O'Reilly on OWS and anti-capitalism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

Dennis,

I've been showing the reactions on this thread.

It doesn't look good so far.

All I see is denial that the antisemitism exists and some perfunctory statements that bigotry is bad. Some of this reaction is right beside images and audio of the antisemitic stuff.

But you implied there will be a reaction if this actually happens. Is left-winger Martin Bashir's reaction during his interview of Russell Simmons the kind of thing you are talking about?

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

Here's my parody of that interveiw:

Bashir: What about the antisemitism that is being reported at OWS?

Simmons: There ain't none.

Bashir: But wait a minute. Here's some video.

Simmons (after watching the video): There ain't no antisemitism at OWS.

Bashir: But what about the video I just showed you?

Simmons: There simply ain't no antisemitism down there.

Bashir: OK.

Simmons: There's only sweet people down at OWS.

Bashir: Oh. OK. At least we now know the truth.

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

I did. I only skimmed the results, but all I saw was the typical left-wing crap--that the Tea Party was racist. What's the point?

Please note a difference. Neither I nor the videos I am posting are claiming that OWS is antisemitic at root. My charge is that antisemitism is creeping in, getting more brazen as it grows, and there is no real resistance to speak of from within the movement.

All you have to do is look at the videos to see it unfolding that way.

The lefties you had me look at claim that all "Tea Baggers" are KKK.

You will see a fundamental difference in approach here if you look.

Oh yeah... Tea Party and KKK. I notice that David Duke does not support the Tea Party, but he does support OWS. Something to think about...

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I've been showing the reactions on this thread.

It doesn't look good so far.

Definitely the velvet hand in the velvet glove.

Oh yeah... Tea Party and KKK. I notice that David Duke does not support the Tea Party, but he does support OWS. Something to think about...

I hate increasing this creep's view count.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m6wySl92yE

[anthony]

Michael,

What I think I liked about Beck from the start is that he is moral, by instinct, as well as intellect.

It makes him a force (for the good) to be reckoned with.

He quickly reduces those callers to their idiotic, bigoted roots.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Good Lord!

I stand corrected about David Duke's endorsement of the Tea Party.

However, I do have one qualification. It's not a biggie, but it is real--in a difference between dog poop and cow poop kind of way.

I just watched the video you posted and rewatched Duke's video in support of OWS to make sure of something that seemed off in my gut feeling.

I also did that because the OWS video is being commented on widely and I don't recall much talk about the Tea Party video except for some stuff from the standard lefties--and even then, in my perception, it fell in the middle of their standard discourse. (Incidentally, Duke's endorsement of the Tea Party was posted on YouTube in April 2010--see the timestamp

on Duke's own channel instead of the one you posted, which gives a much more recent timestamp.)

Of course, my perception might be because I don't take much anything Duke says seriously and I am appalled by the spontaneous antisemitism I see growing. But I did notice something else just now.

The two videos by Duke do not transmit the same level and intensity of support.

In the Tea Party video, Duke talks about the movement as if commenting on history, saying that it is a spontaneous uprising of white European descendents trying to protect their heritage, yada yada yada.

He did not talk from the perspective of an active member of the Tea Party movement--but instead as a commentator on it--and he did not call on people to join it.

In the OWS video, he's more cozy and speaks almost as one of the OWS gang. He ramped up his antisemitic vituperation quite a few notches (even using language like "vulture-nosed bottom-feeder") and he explicitly and enthusiastically called on people to go out and join the OWS movement.

btw - You can listen to an audio of his reaction to Beck's comments here:

Glenn Beck Attacks David Duke and David Duke Responds!

It's a cute touch at the end how he asks you to keep an open mind and not be prejudiced when you examine his ideas (about hating Jews).

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Incidentally, Duke's endorsement of the Tea Party was posted on YouTube in April 2010--see the timestamp

on Duke's own channel instead of the one you posted, which gives a much more recent timestamp.

It came up when I googled "Tea party KKK". I really don't want to listen to any more David Duke, he makes me sick.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's my real fear with this antisemitic sentiment penetrating the OWS crowd.

It's what I call reasoning with a "fuzzy-filter syllogism."

It works like this:

PREMISE: Wall Street bankers control the vast majority of the money.

PREMISE: Many Wall Street bankers are Jewish.

(Fussy Filter: It sucks to be me suffering financially when those 1% fat cats live in the lap of luxury and even get bailouts from taxes I pay.)

CONCLUSION: The Jews have all the money.

It's kind of funny when you say it that way, but I truly believe this represents the thinking process of many people.

