An Open Letter to the Alt-Right: Exploring an Alternative Solution

[Azrael Rand]

23 hours ago, RichardY said:

The collective unconscious is a Jungian theory. The subconscious is dismissed as not a useful distinction, by psychoanalysis. 

It is more like the collective unconscious is what exists already. So Borg cubes if you will, are Tenement and Tower blocks. It's what the unconscious mind uses in the absence of consciousness. However it is always active, but can be made conscious by consciousness. Things like astrology, days of the week, names of people and places are often noticed by a collective unconscious. The idea being that in larger groups there is more pressure to subordinate individual consciousness to the will of the collective, to acquire resources and perpetuate itself. The unconscious being more capable with brute empiricism.

We are social creatures so it makes sense. There are many observed phenomena for this from the contagiousness of moods to things like Menstrual synchrony.

23 hours ago, RichardY said:

I think the point of an individualistic ethic is to maintain a consciousness that would allow for the interaction between others of an out-group and other individuals. Helping to perpetuate consciousness.

I'd say save the individualistic ethic for members of the in-group and reserve treatment of members of the out-group based on an assessment of that group's values; how they treat their own and how they treat others (us included). At least that's my view from an outcome oriented mindset.

23 hours ago, RichardY said:

By definition Good is superior to Evil.

From a moral perspective, that is detached from outcomes, sure. But in terms of effectiveness, victory or defeat, it's all up to free will.

23 hours ago, RichardY said:

Which is why utilitarianism predominates.

The distinction of in group utilitarianism means nothing, anything a group can utilise it will. 

See I'd love to agree with you on that point were it not for the fact that instead of embracing the natural duality of selfishness and in-group preference we as a society are embracing an unholy union of self-hatred and altruism directed at the out-group or xenophilia if you prefer. Of course this goes back to free will.

Also any thoughts on my UPB piece. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say that should be right up your alley.

[RichardY]

31 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

We are social creatures so it makes sense. There are many observed phenomena for this from the contagiousness of moods to things like Menstrual synchrony.

Yes I was thinking crowd psychology or things like fads, which come and go but are never really the same.

31 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

From a moral perspective, that is detached from outcomes, sure. But in terms of effectiveness, victory or defeat, it's all up to free will.

I would say that good is superior even in the absence of morality(conforming to established social norms), to set a standard. But that it also maybe almost impossible for some people to be good. Basically what Aristotle mentions in Nicomachean Ethics about being in different cities, if things are corrupt, society, the mind, how can one be good?

You see I would disagree with victory or defeat being up to freewill. I think collectivists love victory/Nike. Victory at what cost?

31 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

See I'd love to agree with you on that point were it not for the fact that instead of embracing the natural duality of selfishness and in-group preference we as a society are embracing an unholy union of self-hatred and altruism directed at the out-group or xenophilia if you prefer. Of course this goes back to free will.

Also any thoughts on my UPB piece. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say that should be right up your alley.

Can only really speak for myself, virtually no in-group preference, but selfish to the extreme. With no in-group preference, out group doesn't mean much either.

Sure I'll give it a look.

[Azrael Rand]

11 minutes ago, RichardY said:

You see I would disagree with victory or defeat being up to freewill. I think collectivists love victory/Nike. Victory at what cost? 

For them it's victory at any cost. They've ditched the values of our founding fathers, i.e. free speech and a culture respecting objective truths, reason and evidence. To defeat them we need to beat them at their own game. I understand the people that say we will win by sticking to our principles and reclaiming victory with virtue but isn't that exactly what Republicans like Jeff Sessions are doing? I think it's inaccurate to say they're cucking if they're true believers in ideas such as leading by example, civility, etc. They are living the values they believe in. The problem is that these values aren't compatible with human nature when put to the test. Being a doormat isn't going to get us anywhere when the other side has mastered the art of psychological warfare in the cultural and by extension the political realm.

22 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Can only really speak for myself, virtually no in-group preference, but selfish to the extreme. With no in-group preference, out group doesn't mean much either.

Sure I'll give it a look.

Well I didn't exactly arrive at my conclusions due to a newfound love for my fellow man. I got there by following the path of objective reality using Objectivist rational self-interest from Rand to Haidt with some Alinsky thrown in for good measure.

