I appreciate the understanding of the hierarchy of concepts implied in your first sentence; the intellectual process has to occur first.

Regarding the last sentence, I believe that is correct. The painful truth is how many people accept it.

Pardon the digression, but have you read How We Know? I am about 50 pages into the book.

Regarding the original point, I suppose the more relevant piece would be Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or Return of the Primitive.

Precisely!

Indeed. It wouldn't hurt if we actually taught a bit of philosophy in primary school too. We should be teaching kids how to think and that should include some basic logic, how to check one's premises, syllogisms, basic epistemology with an emphasis on empirical evidence. Ronald Reagan — 'It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.' Today it would seem that too many have no philosophic foundation and operate on emotional whim. Since primary schools do not adequately fulfill this function and many do not go to college, the task then falls upon the parents. Those ill equipped would do well to get a few books and learn along with their offspring. Just one book from Rand, such as Philosophy: Who Needs It, would go a long way.

Thugs committing crimes have motives and hatred but the action employing force is the crime. A motive can be relevant in establishing if an act is intentional, but what the thug thinks about you is not what makes crime a crime. The 'hate crime' movement is trying to criminalize thought, usually related to 'ethnicity'.

Better said than my arguments. Thanks ewv.

Rioting and racialism are not in themselves specifically fascist. Alinskyite thug and smear tactics go with any kind of collectivist street activism.

The Black Lies Matter movement is fascistic in its underlying broader racist ideology, though it is profoundly anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical with respect to an explicit theory of government. It's activism as such has not been particularly fascist as opposed to any other kind of collectivism, but its leaders are part of the overall fascistic movement in this country.

The acts of crime are real and so are the motives of terrorism to destroy and frighten for the goal of putting people into a state of terror. Aside from the motive of overthrowing the government, motives for fear and 'hate' are states of mind that cannot be crimes. The acts are criminal. Criminalizing states of mind is itself crime perpetrated by government.

BLM is not addressing a problem of our times. They are creating a racial rift by aggrandizing a lesser problem that they allow to continue by asserting victim status, rather than stepping up and looking in the mirror.
At least Malcom X preached hard work and clean living, and dressed like an human.

BLM are asserting the problem is racial prejudice. This is not the problem. Clear evidence in Ferguson,where the fascist movement was born. Criminal felon attacks a cop and is shot. Not even interesting, until a lynch mob mentality is fomented into a rage, which is precisely the motivating force behind fascism, particularly when it becomes a "movement".

I stand by what I said. Hate Crime legislation, Hate Speech legislation and BLM are all virtually identical to RightSpeak of 1984.

WRT your last statement, I assume you mean neither Hate Crime or Terrorism are crimes. The crime is one thing and the motive is another?

There isn't going to be a single time when it all changes. It's a gradual, long term intellectual process and then a subsequent political process.

You can see that the progress of statism-collectivism in the US was not a single event either. It has been a gradually worsening problem for over a century resulting from the intellectual European counter Enlightenment and its influence in the US beginning in the 19th century. See Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels in particular.

But the popularization of the false notion of a major distinction between communism and fascism promoted as a false alternative began with the Soviet propaganda following the collapse of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Capitalism was lumped with fascism by the communist propagandists.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but that isn't relevant to this.

What is your favorite non-fiction that she wrote?

Shifting the discussion to a positive space is critically important.

"I do not believe hate crime or terrorism are real"
What the ----- are you smoking. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=87c_13...
That link is for a hate crime and no one could disagree.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14259356
That link is for an example of terrorism.

"BLM is a mob of supposed downtrodden."
I don't see it as nationalist or a mob. My exposure to it has just been a sermon at church and the sign they put out a year or so ago. It seems to me it's an organization addressing a major problem of our time.

"Hate Crimes are a state definition of crime with a supposed negative motive, largely by a group of people sought to be silenced by the majority viewing the opinions of the perpetrators as "unacceptable", by what I assert are the "state nationalists'. "
I cannot understand this sentence. I think I would get it if it were in active-voice and the groups were identified. The concept of hate crime is questionable; that adds to the confusion.

