dignity.
You know, I’m starting to resent these attempts to twist my words, to “monsterize” me, for lack of a better term. This isn’t the first time you’ve done this by far. You seem to have had a personal vendetta against me for quite some time, as in this entire year and maybe before. Most people here have been very civil, and I’ve learned a good deal from this forum. Only one other person has sought out a personal vendetta against me, and I ended up blocking that person. That would be the easiest way right now to ensure I’m no longer asked bold-pointed questions implying I’m a neo-Nazi.
Dustin86, it’s more likely that you have no argument. That’s why you so often start these belligerent dialogs, and then back off and/or say nothing. I’ve answered your questions, even when they include unnecessary tags such as: “Answer the question.” Not even so much as “please.” How rude. To be sure, it’s very difficult to understand someone who refuses to clarify his position. It’s not clarifying anything to tell people what you are not; simply put: what are you? I can’t help noticing you’re playing the “victim card” again. No one is “monsterizing” you. I think you’re imagining others perceiving you as “the sworn enemy.” I asked that you would explain what ever is your personal ideology, (aside for your malevolent universe), and how would it in any way benefit someone who holds a diametrically opposing view. Your metaphorical olive branch is getting a bit weak. So please, if you truly wish to be understood, explain what makes you different from the Alt-Right movement with which you expressed your solidarity, and yet deny association.
12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
You should better defend your mind from such people.
You think I was somehow manipulated? Hardly. I actually said that it could be justified at least based on force being initiated to collect taxes. If you think I’m wrong, it’s not because I was tricked into agreeing with Dustin. I had that view before Dustin even. Blame “V for Vendetta” if you need to blame something.
You seem to be paranoid that secret Alt-Righters are all around here, or that a veil has been pulled over our eyes. Or, you’re ironically promoting distrust and only returned to troll us; your denouncement of Trump was followed by an almost exaggerated support of Hillary.
I wouldn’t know which.
On 10/22/2016 at 6:28 PM, Repairman said:
Is the term, “Establishment” an anti-concept? anybody?
I tend to think not. What would be the concept that it’s replacing?
To me it means the entities that currently hold the most power and influence within the culture. I think those entities can be identified objectively. Certainly our president, Congress, and Supreme Court are very powerful politically. Financially there are big Wall Street banks. Artistically we have major Hollywood producers. Etc.
I think the Alt-Right mob simply wants to take power from whoever has it already. They are less about a real revolution, and more about a putsch, similar to the New Left of the '60s.
At the time, Rand said: “There is not a single basic principle of today’s Establishment which [the New Left] do not share.” (The New Left, p. 97) I think the same is mostly true with the Alt-Right and today’s Establishment. Only this time the rebels have harnessed the power of the Internet and have a serious plan of attack.
On 10/23/2016 at 7:20 PM, MisterSwig said:
You seem to follow Dustin around this forum quite a bit. I’ve noticed.
Would you also like to register as an agent of the Alt-Right? Are you shitposting here?
I have a benevolent universe premise and a benevolent people premise, so no, I do not identify with the alt-right.
However, you seem vehemently opposed to the idea of persuading people who disagree with you through rational argument, which is characteristic of a malevolent people premise. Are you sure you don’t identify with the alt-right yourself?
See my thread on the subject here:
/t/25270
Also, I have to say, this conspiratorial frenzy you’ve worked yourself up into over people like Louie and I, who have been on this forum for years, is absurd to the point of being comedic. Relevant Seinfeld:
2 hours ago, epistemologue said:
I have a benevolent universe premise and a benevolent people premise, so no, I do not identify with the alt-right.
Ah, so you’ve accepted Dustin’s prior assertion that the MUP is what unites all the various Alt-Right factions? And that since you are BUP, you can’t possibly be Alt-Right?
Maybe you aren’t Alt-Right. But you didn’t say what you do identify with. And you certainly gobbled up Dustin’s position without any fuss.
Also, a few posts ago you said that you don’t think white nationalism has anything to do with the Alt-Right. Have you changed your mind, now that, in your view, the MUP indicates an affiliation with the Alt-Right?
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:
You seem to be paranoid that secret Alt-Righters are all around here, or that a veil has been pulled over our eyes.
Well, I created this one thread about the Alt-Right and have already turned up an admitted Alt-Righter, another member whom I suspect is Alt-Right, and two members who have passively absorbed, or previously held, Dustin’s blatantly non-objective political ideas. All that, and I barely left this one thread.
If that is being paranoid, then you have a definition of paranoia wholly unfamiliar to me. I call it recognizing reality.
Evade the evidence all you want, it won’t change the fact that the Alt-Right are coming for you. Not only on this forum, but all over the Internet, and in the real world too–in case you hadn’t noticed by now.
24 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
and two members who have passively absorbed, or previously held, Dustin’s blatantly non-objective political ideas. All that, and I barely left this one thread.
Those aren’t Dustin’s ideas as much as he got those ideas 2 ideas you cited from this site and people here. You got the order of causation backwards. Yeah, alt-right is MUP, I’m glad Epist expanded on that. It’s pretty revealing, and what makes it morally wrong to support alt-right ideas.
Yeah are you not familiar with the entire western liberal philosophic tradition? Basically one giant “No” to the pessimistic view of human nature expressed by Hobbes in which the authoritarian right has adopted wholeheartedly.