Imagine what you can build if that conclusion (from those premises) becomes your premise for further reasoning. That's the scary part.

I have already detected this fuzzy-filter syllogism habit with respect to capitalism.

This is a dream scene for antisemitism to grow.

Michael

[sjw]

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

No, actually that's a right libertarian way of putting it. The real problem is simpler: neither side grounds their beliefs in reason. Since Objectivism is the only philosophy in recent history that ever even tried to do so, I can simply point out their view on (say) patents. They cling to it, regardless of the fact that they can't ground it in reason. And I can easily show that if they can't ground it in reason, then it is immoral to proffer it as if it is true. But they don't care. They have their dogma and that's that.

We need a true return to the spirit of the Renaissance. Objectivism was a false start. It pretended to take reason as the only absolute, but didn't actually. That's why it fell on its face and fragmented into a half a dozen pieces, probably with the majority of actually reasonable people throwing their hands up in the air and not participating in any of these various fragments. And now, there is actually no movement anywhere, to my knowledge, that tries to combine an explicit respect for reason with political philosophy. Objectivism is still pretending that it does but that is a total fraud. But there are no others that even pretend besides Objectivism, to my knowledge. There are individuals that pretend, but qua organization, they don't pretend that what they're about is reason.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

I watch The O'Reilly Factor from time to time, maybe two times per week, but mainly to see Dennis Miller, who is typically very funny.

I tend to dislike O'Reilly not so much because of his political views -- which, as you point out, are very mixed -- but because of his interviewing technique. If he disagrees with someone, he interrupts and barely gives the person a chance to speak. At times I would estimate that in such interviews O'Reilly hogs around 75 percent of the segment, perhaps more. I once saw him interview someone from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In that case, the person could barely complete a sentence. I would say that O'Reilly spoke 90 percent of the time, going on and on about how America was founded as a Christian nation, while citing the references to "Creator" and "God" in the Declaration of Independence --while remaining blissfully ignorant that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian, and that the Constitution (which never mentions God), not the Declaration, is our founding document .

O'Reilly is a hardliner on the "war on drugs." He has repeatedly advocated that drug offenders be sentenced to hard labor in Alaska. Whenever the subject of legalization comes up, he drones on about "our children." He even opposes medical marijuana.

Lastly, O'Reilly is militantly anti-intellectual. Watch him whenever sometime attempts to make a point about principles. O'Reilly will typically cut him off with a statement like, "Well, that's just theory."

All this puts O'Reilly very low on my food chain.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

there's a box on your doorstep

[George H. Smith]

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

No, actually that's a right libertarian way of putting it.

Is there no limit to your ignorance?

...Since Objectivism is the only philosophy in recent history that ever even tried to do so....

Apparently not.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All this puts O'Reilly very low on my food chain.

George,

Ah, come on.

Anyone who can get Leonard Peikoff lathered up to bug-eyed on national TV and then ask him if he's Dr. Strangelove has got something going for him.

Give the guy a break!

Michael

[George H. Smith]

All this puts O'Reilly very low on my food chain.

George,

Ah, come on.

Anyone who can get Leonard Peikoff lathered up to bug-eyed on national TV and then ask him if he's Dr. Strangelove has got something going for him.

Give the guy a break!

Michael

It doesn't take prodding from anyone to make Peikoff look like Dr. Strangelove. He does it all on his own.

Ghs

[sjw]

Is there no limit to your ignorance?

Observe the right-libertarian mentality. Instead of behaving like a scientist would, and inquiring why I think such and such, he rudely lurches into attack mode and pretends to be able to read my mind. Also, very ironic behavior from the author of ATCAG.

His behavior is very typical of ARI Objectivists. Given his prior writings aimed at countering Objectivist dogma, his behavior is ironic, but understandable. George seems to get his self-esteem from being the alpha male, so if someone seems to challenge his status, he goes into attack mode. His goal, apparently, isn't to exchange ideas (unless with subordinates), it's just to try to make an apparent challenger appear to be smaller.

...Since Objectivism is the only philosophy in recent history that ever even tried to do so....

Apparently not.

Please, do tell us the alternative.

Shayne

[sjw]

Another sample of right libertarian alpha male behavior is Stephan Kinsella:

https://plus.google....sts/bzbvHDcdDE5

Note the inability to deal with nuance, and the attempt at domination of presumed subordinates, as well as the expulsion of presumed subordinates who will not fall in line. These are all features of right libertarians.

I've not noticed left libertarians behaving in this "protect my territory at all costs" manner. I'm sure that relates to their anti-authoritarian anti-hierarchy point of view.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Is there no limit to your ignorance?

