malicious attack deservers maximum sentence https://www.facebook.com/groups/16033...

Merci' Nuolo bastardo carborundum..

Perhaps I was not definite in my generalisations, I mean we have to draw the line clearly between mad dog communist-socialists and hands off others Objectivists. CLEAR ENOUGH????

Yes, more is going on. A technological world providing opportunities for those who exercise reason (everyone is "capable" of it) is not enough. Such a world is made possible by reason, it does not cause it, and it isn't enough when the underlying culture of irrationality is spreading. Rational people do not become morbidly fascinated by irrational outbursts and then emulate them; they are repulsed by it and expect the government to catch and imprison the perpetrators to return the streets and the universities to civilized behavior.

Every political system implies and presupposes an ethics. Ethics presupposes an epistemology and a view of man and his relation to reality, i.e., philosophy. Clanton and his lawyer (an old line communist) are collectivists, and so have the rest of the university violent "protestors" been for 50 years since the beginning of the New Left. Clanton's lawyer was one of their leaders as a student at Berkeley in 1969.

Those who behave like that have a lot of bad ideas about what people are and can be. The radical activists are not rational individuals who just happen to have latched onto progressive politics and who fell in deep. Their collectivist politics is a result of bad philosophy driving it. Look at the nihilism in Saul Alinsky's New Left Bible Rules for Radicals as only one example. Reread Ayn Rand's "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'" and "The Chickens' Homecoming" in her anthology Return of the Primitive. It is the "cashing-in" and is "the chickens coming home to roost" from bad and corrupt philosophy. Read Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels comparing the culture of Weimar Germany with the trend in the culture here now -- it is mostly philosophical, showing the political results of the bad philosophical premises. He began writing that after lecturing on the topic in response to the first wave of university violence from the New Left.

You are right that irrationalism has increased in the culture at a deep level, and so has the collectivist politics and outbursts of violence become more 'mainstream' because of it. It is all connected. The anger about public policy is only the result: The left is angry because we still aren't living in their image of an 'ideal' collectivist society and they are not consistently in power to impose it, but that is driven by what else they believe and resent us for. More civilized people are angry or concerned over public policy that is dragging us down into the results of the progressing statism and corruption -- which they don't like but mostly don't know what to do about it -- but starting with better at least implicit ideas mostly do not behave like the collectivist thugs in the streets. Even most of those who do live and work in the world of modern technology based on reason don't know what makes it possible and often advocate irrational positions in other realms, including politics even if usually not in the form of rioting louts in the streets.

That is why I did not stop at 'collectivism versus individualism', but referred to the whole scope of "the battle between reason versus irrationalism and mysticism, egoism versus altruistic self-sacrifice, individualism versus collectivism, and freedom versus statism".

A proper, civilized "order" against these ideologues is kept by people understanding the difference between the collectivist, anti-reason left and civilized protection of the rights of the individual protected by a proper government, not by government action on behalf of a vague notion of "order". This has not been done in the universities for 50 years when Clanton's radical left lawyer lead the New Left violence at Berkeley in the late 1960s. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Wrong ideas do not come from genes.

It 'helps' to discover and spread the proper principles of the purpose of government to defend the rights of the individual and to encourage that to the extent that many people still at least partially understand. Further descent into the chaos of vigilantism and anarchy does not and only helps the leftist thugs spread the notion that their enemies are doing it.

The name came from communists-socialists in Germany in a power struggle with fascists as a different version of collectivism. To them that also includes anyone not a socialist at all -- everyone but them. http://keywiki.org/Antifa

And he knows what his philosophy is.

He is not a hypocrite. He is openly doing this on behalf of what he thinks is important. He is a collectivist. His warped idea of "love" is adherence to his false values. He means it. This is ultimately a philosophical battle for reason and individualism, not a dispute over wayward people departing from mutually shared values.