[MahtiSonni]

On 9/26/2018 at 2:31 AM, RichardY said:

By definition Good is superior to Evil. However, as Good is superior to Evil, why does Evil appear to pre-dominate, perhaps you disagree? Why would evil even exist in the first place if good is stronger? But as you said settling for the Ethics of the here and now, sounds reasonable to me.

If you don't mind I'll butt in to offer a few thoughts.  Good is superior to evil, as all evil can do is influence or pervert that which aims at good.  It is rare in the extreme to do evil for the sake of doing evil, and even then it is debatable.  The most common reason for choosing evil is the fact that it is easier to choose the path of least resistance and/or more pleasure in the short term.  People generally seek comfort and avoid discomfort and the culture in the West today really pushes people to do just that.

Which is why utilitarianism predominates.

The distinction of in group utilitarianism means nothing, anything a group can utilise it will.

We do not live in an utilitarian culture (what's the utility of spending our resources to aid invaders?).  We live in a hedonistic one, though, perhaps, it can be viewed as a form of short-sighted utilitarianism.

[RichardY]

I would say choosing Evil is more out of a state of ignorance, than of ease or pleasure. Someone may choose evil being in a state of dis-ease. For example, I don't like something so I'll try to destroy it, maybe it's easy to do, maybe not. How can it be pleasing or easy to destroy a good person.

Hedonism and Nihilism, are both different sides of same the coin. What that coin is I don't know.

I mean utilitarianism predominates with the line of thinking that determinism is correct. Nothing about living in a utilitarian culture or not, purely a relative judgement. Determinism, I think is incorrect.

Quote

And these qualities he requires and exercises exactly in proportion as the part of his conduct which he determines according to his own judgment and feelings is a large one. It is possible that he might be guided in some good path, and kept out of harm's way, without any of these things. But what will be his comparative worth as a human being? It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are that do it. Among the works of man, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself. John Stuart Mill - On Liberty

 

[RichardY]

@Azrael RandI'm not an American, but English. Ayn Rand is virtually unknown in the UK, the PC game Bioshock game was influenced heavily by Ayn Rand. As well as Star trek. Funny how many game characters often have real life counterparts.

I have a bit of sympathy for the English side, as I think a lot of the motivation was more political financial gain, then freedom.

1) No right for continental councils to take land to sell to settlers, as opposed to the settlers occupying it by homesteading with the Native American tribes.
2) Freedom of religion. American Settlers were generally opposed to Catholicism, in Canada freedom of religion was allowed, but excluded non-protestants from state positions. Colonists used religion as one, excuse to pursue the war.
3) Less freedom, and increasingly more so, but still relatively free to the rest of the world.
 

As for Objectivism I think objective reality is more an expression of a persons personality type, Law of Identity A is A. From reading Psychological Types Carl Jung he talks about the Extroverted and Introverted type. The Extroverted type "Est ergo Est" (it is therefore it is) A is A. The introverted type (I think, therefore I think) A > B, thinking obviously not being identical to itself. 

Yes I think being rational is good. However, sometimes I think the ability to be unreasonable can be more important, than a devotion to reason and evidence. If something is irrational we can say it is wrong in someway, in what way we maybe uncertain or mistaken. In being unreasonable though, if I was offered £5 million for a house estimated at £100,000, would I be irrational to decline based on that offer alone? But given the fact I could then buy another house plus the additional capital, would it be sensible to at least consider the offer, probably a scam or "do you know something I don't?"

An unreasonable offer maybe too high or too low, but perhaps maybe accepted in desperation or perhaps due to vice. My point being if you have a degree of autarky, being leveraged is more difficult. The USA for instance has the resources it needs, and can trade with itself if needed, it can afford to be unreasonable in offers or demands. 

People can't even stick to the NAP on the forum, let alone everyday life. Which is why I think it is total garbage as a principle, but useful as a general rule. 

[RichardY]

20 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Also any thoughts on my UPB piece. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say that should be right up your alley.

Yeah well I think both UPB and Objectivism are both wrong. Aristotle(Name means best anyway), being better than Rand. Hell if the makers can make faster than the takers can take. Makers win right.

Personally I think as long as you have capitalism you will have socialism, and visa versa. I don't think UPB is selfish as you have said, I think it is blind. If it were selfish, I'd probably be more keen on it. I know Stefan recently mentioned he's an Anarcho-Capitalist and often says he supports the NAP.

