O'Reilly on OWS and anti-capitalism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

O'Reilly on OWS and anti-capitalism

I like Bill O'Reilly, although I disagree with some of his ideas.

Still, he's No. 1 in cable news.

So it was a treat to see the following video on a No. 1 news show during prime time.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1242409413001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

I lived through the 60's and the whole hippie thing. I don't recall ever seeing an SDS protest put quite that way--with ant-capitalism at the center--during prime time.

We have a lot to thank Ayn Rand for.

The Left is counting on a generation it brainwashed (by infiltrating the education system) to pull off its putsch.

I think it is going to fail miserably, although not without a vicious fight. The very fact that the fundamentals are so clearly discussed in the mainstream is one of the main reasons why.

Instead of the younger generation taking over the older generation, I believe the younger generation will (in large part) end up getting an education. I believe most people--including young people--want to do good and they try to see things correctly. So long as fundamentals are hidden, it's easy to be misled. But those damn fundamentals just don't go away when they are out in the open and you try to use your brain to do some honest thinking.

So, as I see it, the most rational argument--the pro-capitalism, anti-big government and pro-individual rights and responsibilities argument--will ultimately win this one.

So, once again, many thanks to Ayn Rand for bearing a torch that lit the culture so much that O'Reilly is now talking about anti-capitalism instead of evil bankers as reason for the protests.

He even threw in the antisemitism on display by protesters--and bashed it--as gravy.

What a good day during a bad time.

Michael

[sjw]

"]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-criticized-for-flashes-of-anti-semitism.html?_r=1#h[]

“To put someone out there to say, ‘This is who the group is,’ is about as dishonest as you can be,” Mr. Smith, who is also Jewish, said. “It’s yellow journalism.”

Indeed. I can't believe people get sucked into believing anything O'Reilly says. And we have capitalism? That's even more nutty than the idea that OWS is antisemitic.

Shayne

[sjw]

Bill O'Reilly at his best: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson

Shayne

[Dennis Hardin]

.

So, once again, many thanks to Ayn Rand for bearing a torch that lit the culture so much that O'Reilly is now talking about anti-capitalism instead of evil bankers as reason for the protests.

He even threw in the antisemitism on display by protesters--and bashed it--as gravy.

What a good day during a bad time.

Michael

Complete agreement here, Michael. O’Reilly not only epitomizes the best of the American sense-of-life but articulates that perspective so well sometimes that it’s startling. There’s a reason his show is numero uno and has been for so long.

Of course, he is far from consistent. His tirades against oil speculators are infuriating, and his occasional references to his Catholic beliefs remind us that he’s not exactly a philosophical thinker. He is probably a pragmatist—but a pragmatist with very rational parameters. He even demonstrates unusual moral self-confidence at times—his angry interview with Barney Frank over the congressman’s role in the mortgage meltdown crisis is only one example.

Quite frankly, I love his show. I record it nightly and rarely miss it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Indeed. I can't believe people get sucked into believing anything O'Reilly says.

Shayne,

I agree.

I believe much of what O'Reilly says and he didn't sucker me at all, ever.

I disagree with him sometimes, but I can't imagine him suckering anyone.

He's pretty clear about what he says.

Michael

[sjw]

Complete agreement here, Michael. O’Reilly not only epitomizes the best of the American sense-of-life but articulates that perspective so well sometimes that it’s startling.

Insight into why Dennis and I don't get along. I think O'Reilly represents the worst of the American sense of life (Not that I've really watched much of O'Reilly, but what I have watched I find so awful that I think I get the general idea.) O'Reilly isn't standing up for capitalism, he's standing up for the status quo. Eventually I think that will become completely untenable, but we'll have to see.

I think I come across as a left-libertarian at OL, but when I've spoken to actual left-libertarians, I get accused of being a right-libertarian. It is interesting that the left/right phenomenon exists. It's also a bit annoying that it exists.