His emotional reactions to "a lot of people" he "doesn't like" come from his collectivist premises thoroughly ingrained into his head. Anything else not compatible with them must be "hate", as an extreme form of all he can think of for rejecting the collectivist premises to which he is so thoroughly wedded.

For a leftist, that justifies anything he wants to do to his enemies -- from personal physical attacks to statist hijacking of the coercive power of government to impose his totalitarian beliefs.

Any raw dictator does the same -- he has an ingrained emotional attachment to his own power viewed as the supremacy of the state. Anyone who dares to defy or question his edicts (or his bureaucrats') is automatically denounced as an "enemy", with no other justification required: you violated a "law" or "rule" to which you have unquestionable duty to submit to. No further explanation or argument is required and no defense is possible or allowed.

That is what happens when the rights of the individual are not understood and/or acknowledged, and is the irrational, emotional thuggery where we are headed.

"battle between reason versus irrationalism and mysticism"
This discussion is very interesting. I understand the importance of individualism vs. collectivism, but it doesn't seem to be what this thug is fighting about. If they were fighting about collectivism, it would make sense to me. It seems like in general irrationality, esp the notion that there is no one reality, has increased. I would not expect that because our technological world creates opportunities for people capable of reason. Maybe people are becoming more rational, but violent irrationality is morbidly fascinating like a train wreck, and the Internet and other media supply us more of what we click on. Assuming that explanation does not account for it, though, and there are movements of people angry about public policy, I would really like to know what it's all about. Is it that these people feel the need to be rude and violent about something, and policy issues will do, or is more going on?

Solution to problem:
1) Fire teachers
2) Expel students

Problem solved, that's the way order was kept before.

""Will it?" that I want to know."
Hopefully. Human institutions are fallible. Sometimes guilty people get away with stuff. The other side of the coin is some people still joke about responding to crime with extrajudical atrocities. Maybe that's urge had an evolutionary advantage in that you don't want to mess with a clan possessing that gene. It's unfortunate to see that the irrational anti-law spirit of our origin persists in the modern world.

'Progressive' versus 'conservative' is a false alternative. Conservativism is not a core to "join" for individualism. The country was founded by radical classical liberal individualists of the Enlightenment, not conservatives. The term 'conservative', like 'liberal', today is an imprecise term. Some modern conservatives and some modern liberals (but not the progressive activists or the religious zealots) lean towards individualism in some ways, but often for the wrong reasons.

But anyone who 'leans' towards or is civilized is under an increasingly serious threat today. The root cause is not departure from "conservativism" with its faith, family and tradition mantra, but that few recognize the philosophical reasons in the battle between reason versus irrationalism and mysticism, egoism versus altruistic self-sacrifice, individualism versus collectivism, and freedom versus statism. Allies who still at least tend towards civilized behavior are important, but not enough.

Well, well, hell's bells!
An inmate runs that asylum.

It makes sense when you realize that the mayor of Berkeley is a member of Antifa.

It's time to start a substitute police force. It doesn't help to be above vigilantism when the enemy is already doing it with impunity.

Wait, doesn't it stand for ANTI-Freedom Assaulters?

--as a job description philosophy teacher no less.

Love Trumps Hate . Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations.
Wow once again you want Interpret for me.
When he hit the victim in the head with a metal weapon while supporting love over trumps hate. He was being philosophical .

LOL! That IS how the Bubba thing goes.
I have even heard the same on talk radio.
+1 on that zip but I can only do it once.

Back at ya.

That's an interesting read. So Siegel blames his client's assault on "a lot of people" Clanton does not like.
I can't see me dino getting away with that excuse for bashing someone on the head.
When I was corrections officer, the one human target I was trained to avoid with a baton was an inmate's head. A head strike is called lethal force.
I'd probably have to prove I had first been cut by a shank in order to get away with that.

True. I agree that all are welcome to join the struggle for individual safety, free speech, freedom of assembly etc. but generally these types are not progressives or snow flakes. Generalities are not wise to use but some common interests are necessary for defense.

That must not have been PC.
Sorry to offend.