Observe the right-libertarian mentality. Instead of behaving like a scientist would, and inquiring why I think such and such, he rudely lurches into attack mode and pretends to be able to read my mind. Also, very ironic behavior from the author of ATCAG. His behavior is very typical of ARI Objectivists. Given his prior writings aimed at countering Objectivist dogma, his behavior is ironic, but understandable. George seems to get his self-esteem from being the alpha male, so if someone seems to challenge his status, he goes into attack mode. His goal, apparently, isn't to exchange ideas (unless with subordinates), it's just to try to make an apparent challenger appear to be smaller.

...Since Objectivism is the only philosophy in recent history that ever even tried to do so....

Apparently not.

Please, do tell us the alternative. Shayne

In recent decades many books have been published that attempt to justify rights from a moral perspective. Some of these are O'ist oriented and some are not. Look them up for yourself. It is not my job to cure you of your militant ignorance.

I covered the issue of rights and libertarianism previously, in my replies to Dennis Hardin. Some libertarians defend natural rights, some are utilitarians, etc.; but all the natural rights libertarians ground their rights theory in a theory of ethics. This is the whole point of natural rights theory, after all. You are either ignorant on this issue, or you are dishonest. I used to assume the former was true, but, given how much this subject has been discussed, I am now convinced that you have no intellectual integrity.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Right refers to right action refers to rights. Wrong refers to wronged rights' holder in this context which is the result of force initiation against another by the wronger. Morality, or ethics, has to be in rights themselves or rights are gibberish. Objectivist ethics merely broadens out the moral base of it all, but is optional for advocacy. Of the four basic principles of Objectivism, two are shared with science and the fourth with libertarianism, properly understood. Unfortunately, there seem to be many libertarians who don't understand human rights just as there are many Objectivists who don't really understand Objectivism, treating it like catechism in a cult.

--Brant

where have all the intellectuals gone?

[sjw]

Some libertarians defend natural rights, some are utilitarians, etc.; but all the natural rights libertarians ground their rights theory in a theory of ethics. This is the whole point of natural rights theory, after all. You are either ignorant on this issue, or you are dishonest.

Given that I gave my answer to how rights relate to ethics in this very thread, what's clear is that you are the one who is dishonest. Clearly I think there is an important relation of rights to ethics, but that is different from saying that rights are grounded in ethics. To attempt to ground in ethics leads to right libertarianism. This is of course a point with some nuance, so I understand why you can't handle it.

I like your "Taz" image George, very accurate. Spinning and kicking a lot of dust into the air.

Shayne

[sjw]

To reiterate what I've already written earlier in this thread: I ground rights in human action, biology, teleology; I then use ethics in order to argue that it is wrong to violate a right. My approach leads to a very scientific, precise conception of rights, one that can't be refuted on the grounds of them being in some manner ethereal, mystical, etc.

This is akin to grounding mathematics in counting, and then using ethics to argue that adhering to the rules of mathematics is good for human life.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Some libertarians defend natural rights, some are utilitarians, etc.; but all the natural rights libertarians ground their rights theory in a theory of ethics. This is the whole point of natural rights theory, after all. You are either ignorant on this issue, or you are dishonest.

Given that I gave my answer to how rights relate to ethics in this very thread, what's clear is that you are the one who is dishonest. Clearly I think there is an important relation of rights to ethics, but that is different from saying that rights are grounded in ethics. To attempt to ground in ethics leads to right libertarianism. This is of course a point with some nuance, so I understand why you can't handle it. I like your "Taz" image George, very accurate. Spinning and kicking a lot of dust into the air. Shayne

A "point with nuance"? LOL! You have all the nuance of a runaway train.

I wasn't even discussing whether or not you think rights are related to or grounded in ethics. Your opinions have no more value in this area than those of a five-year -old child. I merely corrected your outrageous claim about what "libertarians" supposedly believe.

I checked the Kinsella link. He is right. You are an idiot.

Ghs

[sjw]

I wasn't even discussing whether or not you think rights are related to or grounded in ethics. Your opinions have no more value in this area than those of a five-year -old child. I merely corrected your outrageous claim about what "libertarians" supposedly believe.

I checked the Kinsella link. He is right. You are an idiot.

Ghs

Actually you haven't corrected anything, you just called me ignorant. And all you're doing here is yet more chest beating ad hominem. This is a good substitute for actually addressing my ideas when you're too incompetent to do so, presuming my "alpha male" theory is correct. If you were correct that I'm not only wrong, but wrong in a very simplistic, idiotic way, then it'd be very easy for you to nail me. But you've done everything but that.