Shayne

[Selene]

Complete agreement here, Michael. O’Reilly not only epitomizes the best of the American sense-of-life but articulates that perspective so well sometimes that it’s startling.

Insight into why Dennis and I don't get along. I think O'Reilly represents the worst of the American sense of life (Not that I've really watched much of O'Reilly, but what I have watched I find so awful that I think I get the general idea.) O'Reilly isn't standing up for capitalism, he's standing up for the status quo. Eventually I think that will become completely untenable, but we'll have to see.

I think I come across as a left-libertarian at OL, but when I've spoken to actual left-libertarians, I get accused of being a right-libertarian. It is interesting that the left/right phenomenon exists. It's also a bit annoying that it exists.

Shayne

Shayne:

What do you postulate is the fundamental difference between "left" libertarians and "right" libertarians?

Adam

[sjw]

I find it interesting, and tragic, how Objectivism started with admiring Marilyn Monroe's benevolent sense of life, and now has degraded to worshipping Bill O'Reilly's very malevolent sense of life. It's quite poetic. Dennis is quite right. The ARI drumbeat is very much in line with Bill O'Reilly.

Shayne

[sjw]

Selene,

Left libertarians have a disdain for rational principles. They are "touchy-feely", just like the stereotypical left. Right libertarians have just as much disdain for reason as do left libertarians, but rather than openly admitting it, they deny it and pretend that the facts are different than they are.

Left libertarians characterize a rational, principled argument as "authoritarian." Right libertarians are happy with a rational argument that matches their preordained conclusions (usually as enunciated by some authority figure that they have chosen to worship), but if it contradicts it, they characterize it in the worst possible way and are incapable of seeing any element or aspect of the argument as at least having a grain of truth.

Let libertarians appreciate nuance but reject any definitive claim; right libertarians disdain nuance and consider any fact that goes against their dogma to be irrelevant. Of course, left libertarians are just as dogmatic regarding their rejection of rational absolutes.

This is of course the same old dichotomy that Rand already identified. It's too bad that she and her followers succumbed to it.

Shayne

[Selene]

Selene,

Left libertarians have a disdain for rational principles. They are "touchy-feely", just like the stereotypical left. Right libertarians have just as much disdain for reason as do left libertarians, but rather than openly admitting it, they deny it and pretend that the facts are different than they are.

Left libertarians characterize a rational, principled argument as "authoritarian." Right libertarians are happy with a rational argument that matches their preordained conclusions (usually as enunciated by some authority figure that they have chosen to worship), but if it contradicts it, they characterize it in the worst possible way and are incapable of seeing any element or aspect of the argument as at least having a grain of truth.

Let libertarians appreciate nuance but reject any definitive claim; right libertarians disdain nuance and consider any fact that goes against their dogma to be irrelevant. Of course, left libertarians are just as dogmatic regarding their rejection of rational absolutes.

This is of course the same old dichotomy that Rand already identified. It's too bad that she and her followers succumbed to it.

Shayne

Shayne:

Interesting. What do you see as their basic differences on issues, e.g., patents, property rights, drugs, abortion, foreign policy, etc.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

O’Reilly not only epitomizes the best of the American sense-of-life but articulates that perspective so well sometimes that it’s startling. There’s a reason his show is numero uno and has been for so long.

Of course, he is far from consistent. His tirades against oil speculators are infuriating, and his occasional references to his Catholic beliefs remind us that he’s not exactly a philosophical thinker.

Dennis,

I never thought much about O'Reilly's sense of life, but I think you are correct in your analysis.

O'Reilly isn't interested in ideology so much as "looking out for the folks."

In just about every instance I have seen him focus on this phrase, he was engaged in protecting everyday people from harm caused by abuses from those in power or with lots of influence.

The American sense of life is traditionally grounded in rooting for the underdog. Protecting the underdog describes the stuff I habitually see on O'Reilly's show.