"using a supposed motive of "hate" to associate the crime with the motive"
Yes. I never agreed with the words hate crime or terrorism, which I believe are the same thing. They are crimes whose motive was to threaten an entire group. In addition to your 2 problems, I'll add mine:
1) It aggrandizes the perpetrators.
2) It causes us to buy into the perpetrators' way of thinking of people in terms of groups
3) Some members of threatened group may not feel threatened.

I do not believe hate crime or terrorism are real.

"Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism". I am associating "nationalism" with the mob behind each of these. All get their strength from associating negativity in another. BLM is a mob of supposed downtrodden. Hate Crimes are a state definition of crime with a supposed negative motive, largely by a group of people sought to be silenced by the majority viewing the opinions of the perpetrators as "unacceptable", by what I assert are the "state nationalists'.
Sure, much of it is morally unacceptable. However, using a supposed motive of "hate" to associate the crime with the motive is 1) irrelevant, and 2) a scary way to empower the government to decide what constitutes this negativity that needs to be exterminated.

All are just a version of 1984.

I never brought up terrorism.

We will have won when the debate is individualism versus collectivism. Debating two negatives is a waste of time. Debating a negative and a positive is good intellectual work.

"few people associate facism"
I disagree with the notion of "hate crimes" and "terrorism", but I see no direct connection between them and fascism. The BLM thing seems even less related. They are against racism, which is a huge problem for the US, and even if I don't agree with all their policy ideas, I'm glad they're raising the issue and trying to something about it. It seems lightyears away from anything related to totalitarian gov't.

We're biologically adapted to travel in bands of hunter/gatherers who operate more like a family. When we organize in much larger groups, groups where we can't possibly personally know all the people we interact with and depend on, we form kingdoms that operate with elements of a family: communal ownership and autocratic parents. This is unfortunately the normal condition for humankind.

So I never ask what evil cause brings on communism and fascism. Human tendencies naturally decay in that direction if we don't put energy into the system to push toward liberty.

Believe it not, we are in pretty much complete agreement. What you have misunderstood is my approach via economics rather than internal and external intercourse. Let me be clearer; I would put forth three forms of economic performance as used by collectivist VS capitalist economies.
1. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are totally owned and controlled by the state.
2. Communism (Nazi-ism) is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, but controlled by the state.
3. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately held.
It is easy to extrapolate from these simple definitions just which system allows for the greatest freedom. Further, without any research at all, but with a few of Einstein's thought experiments it will be easy to tell which societies will require coercion in order to work and which won't depending upon the degree in which the societies adhere to the collectivist model. The reason I indicated Fascism as being more evil is because it lies about its production in order to lure buyers into thinking they'll get the same quality as private companies produce. As to the evil of collectivist societies, there is no difference. They always devolve into the need for the use of force on their own people as well as on other societies The only difference is the viciousness of the dictator that these societies inevitably create.

This may make you wonder, but we are pretty much in complete agreement. We take for granted that all socialist regimes boil down to the use of coercion in order to keep their citizens in line and since they usually don't produce products well they'll expand thru the use of force. I was referring to the types of collectivist states via their means of production, which after all, determines their viability in competition with other countries. It goes like this:
Socialism is a system in which thmeans of production are held by the state.
Fascism (Nazi) is a system where the means of production are privately held but controlled by the state.
Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately held.
In order to determine which system offers the greatest freedom, it is not difficult to extrapolate from these simple definitions which are wrapped around production what the outcome in personal liberty would be. from that it would be easy enough to postulate all the evils of collectivist societies as opposed to capitalism. One point I made was about Fascism being worse than communism, but in appearence only, since it tries to give the impression of a freedom it does not grant, so dishonesty in appearance compounds the system. As to the degree of evil in these states, they are basically all the same except for the viciousness of the particular dictator that these states inevitably generate.

Politeness is a Canadian value. Its not un-American, but not much of an argument as evidenced from the fact that Trump got elected. Confrontation through a strong verbal challenge is enough to ward off most attacks.

Its all statism. I dont really care what they call it.

Then we need more philosophy professors who have learned Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Bernstein, Biddle, etc.