Precisely what about my view of rights is wrong George? It should be simple to answer.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

To reiterate what I've already written earlier in this thread: I ground rights in human action, biology, teleology; I then use ethics in order to argue that it is wrong to violate a right. My approach leads to a very scientific, precise conception of rights, one that can't be refuted on the grounds of them being in some manner ethereal, mystical, etc.

This is akin to grounding mathematics in counting, and then using ethics to argue that adhering to the rules of mathematics is good for human life.

Shayne

Rights must be grounded in morality (human nature), but a libertarian can do a pretty good job merely referring to human social existence. It's not a strong philosophical grounding a la what Rand tried to do, IMO, but there is less case for importing mathematics into philosophy than importing them into Austrian economics.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I wasn't even discussing whether or not you think rights are related to or grounded in ethics. Your opinions have no more value in this area than those of a five-year -old child. I merely corrected your outrageous claim about what "libertarians" supposedly believe. I checked the Kinsella link. He is right. You are an idiot. Ghs

Actually you haven't corrected anything, you just called me ignorant. And all you're doing here is yet more chest beating ad hominem. This is a good substitute for actually addressing my ideas when you're too incompetent to do so, presuming my "alpha male" theory is correct. If you were correct that I'm not only wrong, but wrong in a very simplistic, idiotic way, then it'd be very easy for you to nail me. But you've done everything but that. Precisely what about my view of rights is wrong George? It should be simple to answer. Shayne

Be honest enough to accurately represent what libertarians have said about rights before you, then we can discuss your own views. I have no interest whatever in the ideas of a person who either hasn't taken the time to read his major predecessors, but who claims to know their views nonetheless; or who, having read a few books, egregiously mispresents the views presented therein.

You are a crank, Shayne, and cranks are a dime a dozen in minority movements. If you wish to leave the Kingdom of Crankdom and enter the world of serious thinkers, then you need to do two things. First, educate yourself. Second, treat the views of serious thinkers fairly, even if you disagree with them.

Your fixation on the patent controversy, and your inablility to understand how serious thinkers can honestly disagree on this issue, is perhaps the most flagrant manifestation of your intellectual immaturity. Grow up, and then we can have a serious discussion about your ideas.

Ghs

[sjw]

To reiterate what I've already written earlier in this thread: I ground rights in human action, biology, teleology; I then use ethics in order to argue that it is wrong to violate a right. My approach leads to a very scientific, precise conception of rights, one that can't be refuted on the grounds of them being in some manner ethereal, mystical, etc.

This is akin to grounding mathematics in counting, and then using ethics to argue that adhering to the rules of mathematics is good for human life.

Shayne

Rights must be grounded in morality (human nature), but a libertarian can do a pretty good job merely referring to human social existence. It's not a strong philosophical grounding a la what Rand tried to do, IMO, but there is less case for importing mathematics into philosophy than importing them into Austrian economics.

--Brant

You bemoan "where have all the intellectuals gone", but you make these pronouncements, and then never engage regarding their veracity. That kind of hypocrisy gets boring after a while. In any case, you've blundered here.

Shayne

[sjw]

Be honest enough to accurately represent what libertarians have said about rights before you, then we can discuss your own views.

Cowardly retreat.

Not all of us want to spend their lives reading and commenting on the works of others George. It's your job, as a human encyclopedia, to point me to the closest instance of my ideas in history, and to accurately place them where they belong in the history of ideas. Instead you beat your chest, foam, misrepresent, spew ad hominem. You aren't doing your job. And you don't do the work of a theorist either. So I wonder what your purpose in life is.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Be honest enough to accurately represent what libertarians have said about rights before you, then we can discuss your own views.

Cowardly retreat.

Not all of us want to spend their lives reading and commenting on the works of others George. It's your job, as a human encyclopedia, to point me to the closest instance of my ideas in history, and to accurately place them where they belong in the history of ideas. Instead you beat your chest, foam, misrepresent, spew ad hominem. You aren't doing your job. And you don't do the work of a theorist either. So I wonder what your purpose in life is.

Shayne

If you don't care enough about the history of the ideas that you claim to treasure, then, fine -- that is up to you. But at least be honest enough to admit, first, that you don't know anything about the views of your predecessors; and, second, that you have no idea how original your own arguments might be.

Instead of taking this honest approach, you sputter about what other libertarians (including anarchists) supposedly believe, and you claim to have arrived at certain insights, but with no appreciation of how many of those insights were common fare among earlier libertarian writers.

This Columbus Complex, born of willful ignorance, is a defining characteristic of a Crank.

Ghs