He also makes sure he does not quote people out of context or attribute them with anything without solid evidence. I know I appreciate that a lot. Apparently his audience does, too.

As an aside, I learned something about human nature from him. He was showing Bill Ayres recently criticizing Obama. He then said you have to be careful if you hang out with ideologues because they eventually turn on you.

Dayaamm!

How did I ever miss that? It's true.

In my own experience, I have seen this a lot.

Anyway, I don't watch The O'Reilly Factor for philosophical positions. I watch it for his excellent--and often uncommon--analyses of the pros and cons of current events that is his bread and butter.

And like I said in the opening post, I am really glad to see capitalism on the table as normal fare at this level of the mainstream media.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Billo’s piece reminds me of Olbermann’s coverage of the first Tea Party rallies. Olbermann tried presenting it as a racist thing, but had no evidence, just the say so of Janeane Garafolo. Billo has one guy ranting while holding a cardboard sign. So, that’s actually an improvement over Olbermann. I can’t resist pointing this out, listen to the guy telling people to Google this and Google that related to Jewish bankers: um, fella, you do know that the founders of Google are both Jewish? And part of the odious 1%.

But anyway, this did nothing to raise my opinion of Billo. It’s just guilt by association, a fallacy whoever commits it.

[sjw]

Generally speaking, left libertarians are against patents and copyrights (some right libertarians are as well), they are also against any kind of hierarchy, like a management hierarchy, even if it is consensual. They tend not to like any social distinctions, even not male vs. female. They are, or tend to be, anti-corporation not only qua state-created/supported entity, but as such. This is related to their anti-principle approach--they are for property rights for individuals, but if the individuals exercise their property rights to create a business, then they tend to be against property rights. They tend to want an entirely egalitarian society, with no hierarchy or power structure, even if it was formed through consent (they would tend to claim that if you pay someone to do something, then that is "coercion").

Right libertarians are typically oblivious to the state supported aspects of large corporations, tending only to focus on aspects where government puts limits on big business (and they see this as an unqualified bad thing because they are oblivious to the state supported aspects). They usually have tyrannical views of property rights, such as not having a sensible idea of what constitutes abandoned property, or thinking it is morally proper to grab and hold large chunks of real-estate in a non-Lockean fashion. Related to this tyranny is some right-libertarians' support of patents. Right libertarians tend to not use ethics or rights to determine whether something is just, they tend to solely focus on economics. All this support of injustice of course only eggs on the left libertarians.

Left libertarians tend to be opposed to US government involvement abroad, while not really having an answer for what to do about tyranny abroad. Right libertarians are generally very inhumane compared to left libertarians, and only see US involvement in terms of increased taxes or some such, not in terms of injustice to foreigners. Right libertarians tend to be nationalistic power-mongers; left-libertarians tend to be anarchic. Anarchist right-libertarians have their own forms of power centers they advocate, usually on economic rather than moral grounds.

These are just general observations because there are always exceptions. It seems quite difficult to budge a left libertarian or a right libertarian toward a more sane point of view. They both tend to be quite stubborn and don't want to perceive some aspect of merit in respective views. So what unites these types is a kind of unintelligent, unscientific simple-mindedness.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

Thanks. Sounds like the anarchist conferences we had in the '60s.

I will make one observation. The "left" libertarian position that you described, [Jerome Tucille traversed to a non right libertarian position], seems extremely contradictory concerning the property rights issue. If you have a place to direct me I would like to see that for myself. If not, I will search myself.

Where would you categorize your political position?

You certainly would not use the liberal centrist conservative paradigms. Apparently, the left right libertarian positions do not fit you. And I know that you reject the anarchist and mini-anarchist spectrums.

Thanks.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

O'Reilly merely selected one example of antisemitism at OWS events out of a bunch now circulating. Here are a couple of recent things I grabbed off of a quick YouTube search:

Glenn Beck: Anti-Semitism in OWS movement

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KY1_vJJUhy8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a real gem. David Duke (KKK) is now on board supporting the movement.

