Alt-Right vs Liberalist (vs Objectivism)

Bruno Turner's picture
Submitted by Bruno Turner on Fri, 2018-02-09 19:45

Have you ever wondered what a Liberalist (i.e. Classical Liberal -more or less) and an Alt-Rightist (White Nationalist -more or less) discuss when having a debate?

In my latest video I give you a breakdown of the debate between prominent youtuber Sargon of Akkad  (who will be having an event with Obleftivist Yaron Brook soon) and Alt-Right personality Richard Spencer (the one from "hail-gate").

TRIGGER WARNING: This is an Obleftivism-free trasmission.

Enjoy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAKE OBJECTIVISM GREAT AGAIN!


Brook

Neil Parille's picture

Brook's claim that IQ tests are "bullshit" (which he may have retracted) and race is a "social construct" places him to the left of the left (Nisbett, I believe, is a communist) -

https://www.vox.com/the-big-id...

Clarity

Mark Hunter's picture

You could as well argue that what exists are the percepts leaves and branches etc, the tree doesn’t exist qua a tree. (I’m not sure what qua a tree means but it sounds good.)

But I see what Linz is driving at. There is a distinction between forest and trees, a group and the individuals composing it. What I hate, though, is using such Objectivist boilerplate to argue that whites are indistinguishable from asians, blacks, amerindians, etc, that race is a “social construct” to quote the Leftists, including Yaron Brook believe it or not. (He has actually said, “Race is a social construct.” Exact quote.)

Demography is destiny, as the immigration patriots over at Vdare.com say. Immigration is the most important issue of our time. Nutcase feminists are a minor detail.

Not seeing the trees for the forest

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What exist are trees. To a human consciousness trees are percepts. We note their similar distinguishing characteristic/characteristics, treat them as units, ignore their different measurements, and integrate them mentally into a concept, to which we give the word "tree." In the case of a bunch of trees close together, we form a broader concept, with the bunches serving as units, to which we give the word "forest." Forests don't exist qua forests; there are just trees. That doesn't make "forests" a fiction. The concept "forest" is a perfectly valid wider abstraction from a first-level one. As long as all higher-level abstractions can be tied back to reality-(percept)-based first-level ones, they are objective, and not "fictions."

Apparently philosophers have stumbled over this for millennia, with disastrous results, so it's a bit soon to expect many to get it right.

I've watched this and the newer video just once, and I took Bruno to mean over the two of them as long as there is freedom of association in a nation-state, whites (who do exist) can form whites-only communities within that nation-state if that is their wish. Moreover, by refusing to allow Third World savages in, we can preserve an individualistic (excellent and civilised) culture (including individualism-friendly commonalities) without having to concern ourselves about matters of skin colour. The problem, of course, is that that freedom of association no longer obtains anywhere, except surreptitiously. Just ask the Christian bakers forced to make wedding cakes for Ugly Wimmin couples.

Our immediate problem is that OrgOism has been taken over by champions of the Ugly Wimmin.

#MOGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The trouble with podcasts

Mark Hunter's picture

The trouble with podcasts compared with written articles is that you can’t pause to reread or reflect. Besides podcasts take a lot more of your time than a written article. And it’s a lot of trouble to quote them.

I viewed Bruno’s video once and found it hard to follow. Maybe my comments on it will be mistaken but I can’t take time to view the video again.

In so many words I thought I heard the following:  (1) groups do not exist, for example a forest is a fiction, only each individual tree is real.  (2) whites do not exist.  (3) ethno-states never existed and cannot exist.

I think all three statements are flamingly false and it’s obvious.  (1) groups do exist, for example forrests.  (2) whites do exist, duh, even if there are subdivisions. (3) the U.S. was founded as an ethno-state.  (ARI Watch will have an article about that last soon.)

Thanks, Richard

Bruno Turner's picture

I'm trying out this 20 minute format for videos. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks, Bruno! That was 22

Richard Wiig's picture

Thanks, Bruno! That was 22 minutes definitely not wasted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.