I simply could not watch past ~24 min. when this mystico-anarcho nut job said that "science feeds off the material self." That is just evil; and two wrongs do not make --or protect-- a right. It is a Platonic inversion and it is wrong through and through. The evil is that it appeals to otherwise good people. Anarcho-Molyneux is just another Robert Stadler itching to get his hands on the power of legitimate ideas (e.g., Ayn Rand's) on the premise that man is essentially an irrational animal.

As Tew makes clear, nihilists are primarily self-negating. Other than being routinely charged with "white-privilage" whenever I drew any conclusion based on my own first-hand knowledge of dialectology (e.g., about the identity of the person on the other end of the phone), or the sadistic psycho-drama charades we had to "voluntarily" act out as part of our "training," the whole of it was self-inflicted, rationalized as a desire to make change from within.

It doesn't work, because their only goal is to negate any self they touch with their vile poison of otherism taken to its logical, tribalist, primitivist extreme (i.e., a person who's simply mistaken or virulently irrational can only destroy or be destroyed).

"Truth is relative to reality, power is relative to people," he states axiomatically, placing subjective whim, again, as foundational to life and politics.

Contrast this with Ayn Rand: "Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth." (emphasis added)

On power, she draws a fundamental distinction (contra Anarcho-Molyneux's equivocation) between economic and political power. (1) "economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering [a value, while] political power is exercised by a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, death." (emphases hers)

Thinking on this, I've come up with my own definition of a criminal (and you may quote me):

"A criminal is a self-appointed politician posing as a businessman." -Egopriest

1) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/eco...

His whole argument, up to ~20 min in, is that government can only get in the way of following your natural "instincts" to sacrifice and live for others.

The result: a religious dictatorship of the morally-righteous over all who would only live for their own happiness on earth.

~16 min. in ... Anarcho-Molyneux is trying to make common cause with altruists and mystics. Disgusting. The only way to "help" anyone is by reason through trade.

Yes. And Charles Tew get's that definition from Ayn Rand's famous essay on the subject (republished by Forbes, I see, in 2013):

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/cultur...

Oh, absolutely! I worked with these people out of college (Equality Alliance of San Diego) so have overwhelming first-hand knowledge. It was an utter nightmare (self-inflicted).

Fortunately, the "reaction" I had sent me running back to Ayn Rand in horror of what was happening right in front of my eyes.

Please watch as much of "The Meaning of 'Social' Justice — Racists for Egalitarianism" as as you have time for -- or can stomach:

"In this episode of Functional Philosophy [https://youtu.be/6MahagRBLJk], I [Charles Tew] discuss the philosophical foundations and implications of social justice." (~45 min)

I also, belatedly saw an expose on PBS of the whole ACORN fiasco that was also perfectly in line with my traumatic self-negating experience with these nihilists. People need to know!!

I'm a life-long "perfectionist" and usually edit out my "errors" at least two or three times after every post due to my neurosis (which I try to counteract by regularly reminding myself that "progress is perfection").

Neither are they "non-racist" (only minds can be so -- by choice). And yes, the majority are collectivistic (but "only" implicitly). So people are ripe for a collectivist dictatorship on the basis of such thinking as is being enshrined by outspoken voices on the right as well as the left.

It's pure poison and not to be tolerated one iota (which certainly goes for Jordan Peterson or any other Jungian as well).

The downvote was for promoting the "racist philosopher king" in the Gulch. I am in total agreement with philosopher Charles Tew's assessment here: https://youtu.be/aIdWAa-0oOw.

And yes, as Ayn Rand observed, just as "thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed ... his basic vice, the source of all his evils is [evasion]."

The desire for the unearned is rooted in evasion. There are no emotions or desires before the thought (or its antithesis) consciously chosen and alterable by individual human beings whose wills are irreducible to biology, genetics or innate anything..