Perhaps a bit random, but despite being wrong, I think Hegel and Spinoza might be really good philosophers at collective persuasion. Was thinking of the Nike Slogan "Just Do it" being a good example of double think. Thought a few memes I saw were funny, and the believe in something meme. 

[Azrael Rand]

3 hours ago, RichardY said:

@Azrael RandI'm not an American, but English. Ayn Rand is virtually unknown in the UK, the PC game Bioshock game was influenced heavily by Ayn Rand. As well as Star trek. Funny how many game characters often have real life counterparts.

You're certainly versed well enough in Objectivism even if your countrymen aren't. Never played Bioshock so I don't know if it gave Objectivism a fair shake or not. Also more of a Battlestar Galactica fan (new version) but I've seen a little Star Trek here and there.

 

3 hours ago, RichardY said:

As for Objectivism I think objective reality is more an expression of a persons personality type

I would agree with that and I think people that go looking for an ideology of their own free will, will choose the one that best rationalizes their current emotions/personality, whereas if an ideology is pushed onto someone their emotions will change to become consistent with the world view forced upon them. Just my 2 cents.

 

3 hours ago, RichardY said:

I know Stefan recently mentioned he's an Anarcho-Capitalist and often says he supports the NAP. 

Stefan has been AnaCap for quite some time now; check out some of his earlier videos. Creating UPB allowed him to transition from Objectivism to AnaCap.

 

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

I don't think UPB is selfish as you have said, I think it is blind. If it were selfish, I'd probably be more keen on it.

My take on UPB is that it's a modified version of Objectivism, which itself was solely based on Any Rand's selfishness (because what good did the group ever do for Ayn Rand growing up). UPB differs from Objectivism in that UPB upholds the NAP / freedom as the highest moral value whereas Ayn Rand upheld reason as the highest moral value.

Ask yourself why did Stefan create UPB in the first place? What motivated him to do so? I think it's fair to say that he wanted to create something of his own, something he could be proud of, and as I stated in the post he wanted a philosophy that was logically consistent to provide instant clarity to even the most complex problems. Both of these motivations are inherently selfish. A selfish philosophy modified for selfish reasons.

A key point in my article is that Stefan's emotional investment in UPB is holding him back from being as effective as he could be. He has not engaged the many young and talented voices of the Alt-Right likely because he has labeled them as "collectivists" which makes it that much easier to dismiss them and their views. To borrow some terminology of the left, Stefan is a major gatekeeper in the Alternative Influence Network, being on an interview with Stefan has the potential to put a YT personality on the map. Stefan's decision not to interview them is holding back important views from the alternative mainstream.

 

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

Yes I think being rational is good. However, sometimes I think the ability to be unreasonable can be more important, than a devotion to reason and evidence. If something is irrational we can say it is wrong in someway, in what way we maybe uncertain or mistaken.

All things equal, we benefit from embracing objective facts. Our predisposition to be led by emotions and not reason is also such an objective fact. Since our reasoning is guided by emotion we can't expect objective truths to be the default result from reasoning. Ayn Rand's idea to create a philosophy solely based around Objective truths was brilliant, but she made a big mistake early on, totally dismissing our groupish nature, which is why the Objectivist doctrine, as she left it, hasn't done us much good. The same standard applies to Stefan's attempts to make Objectivism "logically" consistent.

[MahtiSonni]

13 hours ago, RichardY said:

I would say choosing Evil is more out of a state of ignorance, than of ease or pleasure.

Infidelity is a form of evil that is usually chosen both deliberately and for pleasure.  So are most other forms of betrayal.

Quote

Someone may choose evil being in a state of dis-ease. For example, I don't like something so I'll try to destroy it, maybe it's easy to do, maybe not. How can it be pleasing or easy to destroy a good person.

Ask a rapist or a sadist.

Quote

Hedonism and Nihilism, are both different sides of same the coin. What that coin is I don't know.

The latter leads to the first.  One can't ditch the fact that pleasurable feelings feel good, even if one can ditch all moral judgments.  To abolish the moral level is to revert to the animal.

Quote

I mean utilitarianism predominates with the line of thinking that determinism is correct.  Nothing about living in a utilitarian culture or not, purely a relative judgement.

Utilitarianism is a means lacking an end.  I have trouble following your train of thought here; maybe someone on the same bandwidth can understand your point better.

Quote

Determinism, I think is incorrect.

I agree.