All of Richard Spencer’s websites and forums have been shut down. At this rate only 4chan will be left as a censorship free medium of internet communication whose server I’ve heard is in Japan somewhere. We’re reaching peak lunacy very quickly.
Of course my own rendition of that revolves around the extent to which any particular individual out in any particular world [rooted existentially in an extant historical, cultural and experiential context] is able to make a substantive distinction between what he believes is true about human interactions “in his head” “here and now” and what he is able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn. Why? Because something can in fact be shown to be true objectively for all of us.
In this case, pertaining to the “Charlottesville Virginia Clash”
In other words, different folks embracing different political prejudices [derived from different philosophical assumptions] come to this thread and argue for one or another political narrative that is said to best explain “what happened” there. Either as the optimal frame of mind or as the only rational manner in which to construe it.
My argument though is that these conflicting political prejudices/narratives [on threads like this] are rooted more in the manner in which I have come to construe these “human all too human” interactions as the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
The part that most objectivists avoid like the plague. Why? Because [in my view] they have too much invested psychologically in this:
1] there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue” or “truth” or “justice”
3] “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” embedded in one or another rendition of God, Humanism, ideology, nature
In fact, some will insist that any attempt on my part to tug the thread in this direction is merely an attempt to “derail” it.
I suspect instead however that a part of them recognizes that to go in this direction is to risk being yanked down into the fucking dilemma that plagues me.
But: I go there precisely because it is the only manner in which I might come across a frame of mind that yanks me up out of it!
I’d also like to pursue an exchange [with you or with others] relating to the points I raised above. On this thread. In other words, to what extent can folks [liberals or conservatives, the hard right or the hard left] discuss the events at Charlottesville, Virginia, embedded in anything other then conflicting sets of political assumptions?
My argument is that individual political narratives are merely a collection of political prejudices derived from the manner in which I construe the day to day interaction of identity, value judgments and power – out in any particular world viewed from any particular point of view. Ever and always embedded over time and across space in contingency, chance and change.
What can be established as true objectively for all of us? And what instead is only an ever evolving subjective/subjunctive fabrication – an intellectual/existential contraption – rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
These guys are obviously a bunch of hicks and hard to listen to, but after the first 6-7 minutes, you really should listen to what they have to say. They were the ones who actually had permission to have a rally.
Note that they are very seriously pro-Constitution, whereas the communists (Antifa) and socialists (Nazis) are extremely anti-Constitution (and as always, “commies hate nazis” … but both hate Constitutions). The only non-violent, and non-government associated group present (both the first Facebook-video testifier and supposed victim were/are government employees involved in crises events) were these guys…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgJRba8vVuo[/youtube]