Occupy Zionist Wall Street by David Duke

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xKy22KsxX9k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can dig up more and more and more if you like. I've been following this.

There's one thing I really admired out of Beck just recently (I'll keep an eye to see if the video comes out later for embedding). He showed a video of someone saying the Jews have been run out of every country they have been in, then followed with the poem of the Statue of Liberty ("The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus).

He pounded out the message that the name of this statue in the poem is "Mother of Exiles." And that she was clamoring for all countries of the world to send their exiles--the people they don't want--to the USA.

Well, that sounds like the definition of a Jew from the very mouths of the bigots on tape who claim what a great thing OWS is for their cause.

Antisemitism in the OWS movement is getting worse as time goes on.

It's already widespread and it's disgusting.

Michael

[sjw]

Selene,

Perhaps I got something not quite right with their views on property, the left tends to be more difficult to characterize since they are unprincipled.

I think "classical liberal" is a good general category. For me, individual rights is a formal science, not a branch of morality as it is for Rand, but its own separate branch that is at the foundation of the law. I see it as moral to found the law on individual rights, but individual rights are not per se formally part of morality; I use morality to say "individual rights are good, it is good to respect them", but not to define what they are. I define what they are by reference to biology/teleology using a scientific process, analyzing human action in terms of whether it does or does not interfere with another human's action (the right vs. crime distinction in Chapter 1 of my book). I don't know of anyone else who conceives of rights in this way.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

Antisemitism in the OWS movement is getting worse as time goes on.

It's already widespread and it's disgusting.

I’m afraid this is like adding a Rachel Maddow clip, with a Jeremiah Wright chaser, to Olbermann’s smear effort. Could they have found 3 racists at the early Tea Party rallies? Surely, and they probably did, though I don’t remember and am not up for looking up clips. Beck’s coverage is notably better than Billo’s, however. At least he showed that the one LA anti-semite was being criticized, though the leader is clearly being too wimpy about it.

Here’s a question, Beck talks at the end about how the Tea Party would handle this, but what does he mean? Did they run the people off? Violently? How did they handle the oddball in the Confederate flag t-shirt?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I’m afraid this is like adding a Rachel Maddow clip, with a Jeremiah Wright chaser, to Olbermann’s smear effort. Could they have found 3 racists at the early Tea Party rallies?

. . .

Here’s a question, Beck talks at the end about how the Tea Party would handle this, but what does he mean? Did they run the people off? Violently? How did they handle the oddball in the Confederate flag t-shirt?

Dennis,

Did you miss where I said there's plenty more antisemitism out there? How many videos do you want in 10 minutes?

I'll try to dig up a reputable source of these things so I won't have to go all over looking at videos. There has to be somebody collecting them.

Obviously, antisemitism is not the main focus of the OWS movement. But it is definitely there. It is tolerated by the other protesters (albeit, to be fair, I have seen videos of protesters saying they do not approve), and it is growing.

I saw with my own eyes how the fringe is handled at a couple of Tea Party rallies and at the Restoring Honor rally. (I don't know about the Confederate flag on clothing specifically. Anyway, that could be simply cultural, depending on the person. The things I saw had a specific bigoted message. I saw people go up to them and say, "We don't want this kind of stuff here. Please take it down or leave." No threats, though. Instead, it was one person after another coming up to the offensive person. Call it peer pressure, but it was peaceful. It worked, too. I don't know how this went at places I have not been.

I remember one person being circled at Restoring Honor with ladies telling the guy, "We are praying for you. We are praying for you." And some of them were standing there praying. I didn't see him around after a while.

Yesterday, Beck did a tally of numbers comparing Tea Party events with OWS events. I'm going from the top of my head, but it went something like this:

Time:

OWS days: Around 40

Tea Party days: Over 900.

Arrests:

OWS: Around 2,500

Tea Party: 0

Defecation on police cars:

OWS: 1

Tea Party: 0

And on and on it went.

Then he followed with pictures of the spotless grounds after Restoring Honor and contrasted them with pictures of the mess during one of the OWS enforced cleanings (I don't remember the city). The contrast was enormous.

Maybe I should see if I can find something like this out there on the Internet and post it here.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Obviously, antisemitism is not the main focus of the OWS movement. But it is definitely there. It is tolerated by the other protesters (albeit, to be fair, I have seen videos of protesters saying they do not approve), and it is growing.

On the anti-Semitism connection, only time will tell. So far, the comparison to early accusations of racism in the Tea Party holds, from what I’ve seen.

No doubt the Tea Party has always been much better behaved than the OWS crowd.

[sjw]

The antisemitic charge is asinine.

http://occupywallst.org/article/tonight-vigils-across-america-scott-olsen-marine-v/

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

The real OWS crowd has yet to show up. These are just empty-headed pansies.

--Brant

they'll show up in Washington

[anthony]

Generally speaking, left libertarians are against patents and copyrights (some right libertarians are as well), they are also against any kind of hierarchy, like a management hierarchy, even if it is consensual. They tend not to like any social distinctions, even not male vs. female. They are, or tend to be, anti-corporation not only qua state-created/supported entity, but as such. This is related to their anti-principle approach--they are for property rights for individuals, but if the individuals exercise their property rights to create a business, then they tend to be against property rights. They tend to want an entirely egalitarian society, with no hierarchy or power structure, even if it was formed through consent (they would tend to claim that if you pay someone to do something, then that is "coercion"). Right libertarians are typically oblivious to the state supported aspects of large corporations, tending only to focus on aspects where government puts limits on big business (and they see this as an unqualified bad thing because they are oblivious to the state supported aspects). They usually have tyrannical views of property rights, such as not having a sensible idea of what constitutes abandoned property, or thinking it is morally proper to grab and hold large chunks of real-estate in a non-Lockean fashion. Related to this tyranny is some right-libertarians' support of patents. Right libertarians tend to not use ethics or rights to determine whether something is just, they tend to solely focus on economics. All this support of injustice of course only eggs on the left libertarians. Left libertarians tend to be opposed to US government involvement abroad, while not really having an answer for what to do about tyranny abroad. Right libertarians are generally very inhumane compared to left libertarians, and only see US involvement in terms of increased taxes or some such, not in terms of injustice to foreigners. Right libertarians tend to be nationalistic power-mongers; left-libertarians tend to be anarchic. Anarchist right-libertarians have their own forms of power centers they advocate, usually on economic rather than moral grounds. These are just general observations because there are always exceptions. It seems quite difficult to budge a left libertarian or a right libertarian toward a more sane point of view. They both tend to be quite stubborn and don't want to perceive some aspect of merit in respective views. So what unites these types is a kind of unintelligent, unscientific simple-mindedness. Shayne

Shayne,

Just when I was getting the hang of L(l)ibertarianism, you bring in a left-right distinction.

Gawd, how complicated!

It is conceivable then that libertarians could be more in conflict with each other, then with their real foe.

All because - I tentatively suggest - individual rights are not grounded in morality.

A concrete disconnected from principle.

Even so, there is no doubt for me that any right-minded person would and must support L(l)ibertarianism - as political movement, that is. There is a base for liberty there.

Only, I guess I'm not that much of a political animal.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the official American Nazi Party endorsement of OWS: ANP Report for October 16, 2011

Here's how it starts, with a call to action from the chairman:

Racial Comrades: I am going to address the issue of this "Occupy Wall Street" fervor that has been sweeping the land like a breath of cleansing air!

THE NATIVES ARE GETTING RESTLESS, AND ZOG FEARS IT MIGHT HAVE A POPULAR UPRISING ON ITS HANDS - finally!

This issue is TAYLOR MADE for National Socialists, as well as WN who are serious about DOING SOMETHING - MORE - than shouting "racial slurs" and acting like "poster boys of hate" loons.

After all - JUST WHO - are the WALL STREET BANKERS? The vast majority are JEWS - and the others are SPIRITUAL JEW materialists, who would sell their own mother's gold teeth for a PROFIT. And MORE and MORE people are AWARE of this truth, are not only NOT afraid to TALK ABOUT IT - they're shouting it on WALL STREET!

I urgently URGE all of you to TAKE PART and JOIN IN when these protests hit your neck of the woods. Produce some flyers EXPLAINING the "JEW BANKER" influence - DON'T wear anything marking you as an "evil racist" - and GET OUT THERE and SPREAD the WORD!

The call is definitely there to print up antisemitic material and spread it at OWS events. I think it's only a matter of time before samples start appearing in the news.

That message later continues with some friendly words from one Steve Davenport, just to show that the Nazi movement is not hate-oriented. Here are a couple of morsels:

National Socialism is based on entirely different premises as Judeo-Capitalism. Its needs and requirements are people based, not money based. We need a system that doesn't throw its people callously on the garbage dump, or let them be mown down on the battlefield fighting useless wars.

. . .

Comrades, National Socialism is NOT some "right-wing, reactionary" ideology that sucks-up to the WEALTHY and the INFLUENTAL no matter "HOW" greedy and evil they are, like lick-spittle SLAVES! NO!

National Socialists are REVOLUTIONARIES seeking a BETTER, HEALTHIER, more COMPASSIONATE WORLD for their children's needs.

Here's a call from a sister site, White Honor: The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Movement

In explaining why the American Nazis should not be bothered by teaming up with the communists on OWS, this site is clear:

Seriously people, just WHO is our enemy? The unemployed left-wing 25-year-old holding up a sign, OR the judeo-capitalist banksters who swindled the American taxpayers out of A TRILLION dollars in the “bailout” scam AND continue to oppress the White Working Class?!?

But as gravy, this site posted (and recommended as "excellent") an interview on Iran's Press TV where two OWS organizers (Debra Sweet and Sara Flounders) stood side-by-side a virtual Nazi (OK, maybe not a formal Nazi--Mark Dankof is merely a white power wacko admired by the Nazis, David Duke, etc.). Granted, both ladies said they did not condone antisemitism, but there they stood--and they offered essentially the same arguments Dankof did, merely with "Jew" removed.

Would any of you go on TV and defend Objectivism against a Nazi? A proponent of white power? Maybe a member of the KKK? And find common ground?! For God's sake.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GILFFnijqW0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is some pretty damning proof that OWS organizers know of the interest antisemitic groups have in their movement. Here they are standing beside it in public, sharing the same stage. They may offer some half-hearted lip-service against bigotry, but they stand beside it in public!

Is there any way for antisemitism at OWS not to grow?

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Is there any way for antisemitism at OWS not to grow?

If it really becomes noticeable, do you really think there won't be a reaction against it?

Google "Tea party KKK" and look at what comes up.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a compilation of three moments from Glenn Beck's radio program a few days ago:

1. Commentary on David Duke's statement,

2. Dealing with a caller who is an antisemitic OWS supporter, and

3. Remarks about the Statue of Liberty (which were the warm-up for what he later did brilliantly on TV that I mentioned in an earlier post).

That caller was really out there. Polite and totally Jew-hating. I actually heard this as it happened. I don't listen to Beck's radio show much, but since I have GBTV, I happened to watch the video broadcast of the show that day.

You don't get the end of the call on this clip, but, after being relatively polite to the guy the whole time, Glenn suddenly ended with, "Get off my telephone!" (I think those were the words. If not, it was something very similar.)

<object width="400" height="254"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=19948547&property=gbtv" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="tl" /><embed src="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=19948547&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" window="transparent" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /> </object>

Michael